[DoW] Escalation mechanics

[eruditus]

No doubt many of the DoW threads touch on this but I am needing a particular clarification.

So, for example I will say players/character's names are the same:
PCBob killed PCJeff's brother.
PCJeff goes to kill PCBob.
PCSally gets between them before PCJeff knife's PCBob in the heart.
PCJeff agrees to a Duel of Wits with PCSally.
PCJeff's intent to his BoD is "I kill Bob where he stands."
PCSally's intent is "let's sit down and talk about it first."

PCJeff loses the DoW.
Can he escalate to violence before comprimise is declared?

Thanks,
- Don

[ElJeffe]

Did I miss something?

Cause it seems that PC Jeff didn't really agree to a DOW.

Kill Bob where he stands just doesnt seem like a valid intent.

Maybe destroy Bob and make him suffer is...

But I could be wrong.

[zabieru]

Well... "I kill him now" vs. "Let's talk about it" isn't a DoW really. If Jeff doesn't want to talk, he doesn't have to Duel. He can just start stabbing.

However, resolving compromises is part of the game mechanics, not the in-game reality. Once he agrees to talk, starts the duel, and finishes the last volley, triggering the compromise bit, I think he needs to resolve that. My understanding is that the stages after someone's body of argument falls to zero are resolution stages, akin to comparing dice in a Versus Test. You can't decide that you want to arm-wrestle someone, roll Power vs Power, and then yell "NO! Stop! I want to throw my drink in his face after we wrestle but before we find out who won!"

There's no in-game space between the last words spoken and the resolution and compromise. Either he acts before those last words (before or during the last volley) or he lives with the consequences of those words (finish resolution and then do your stabbing).

I don't have my books and I'm a little fuzzy on cutting out in the middle of a duel, so don't rely on that part of my post, but I'm much more confident that everything from the time one body of argument hits zero to the end of resolution for the Duel of Wits happens in the same in-game tick.

[eruditus]

The duel is laid out for simplicity. No need to complicate it.

So Zabieru thinks that Jeff cannot escalate after losing the DoW? Could he escalate if the stakes were'nt about him killing Bob?

[luke]

Let's disregard the content of Don's Duel of Wits. It doesn't matter. The rule is: You may escalate to violence if you've lost a DoW after you've heard the proposed compromises (and offered one yourself).

In other words, Devin's right.
-L

[zabieru]

So Zabieru thinks that Jeff cannot escalate after losing the DoW?

He can escalate AFTER losing the DoW. He can even escalate WHILE losing. He cannot escalate during the mechanical resolution of the DoW, because that's a game-mechanical process that can't be interrupted by in-game events because it doesn't take any in-game time.

Imagine if you wanted to interrupt your friend in the middle of advancing his Typing skill, not during the tests but during the interval between the end of that last test and the moment his skill advances. You can't, right? Because even though around the table, there's time (the test and then the checking of the sheet and the erasing and marking), in the game there's none. Same thing here.

[luke]

He can even escalate WHILE losing.

No he can't. Once you're in the DoW mini game, you play it out.

[eruditus]

Okay, got it. Thanks! Now, it's understood that Jeff can escalate to Sally. Can Jeff escalate to Bob?

[Esteban]

Yeah, once the DoW is over and it has been resolved one way or another, the parts can escalate to violence. It is important though to note that whoever won the DoW won the audience, hence that part of the DoW should still be enforced in later repercusions.

Let's say the DoW had been a trial, and the prosecution (Jeff) had lost the case against the defense (Sally). Meaning the criminal (Bob) was going to walk free. In that case Jeff could escalate to violence and just outright kill the criminal. However, the defense won the case, so the prosecution would become a criminal now, at least in the eyes of the court (audience). In other words there should probably be some kind of repercussion from not following through with the DoW. :)

[Mordaith]

Just to be sure, the person who looses a DoW needs to make a Steel test don't they? So the loser who wants to escalate towards violence will need to wait until hesitation is over... unless they have Gloryhound... right?

[luke]

Yah. It's a firebreak on munchkinism. If the Steel test is failed, the winner can exit stage left!

[Esteban]

Confusing stuff deleted :)

[luke]

Esteban,
This is a BW question in the BW forum. If you've got questions about BE, you know where they go! (In other words, please don't confuse the issue.)

