Another DoW question

[Ningauble]

Hi guys,

i want to discuss a scene with you which happened last sunday in our dwarven BW game. I feel that the losing party in a DoW did not agree to the terms.

We entered a holy dwarven chamber full of intricate gem artificer tools, with a gem-encrusted door. Some of the more greedy dwarves wanted to plunder the vault, but my high priest entered a DoW with them with the intent of leaving the hall sacrosanct and untouched. They lost without a compromise. Nevertheless one of them stole a jewel when nobody was looking (using Stealthy vs. Perception against my priest).

This looks to me as if they did not accept the result of the DoW. They did not escalate to violence or walked away either. And they did not refuse the Duel. Is this "by the rules"?

Hope to hear some opinions,

Rodrigue

[Mordaith]

On the outside I am prone to agree with you. Something smells rotten. But for the sake of argument what were the terms of the DoW. What were your statements, and what were your win conditions.

I have a pretty good idea what they probably because it seems pretty cut and dry.

-Mordaith

[Kublai]

I sort of think that was cheating. If that was a Fight! and the losing character had a wound, the player couldn't just ignore it, right? Same thing with DoW. You can't just ignore the fact you lost.

[Mel White]

We entered a holy dwarven chamber full of intricate gem artificer tools, with a gem-encrusted door. Some of the more greedy dwarves wanted to plunder the vault, but my high priest entered a DoW with them with the intent of leaving the hall sacrosanct and untouched. They lost without a compromise. Nevertheless one of them stole a jewel when nobody was looking (using Stealthy vs. Perception against my priest).


I'd like to see the exact terms of the DoW, but my inclination is to regard the thief's behavior as appropriate. The DoW established the the vault could not be plundered with the high priest's concurrence. That means that anyone wanting to steal from the vault had to do it secretly, and in opposition to the priest's vigilance. Losing the DoW made the thief's life harder--he had to go behind the priest's back. Importantly, the high priest had the opportunity to detect the theft (in progress?) In addition, should the theft be discovered and the thief be caught, he is subject to whatever appropriate penalties there are for disobeying the high priest. DoWs don't change what characters think, DoWs just make them reconsider their actions.

[khelek]

I mostly agree with Mel. Depending on how your group operates (the players) I think that the character could make a test to avoid being noticed.. the priest should get Help and the Advantage.

If the thief was caught thats an immediate vote for Oathbreaker! (or something similar, a -1D Reputation.)

Though we tend to be more stringent in our own games... and we call bullshit when someone breaks the outcome of a DoWs... though I am willing to make a deal even with a complete crushing win for a better story.

[stormsweeper]

I'd like to see the exact terms of the DoW, but my inclination is to regard the thief's behavior as appropriate. The DoW established the the vault could not be plundered with the high priest's concurrence. That means that anyone wanting to steal from the vault had to do it secretly, and in opposition to the priest's vigilance. Losing the DoW made the thief's life harder--he had to go behind the priest's back. Importantly, the high priest had the opportunity to detect the theft (in progress?) In addition, should the theft be discovered and the thief be caught, he is subject to whatever appropriate penalties there are for disobeying the high priest. DoWs don't change what characters think, DoWs just make them reconsider their actions.

I disagree on pretty much every point here, presuming the DoW's stakes were "you will not steal."

[Thor]

I think we'd need the statement of purpose to make a definitive judgment, but on the face of it I agree with Kublai and stormsweeper.

If you won a duel of wits to convince them the hall must remain sacrosanct and untouched, then stealing in that manner was cheating. It would, in fact, have made a perfect minor compromise.

[Jaroslav]

It seems that the only way this could be kosher is if the players stated explicitly that the DoW was about the priest being complicit in the defiling of the sacred space, rather than its general defiling. However, if that intent was made clear at the outset, you probably wouldn't be here asking about it.

Barring further revelations regarding the stated intents, I cast my vote with the "no" crowd.

[Z-Dog]

with the intent of leaving the hall sacrosanct and untouched. They lost without a compromise. Nevertheless one of them stole a jewel when nobody was looking (using Stealthy vs. Perception against my priest).

cheatin'!

[Mel White]

Well, I'm not going to fall on my sword over this. My vision of the scene and statement of purpose was something along the lines of the dwarves all arguing together about plundering the tomb and the high priest stood against them with arguments such as, 'we will not plunder this tomb of our ancestors' or 'you will not loot this tomb in my presence' or something involving both the group as a whole and the high priest's role as protector of the tomb. As a group, the dwarves reluctantly agree not to conduct a major looting of the tomb. But individuals can hold different ideas. In the conditions under which the DoW was conducted (the group of dwarves, in the high priest's presence, while working together as a party, etc.,) the results of the DoW stand. But when the conditions change, or the intent changes, characters are not bound by the DoW.
So, the statement of purpose is important. I'd hold the thief to the purpose of the DoW--let's say it was 'the hall must remain sacrosanct'--so long as the conditions under which the DoW was conducted remain in place. The thief still wants to plunder the tomb, but the arguments in the DoW have convinced him that now is not the right time. When conditions are better, the thief can try his luck. I'll backtrack to the point of admitting that if the statement of purpose involved leaving the tomb sacrosanct, then the conditions in the game probably had not changed to the point sufficient to allow the thief to steal from the tomb. If the statement of purpose involved 'looting' or 'plundering', though, then I think there is room for the thief's later pilferage. It's the GM's role, informed by player opinion, to determine when conditions have changed. A total rout (no compromise required) may mean that as long as the priest and the thief are together, conditions don't change enough. Some GMs may say that the conditions don't change regardless of the DoW results as long as the characters are together. I'd certainly have no problem with the thief character returning to the tomb a month later in order to steal from the crypt.
And some players might end this DoW in a rout (on the losing side) and decide that their character does have an epiphany of sorts and pledges never to rob the tomb no matter what. That's fine, but it's not required in the rules.
Mel

