Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     # 1
    This is for those making that difficult transition.

    Post either:

    1. Dogs-style Stakes you don't know how to re-phrase as Afraid-style Stakes.

    or

    2. Afraid-style Stakes of someone else's Doggie-style Stakes.
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     # 2
    What's at stake is:

    * Will your brother shoot the Steward's wife? (Like in the book; your brother is walking across town with shotgun in hand, you're in his way.)

    * Does Brother Artax give in to Sister Marie's seduction?

    * Will Sister Gizelda confess her crimes?

    * Will the Steward allow his lost son to rejoin his family?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010 edited
     # 3
    Let's try. What's at stake is:

    * The Steward's wife's life (or perhaps her murder).
    * Brother Artax's integrity.
    * Sister Gizelda's honesty.
    * The Steward's relationship with his son.

    Graham
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010 edited
     # 4
    What's at stake is:
    * Your brother's shooting the Steward's wife.
    * Brother Artax's sexual self-control wrt Sister Marie.
    * Sister Gizelda's confession.
    * The Steward's son's position in his family, according to his father.

    Right?

    -Vincent
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2010
     # 5
    Oh, interesting. That makes some sense.

    Now, to what extent are the parties' positions with respect to those stakes fixed? I got the impression from the text over at Anyway that you didn't really have to take distinct sides, although you could if you wanted to.

    But would a situation like this ever come up?

    Brother: "I'm gonna go shoot the Steward's wife!"
    Dogs: "No you're not!"
    What's at stake is your brother's shooting the Steward's wife. Go to dice!

    The Dogs win... and convince the brother not to go shoot the wife (in the fiction--i.e. that character has changed his mind). But, one of the Dogs has ALSO changed his or her mind in the meantime, and decided that, you know what, she DOES deserve to die. By the rules as described, that Dog, if he or she is the winner at the end of the conflict could decide that yes, the brother will shoot the Steward's wife. Except we've just established that the brother no longer has the will to do it. So?

    Is this an awkward formulation I'm imagining, or can this sort of weirdness come up in play? If so, how best to handle it?

    (Everyone else, feel free to post some stakes you're having trouble with, if you feel like it.)
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeFeb 24th 2010
     # 6
    Bump!
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010
     # 7
    I'm still hoping to hear an answer to this one, if anyone's got one!
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010 edited
     # 8
    Somehow this one passed me by. I hadn't even seen that Graham and I gave the same answers at the same moment. Funny!

    It's a conflict only because the characters have taken distinct and opposing sides, so yes, you have to commit to a side. If you haven't committed to a side, you're still in say yes territory. Keep going, don't roll dice. Or if there are two committed sides without you, they roll dice and you don't - better decide now if you want in.

    If you become convinced mid-conflict by the other side, so that you abandon your original side, stop pushing dice around! Give, right that second. That's what giving means - you'll no longer fight for your original position.

    So no, it never can come up in play. If it does, the group wasn't paying attention and you kept going with the dice even though somebody already gave. Stop, figure out when it happened, and if there's a new followup conflict, play IT instead.

    -Vincent
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010
     # 9
    Ah, yes, gotcha.

    It seems that, in general, a lot of potential problems can be fixed by all parties Giving as soon as the situation has gone as far as it makes sense, and moving on to a followup conflict.

    Vincent, is the rule you recommend for "cutting your losses" that you get to carry forward your two best remaining dice, for PCs and NPCs both?
    • CommentAuthorlumpley
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010
     # 10
    For PCs and NPCs both, yes.

    -Vincent
    • CommentAuthorPaul T.
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2010
     # 11
    Great, thanks as always! I'm hoping to run Dogs and Apocalypse World shortly.