-L

[eruditus]

OKay, so then when dealing with a player that is really unwilling to give up the ship and is hell bent on violence then it's kinda silly to do a DoW, right? I mean he's just wasting everyone elses time, no?

"I want to kill you."
"ooo, let's talk about this."
"okay, I want to kill you."
"Well, there's a hundred reasons why you shouldn't.(woohoo, I win)"
"oooo, how shocking (waits until his hesitation is over). Okay, now I kill you."

Don't get me wrong, it's dirty pool but it's pretty much how it goes, right?

Thanks for the clarification,
- Don

[Bobo]

Of course in this case one wonders why the player of the agressive character would agree to take part in the DoW in the first place.

[luke]

Sure, yeah, he can do that. But the game mechanical result of the DoW still stands. The audience heard it. It's still a fact -- he lost.

Murder is always option, though. You can murder someone for what you believe. Would you kill for that? This is a classic test of Belief in Burning Wheel. Often followed with swift and certain consequences regardless of the decision.

-L

[eruditus]

Well Kai, The player would get into the DoW in order to get the other player's character on their side. My hypothesis is that if the player is not actually willing to compromise on the killing then a GM should consider not having a DoW since the player is dueling with no real consequences. If he loses (especially if there is no audience other than those involved in the DoW) then he get what he wants anyway by escalating. No doubt this is socially correcting since many folks just won't get into DoW with him due to his treachery (much less play BW with him) but the mechanics then require GM intervention for everyone to have fun.

No?
- Don

[luke]

The DoW does not require the GM's participation as enforcement between two players. The GM can suggest or even push for the mechanic, but both players have the option to walk away.

[eruditus]

So there really is no way for a character to save his own skin via a DoW, correct?

[Bobo]

Well Kai, The player would get into the DoW in order to get the other player's character on their side. My hypothesis is that if the player is not actually willing to compromise on the killing (…)


I meant: the player of the guy to be pursuaded has to agree to the terms and to abide by them before the DoW really gets under way (p. 98, brown book). So, if he never intends to change his intention, yes, it’s just a waste of time, as you said.

If he really is hellbent on murder, the threatened character will need something else to save his skin.

[Paul B]

So there really is no way for a character to save his own skin via a DoW, correct?

Does the victim have anything to offer?

Does the attacker stand to suffer in any way as a result of the murder?

If there's no carrot and no stick, I'm not seeing why or how a DOW could save your skin.

p.

[zabieru]

There is no way for a character to save his own skin with the Power Word: DoW spell.

There are lots of ways to save your skin with a DoW.

You could set as stakes or compromise in a prior duel your right to protection. ("I'm going to kill him!" "As he advances on me, I hold up the Warrant I haggled out of his liege-lord during that incident with the chambermaid" or "As he advances on me, I remind him what Ilya Grigorivitch will do to him when the Marshal hears what happened to his contact with MI6.*")

You could set things up so the other character can't afford or bear to ignore you. ("As he etc, I ask 'Would you like me to call my brute squad and tell them not to kill your sister?'")

Yelling "Duel! Duel!" won't save you. You need leverage to match your opponent's leverage. "I want to stab" trumps "I want to talk" unless you have something to make them want to talk too.

*See how cool that was? I took a semi-hostile relationship with a guy on the other side of the war and pulled a compromise out of it for protection.

[Paul B]

Oh! One last thought -- BW's Rule 0. If the GM absolutely refuses to engage your DOW-strong characters and just resolutely marches his sword-wielding mooks in to murder your characters, he's being a dick.

p.

[Bobo]

D’oh – Devin has it right, of course. You don’t try to change the character’s mind, change the player’s mind instead. Still has to be done in time, though, even if the thought of retroactive Circles rolls is tempting.

[luke]

So there really is no way for a character to save his own skin via a DoW, correct?

Your comment as worded is incorrect. The Duel of Wits is the most powerful mechanic in the game. I think someone has been letting you off easy with the Duel of Wits. It can definitely be used to save your skin (and more). In a competition between a wheelchair-bound character with a handful of social skills and your G5 Knives Ninja Munckin from Hell, I'll have you eating dinner from my stinky shoes every time.

But if your question is "can I convince a murderer who has me pinned to the ground not plunge the knife into my heart," you're right.* At that point in the game, a Duel of Wits is not an appropriate task.

Edit: Don, I could be wrong, but I feel like you're dancing around another issue with this thread -- what really happened at Rachel's table. I don't think what happened at the table there has anything to do with the DoW initiation or escalation mechanics.

Edit: Also, Devon is my lost twin.

-L

*Sort of. You can convince him if he gives you a shot at it.

[Fourth Horseman]

Your comment as worded is incorrect. The Duel of Wits is the most powerful mechanic in the game. I think someone has been letting you off easy with the Duel of Wits. It can definitely be used to save your skin (and more). In a competition between a wheelchair-bound character with a handful of social skills and your G5 Knives Ninja Munckin from Hell, I'll have you eating dinner from my stinky shoes every time.

But if your question is "can I convince a murderer who has me pinned to the ground not plunge the knife into my heart," you're right.* At that point in the game, a Duel of Wits is not an appropriate task.

Edit: Don, I could be wrong, but I feel like you're dancing around another issue with this thread -- what really happened at Rachel's table. I don't think what happened at the table there has anything to do with the DoW initiation or escalation mechanics.

Edit: Also, Devon is my lost twin.

-L

*Sort of. You can convince him if he gives you a shot at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqbxZG6FMeI

[xenomouse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqbxZG6FMeI
Rebuttal! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Pb8MHIy2s

[EarthenForge]

Edit: Don, I could be wrong, but I feel like you're dancing around another issue with this thread -- what really happened at Rachel's table. I don't think what happened at the table there has anything to do with the DoW initiation or escalation mechanics.

Yeah, there was definitely something more going on at the table. And I don't mind talking about it because I'm sure we're not the only ones to have experienced it: subtle, perhaps mostly unconscious poisons leaking out of us all that, if left alone, could destroy a game. I think we managed to correct most of it, but I'm definitely more watchful of it now. Anyway, these various components came together at that moment and they were toxic:

1. I (the GM) should have pushed harder to get my players to engage in a DoW. I willingly cowed under the presence of both a more experienced person involved and the hard line stance of my players. This is when they really needed me, and I backed down. Boo!

2. Story/situation fatigue. Some of the players wanted this over with - bad. They didn't stop to consider how they were hurting their fellow player's chances of having fun or how a compromise might have been really interesting. They thought to make the situation better by getting it over with. But really, you're not doing anyone any favors to be disingenuous. It would have been better to discuss fears/frustrations outside of the game and then hit the story.

3. Inexperience.

So there's the Ugly Truth. (Or my take on it, anyway). We're dirty little troachers - all of us. ;) That said, it still wasn't a bad session overall - these said poisons weren't deeply ingrained or incredibly obvious. It was ultimately a poorly handled situation that mattered a lot to the story. It sucked, but we learned from it.

[xenomouse]

There was definitely a lot of acting out of fear going on in that session.

[EarthenForge]

There was definitely a lot of acting out of fear going on in that session.

Must...quote...Dune...

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

[eruditus]

But if your question is "can I convince a murderer who has me pinned to the ground not plunge the knife into my heart," you're right.* At that point in the game, a Duel of Wits is not an appropriate task.


No, this was what I was wondering. All the other story stuff, while spot on, is a given for me. No questions there. I wanted to make certain I wasn't missing anything in this regard.

The only peice I was getting completely wrong at the table (and an area I butted heads with Alexander over and couldn't figure out why) was the "you can walk away anytime" line. I read it as "anytime" not realizing the emphasis on "before the DoW." Play and learn, I suppose :)

Thanks,
-Don

[luke]

My pleasure. Happy to help.

[zabieru]

You can always look this stuff up. As you can see, I had that bit wrong too. If I'd been at the table, I'd have checked it, but my books were in the other room and I'm lazy.

[eruditus]

Okay, so last piece of the puzzle... "can I stab him?" Meaning, do I have to escalate against the person that I am actively dueling or can I escalate againt someone else that is there?

In Luke's example: if I am over someone with a knife at his throat and someone else engages me in said DoW (yes, I know, it's weak and why DoW.... that's my point) and they win, sure the guy in the ground knows that I lost the DoW before I kill him. Or does the escalation have to be against the person that "won" the duel?

Thanks,
- Don

[stormsweeper]

In Luke's example: if I am over someone with a knife at his throat and someone else engages me in said DoW (yes, I know, it's weak and why DoW.... that's my point) and they win, sure the guy in the ground knows that I lost the DoW before I kill him. Or does the escalation have to be against the person that "won" the duel?

Presuming that you lost a DoW over whether to stab a dude, stabbing that dude would be breaking the terms of the agreement, no?

[luke]

Meaning, do I have to escalate against the person that I am actively dueling or can I escalate againt someone else that is there?


You escalate to violence with your opposition in the duel of wits, not the audience.

[eruditus]

Got it. Thanks. So technically, by the rules, you CAN save someone elses life via a DoW, just not your own (assuming the attacker is willing to enter the DoW)?

[zabieru]

You can save your own life if the attacker is willing to enter into the duel. It's just not enforced by the rules. But if you have the kind of leverage that takes people from stabbing to talking, you can probably pull "killing me" off the table entirely.

But yes, if the attacker is willing to enter the duel but still wants to kill at the end of it, you can save another but not yourself. That's only likely to happen with an attacker who doesn't understand the rules, though. Don't let it.

[eruditus]

That's only likely to happen with an attacker who doesn't understand the rules, though. Don't let it.

Actually My thought is that it's only likely to happen with an attacker that DOES understand the rules. It would have to be someone savvy enough to understand that they can escalate to violence if they lost the DoW and I think it's only going to happen with players that are entering the DoW knowing that they may get what they want but if they don't they can also kill their prey.

[luke]

Either way, I think we're talking about extreme edge cases here.

[dsellars]

Sorry to just jum in on this thread but I was just wondering somthign as I read it.

If you having a DoW (that you have both agreed to) with another character, you basically want to kill the character and he is arguing for his life. Say you loose so you can't kill him. Can you escalate to violence and just punch him and walk off?

Also it doesn't mean you can never kill him does it? just not there and then? or is that set by the stakes? I suppose itis an I have just answered my own question there.

[eruditus]

Actually that is exactly what this is about? The point here is that it's a situation where even if you lose the DoW you can still murder the target (not even just punch him - stab him dead). The key for me is this - make certain you have friends. If someone comes to kill you your friend calls for a DoW and the attacker needs to decide "enter the DoW or Walk Away?" Am I right?

[Z-Dog]

Sorry to just jum in on this thread but I was just wondering somthign as I read it.

If you having a DoW (that you have both agreed to) with another character, you basically want to kill the character and he is arguing for his life. Say you loose so you can't kill him. Can you escalate to violence and just punch him and walk off?

Also it doesn't mean you can never kill him does it? just not there and then? or is that set by the stakes? I suppose itis an I have just answered my own question there.

I think you'd have to look carefully at each player's statement of intent for the DoW and judge it from there.

Also, does anything change radically in their situation?

Basically, make sure people honor their word and don't weasel out of an agreement.

If you don't want to agree to "never kill me, Bob" than don't get into a DoW, just stab 'em! (I guess that's walk away and stab 'em ;)

[eruditus]

If you don't want to agree to "never kill me, Bob" than don't get into a DoW, just stab 'em! (I guess that's walk away and stab 'em ;)

So is that right? Can you walk away AND stab 'em? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky here but if you want to "walk away" from the DoW isn't not being allowed to stab your victim right HERE part of the consequences to not entering the DoW?

[dsellars]

My understanding is that if you don't want to enter the terms of a DoW you can choose not to duel and start stabbing away.

If however you started the DoW then you have to abide by the decision.

[Thor]

So is that right? Can you walk away AND stab 'em? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky here but if you want to "walk away" from the DoW isn't not being allowed to stab your victim right HERE part of the consequences to not entering the DoW?

Yes, it's fine. You can definitely refuse a Duel of Wits and go forward with what you intended to do. Just make sure not to be a dick in the process.

If you refuse to compromise (which is essentially what you're doing when you refuse a duel of wits) and everyone is cool with it and thinks it makes an interesting statement, then great!

If you refuse to compromise and by doing so you're stepping on the toes of another player (including the GM), then it stinks!

When you get right down to it, using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other characters is cool. Using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other players sucks.

[Z-Dog]

When you get right down to it, using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other characters is cool. Using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other players sucks.

nodding my head here

get everyone's agreement before you do it

[eruditus]

Yeah, I am not speaking about Social Contract here. That stuff is understood (although totally necessary especially for others to see) but I am trying to work out the mechanical implications.

So we established that you cannot really save yourself from getting stabbed.
And we established that your friend can save you from getting stabbed if the attacker agrees to a DoW.
Are we saying that "Walking Away" is metaphorical to say "refuse the DoW" as compared to actually having to walk away? Thus an attacker can ignore the DoW and go in for the kill?

I have a follow up but I want to be perfectly clear this is what the mechanics bear out.

Thanks,
- Don

[Thor]

1. You can save yourself from being stabbed if your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits.

1. A. If your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits, loses, and escalates to violence, he can still kill you. But everyone there, including himself, will know that he has committed a heinous, completely unjustified murder. Presumably there will be consequences...like being put on trial for murder!

2. Your friend can save you from being stabbed if your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits. It's basically exactly the same as 1, except he'll have the option to murder your friend instead of you at the end. Yay....victory?

3. Walking away means that you refuse to have a Duel of Wits and you can't talk about the issue any more. That's all. Go ahead and stab away.

[eruditus]

1. You can save yourself from being stabbed if your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits.

1. A. If your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits, loses, and escalates to violence, he can still kill you. But everyone there, including himself, will know that he has committed a heinous, completely unjustified murder. Presumably there will be consequences...like being put on trial for murder!

2. Your friend can save you from being stabbed if your opponent agrees to a Duel of Wits. It's basically exactly the same as 1, except he'll have the option to murder your friend instead of you at the end. Yay....victory?

3. Walking away means that you refuse to have a Duel of Wits and you can't talk about the issue any more. That's all. Go ahead and stab away.

Okay, so now on to social contract:
Okay so three players (we'll forget the GM role for the time being).
Who, in the above example, would you all say is "in the right" as far as being a good player?

Over the course of a campaign:
Player 1's character has cornered Player 2's character to kill him.
Player 3's character is player 1's friend and besides him.
PCs 2 and 3 are social gods (G6s in all social stats) and PC 1 is a combat god but no social skills at all. (yes, I know the GM should never have allowed such a travesty ;) )
So who's bullying who by 2 challenging 1 to a DoW?
Who's bullying who by 3 challenging 1 to a DoW?
Who's bullying who by 1 refusing a DoW knowing he has no chance of compromise?

Thoughts?
- Don

[Thor]

There's not enough information to determine that. We don't know what's going on between those three players.

[Kublai]

No thoughts here. That's just a crazy situation with no points of contact in the real world. And such shouldn't be discussed here in this forum. Take it to wherever they talk about theory.

[eruditus]

Okay guys, I am confused. A little while ago your all about spouting ideas on what makes someone a dick or not. Why the change of heart? I mean Thor says this:


When you get right down to it, using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other characters is cool. Using Fight! or the Duel of Wits to bully other players sucks.
Okay, I agree. Now I am putting MORE context to the situation and trying to hash out the intent of the rules and then all of the sudden there's stonewalling. What's up? Why is Thor's above statement okay in context to my "can I kill him or not" context but when coupled with further examples its taboo?

Okay, so anyone want to step up? I think we can agree to Thor's assessment that bullying players is a no-no.

So in this situation who's the bully? Is player 1 bullying because he wants to leverage his combat skills and is afraid of the social character's ability to strip him of what's cool? Or are the social characters bullys because they know they will lose a combat and want to send player 1 packing?

What's going on here? Does the finality of the outcome of combat a factor? Is the DoW more valued in this case because it extends play?

Also, add your own context. Tell me who you think is being the dick and add to the situation why it might be more concrete (other than "player 1 hits player 2 over the head with a bottle and screams 'your character is toast pencil-neck!'")

These are the real issues at hand in trying to work out the logistics of DoWs,
- Don

[Kublai]

At this point, I don't think it's a discussion of the rules so much as a discussion of player to player dynamics.

[Thor]

Don, I think what Kublai is reacting to and what I am saying is that it is impossible to say who is being a dick here because we don't have the context. It's too hypothetical.

The ability to trounce someone does not make you a bully. Using your ability to trounce someone at the expense of their fun does.

It's not about character effectiveness at all. It's entirely about the player dynamic.

[eruditus]

At this point, I don't think it's a discussion of the rules so much as a discussion of player to player dynamics.

My bad. I thought that Practicals was for discussing the rules in reflection of player dynamics.

I am certainly willing to discuss how GMs have handled this sort of situation with DoWs before.

[eruditus]

Don, I think what Kublai is reacting to and what I am saying is that it is impossible to say who is being a dick here because we don't have the context. It's too hypothetical.

The ability to trounce someone does not make you a bully. Using your ability to trounce someone at the expense of their fun does.

It's not about character effectiveness at all. It's entirely about the player dynamic.

Agreed. I guess it sorta felt that since your suggestion that bullying players was bad was in response to my hypothetical that it was a comment on that hypothetical saying that the attacker was being a dick.

So if someone would, give me an example of when player 1 would be bullying. What says he SHOULD accept the DoW? When shouldn't he accept the DoW?

Thanks,
- Don

[Kublai]

... wait... this isn't the First Reading forum? Oops! Stupid forum changes.

[eruditus]

... wait... this isn't the First Reading forum? Oops! Stupid forum changes.

LOL, okay so I am not completely misreading why I'm here? *phew* Seriously, I was like "but...I thought...crap, I'm such a jackass."

[pseudoidiot]

So in this situation who's the bully? Is player 1 bullying because he wants to leverage his combat skills and is afraid of the social character's ability to strip him of what's cool? Or are the social characters bullys because they know they will lose a combat and want to send player 1 packing?

Maybe it's just me, but my first thought on reading this part is that maybe something else is going on if any player looks at a situation and says "I don't want to go into that situation, because my chances of succeeding/getting what I want/surviving are slim."

I know it's an example, but it just sorta sounds like they're looking at the wrong part of their character sheets first. I think I'd be more apt to think would my character be willing to fight/argue for this, no matter the odds?

I don't know that I worded that very well, but hopefully that makes sense.

[Paul B]

Agreed. I guess it sorta felt that since your suggestion that bullying players was bad was in response to my hypothetical that it was a comment on that hypothetical saying that the attacker was being a dick.

So if someone would, give me an example of when player 1 would be bullying. What says he SHOULD accept the DoW? When shouldn't he accept the DoW?

Thanks,
- Don

My character is a smooth talker -- gray-shaded persuasion, intimidation, oratory, the works. Poured big points into this. All the other players give me the thumbs-up for the concept.

Sessions go by. Beliefs get pushed, events transpire, and I reach a point where I want to turn the full corona of my character's DOW prowess onto another PC.

Our characters started as friends and, for whatever reason, the time has come to talk the other guy's character into something the player really doesn't want to get involved with.

Now...even though all the players agreed that the concept of a super-powered social monster would be rad, they didn't think at the time that it might get turned on them.

The target character's player is inconsolable. He knows he'll fail the DOW, probably without a compromise, but also doesn't want to just cut off talk and/or enter combat. The player would rather just, you know, talk it out with the other player. The non-DOW player is probably pretty persuasive -- I've seen more than one occasion where a player with a strong personality will disregard the DOW skills because he figures he can just talk it out in actual play.

The social monster doesn't back down: it's what his character is good at! He's pursuing a Belief and he's fulfilling the character concept everyone signed off on.

The target character's player, OTOH, simply cannot (will not?) pull back enough from the situation to look at it more authorially. On one level he "knows" that Ogg the Slayer has no mechanical defense against DOW, and was relying on the social contract of the players to make it a non-issue. But the contract changed at some point, and now he feels bullied by the social monster's player.

Who's being wrong-headed in this situation? It's shitty that the social monster is "just playing his character," resulting in an un-fun situation with another player. It's shitty that Ogg the Slayer's strong-personality player wants immunity from the system, resulting in an un-fun situation with another player.

Honestly I don't know what the "right" answer is. I don't believe there's a mechanical solution. Even though everyone signed on to play the game as-written, presumably, things between living players can be more complicated than that in an RPG.

p.

[Z-Dog]

...things between living players can be more complicated than that in an RPG.

game designers and mod monkeys would disagree :)

[luke]

Ken, I think Paul's example's great. I certainly don't have an easy (or glib) answer for that type of situation.

In our group when we hit that boiling point, we usually just yell at each other.

[Esteban]

Are DoW and Fight! interchangeable for most players, as resolution mechanics?

I'm wondering, because as I've been reading this thread I keep wanting to treat them interchangeably, thinking: "Well, how would I react if instead of reading 'DoW' I was reading 'Fight!', would I still be reacting in the same way?" Because, be it from past gaming or what not, it seems instinctively easier to accept getting stabbed in the face, than outwitted in an argument.

And looking at the situations presented, I don't think we can choose who's right, because honestly I feel they're both wrong. The players are navigating the rules to provide themselves with some kind of immunity. Min/Maxing, power gaming or whatever you want to call it.

Most bully type situations seem to arise from conditions where one party cannot retaliate. The bully can swing away without fear of retaliation. Forcing the bully into giving up his defense quickly makes the bully realize there might be some retaliation for his actions.

Hiding behind the rules is an easy way to cover up any type of bullying, especially the whole "it's what my character would do." rationalizations.

Perhaps one way to settle things is to establish some kind of conflict debt system. In Paul's situation, Dowman's player owes Ogg's player a conflict for dragging Ogg into a conflict that was unfun for the player. As a result, Ogg's player can now force Doman's player into a conflict of Ogg's player's choice, even if it's not with Ogg.

For example, Dowman is facing a gang of disgruntled nobles he embarrased with a flurry of incites and a triumphant dismiss in his last DoW. Dowman however, thinks he can just talk his way out of it, yet again. (or simply escape) Ogg's player thinks it'd be fun to see some repercussions come out of Dowman's manipulative ways, and uses his conflict debt to force Dowman into a Fight! with the nobles.

Overall, if Dowman's player isn't being a dick to Ogg's player, Dowman has nothing to lose. If he is being a dick, then he's right in fearing any incoming retaliation. After all, Ogg's player could push for a conflict Dowman's player is interested in but maybe the player just needs a little push to go through with it. It needn't be anything dreadful, by definition.

[jchokey]

Maybe it's just me, but my first thought on reading this part is that maybe something else is going on if any player looks at a situation and says "I don't want to go into that situation, because my chances of succeeding/getting what I want/surviving are slim."

I know it's an example, but it just sorta sounds like they're looking at the wrong part of their character sheets first. I think I'd be more apt to think would my character be willing to fight/argue for this, no matter the odds?

I don't know that I worded that very well, but hopefully that makes sense.

I think it makes perfect sense, and I think it's a great point-- that the question of whether a player has a character agree to a DOW should not be "Does my character have a chance of winning?" but "Given my character's beliefs, instincts, and traits (and/or any other goals) would my character try to persuade the others to do what he wants?"

Still, that's easier said than done, particularly if a player feels that his character *is* certain to lose any such DoW, and doesn't particularly like the consequences that would come with complete failure (or even a losing compromise). Yeah, I know-- losing a DOW isn't necessarily bad for the story, because it introduces crazy new situations-- and besides it comes with its own compensations, like earning Artha for having acted on a belief in a way that got the character into a bad situation (like now having to do something that he didn't want, because he lost).

But, if the player doesn't really want the story to go in that direction in the first place-- and the player feels like he's going to lose the Duel (which means it will go in that direction)... I think that's a factor that's legitimate for him to consider.

[eruditus]

Estaban,

I like your take on the idea that maybe a reward mechanism for allowing yourself to be put into a knowing losing situation is the way to go. This may be new ground better covered in It Only Takes a Spark, but my initial idea is "sweeten the deal." Allow players to gain some Artha for putting themselves in the situation. Especially if the Artha is awarded BEFORE the conflict.

Now that could be abused. Someone could claim that a conflict that is otherwise even tat they feel "outclassed." Maybe a general comparison of two or three top skills is in order?

Should I post this on the Spark thread?

Thanks for everyone's answers. This was exactly what I was looking for.
- Don

[Esteban]

Don,

Sure, if you think there's some potential there, go ahead by all means!

[luke]

Isn't that what Beliefs are?

[jchokey]

Estaban,

I like your take on the idea that maybe a reward mechanism for allowing yourself to be put into a knowing losing situation is the way to go. This may be new ground better covered in It Only Takes a Spark, but my initial idea is "sweeten the deal." Allow players to gain some Artha for putting themselves in the situation.

I think that is a great way to approach this too.

I think the existing rules for Artha awards do already address this already, in the sense that if you enter a certain-loss DOW and have to do something you don't want or send the plot in an unexpected direction, you should get Artha for it. But making it more explicit that this includes playing a belief in away that leads you to enter a 'certain loss' DOW (or any other test that has intriguing consequences/complications for failure) seems like a good idea.

[Z-Dog]

Ken, I think Paul's example's great. I certainly don't have an easy (or glib) answer for that type of situation.

In our group when we hit that boiling point, we usually just yell at each other.

Here's what I love about you Luke: you spent a big o' chunk of your life trying to bang out a system that address/deals with all those little crazy issues that seem to derail games again and again, but you're willing to be up-front about the fact that at times you guys just go batshit.