[luke]

You know, until were hear the SoPs from Ningauble, everybody's right.

This goes for everyone: In the future, if you want talk DoW compromises, please post the statements of purpose!

[Ningauble]

Sorry i was at work so i couldn't react so fast. First i want to thank you for all your interesting answers.

The high priests SoP was:
This hall is holy and you will not plunder it.

-> the intent was clear to all players that nothing will be taken from the hall.

The greedy dwarf's SoP was:
We need a proof that we found the hall, and take it's treasure with us.

-> the intent of the greedy dwarf was of course to get the treasure for himself

The duel of wits ended in volley two with total victory for the high priest. There was no forced compromise. Nevertheless the priest offered to have the group take the artificer's tools as proof back to the clan's hold.

The "thief" then stole a jewel from the tomb. The thief was the character who lost the duel. The priest did get a Perception test to notice, but received no Help or Advantage dice.

The players come from a more traditional rpg background and have difficulties accepting the consequences of a social conflict. We are all quite new to BW.

Rodrigue

[luke]

Great SoPs! Sounds to me that the thief broke the spirit of the rules.

[Mel White]

Umm, all right...was the gem on the outside of the door, maybe? ;-) Never mind...

[Esteban]

I would subject the "thief" to some kind of evil curse courtesy of the temple's god(s). ;)

[Z-Dog]

Excommunication!

[Mel White]

I would subject the "thief" to some kind of evil curse courtesy of the temple's god(s). ;)

But the bigger issue is the player-player relationship/communication. Despite my first comment, the results of a DoW have to be adhered to by the players. I could see some negotiation regarding what adherence means from group to group--I like the idea that the players would agree to allow the 'thief' to commit his crime, and be subject to all kinds of in-game penalties for breaking his oath, offending the gods, shaming the other dwarves, etc. (sort of a post-DoW compromise)--but if there is disagreement then the DoW winner gets his intent. As Khelek wrote, we're normally pretty strict on the DoW outcome. Players have to understand that they must not agree to an opposing statement of purpose that they are unwilling to uphold. So, either the gem was never stolen--because it was against the BW rules for the player to portray the character doing it; or the theft and thief are immediately known to the thief's detriment; or something else...Luckily, to forgive is divine.
Mel

[Z-Dog]

Yeah, I totally agree with you Mel.

Not adhering to the Statement of Purpose negates the Dual of Wits.

[luke]

Mel,
Your suggestions are great.

[eruditus]

The players come from a more traditional rpg background and have difficulties accepting the consequences of a social conflict. We are all quite new to BW.


Here-in lies the rub. I would question what Ningauble's reason for asking is? I mean, everything that was said here is written in the rules.

Did they read the rules? Do they understand that DoWs are about adjudicating conflicts between players?

And as mentioned, I would wonder what the assumptions going into the game. and how were those assumptions communicated at the table?

Ningauble, I am just curious how you plan on using this info when you return to your group.

Thanks,
- Don

[Ningauble]

Here-in lies the rub. I would question what Ningauble's reason for asking is? I mean, everything that was said here is written in the rules.

Did they read the rules? Do they understand that DoWs are about adjudicating conflicts between players?

And as mentioned, I would wonder what the assumptions going into the game. and how were those assumptions communicated at the table?

Ningauble, I am just curious how you plan on using this info when you return to your group.

Thanks,
- Don

Hi Don,

perhaps the most important reason why i posted this question here is to get some viewpoints on the whole subject to discuss it with the other players and the GM. You're right that the rules handle these situations, but rules are always subject to interpretation. My feeling was that in this case the rules have not been followed correctly. This is a problem for me, because it removes the social conflict resolution from the game. And because i play a social monster character (the priest with G6 Oratory).

As for the group, only two of them have read the rules, the GM and me. It is his first BW campaign (i have GMed another campaign with about 7 sessions up to now), so we often discuss the rules. The other players can be split into those who are also involved in my campaign and thus have a bit of BW experience, and those who are completely new (yes, that's the greedy dwarf and his fellow). The new ones seem to not quite grasp some of the concepts of the game, like BITs and player vs. player social conflict.

The assumptions of the players are quite different, and i agree that there is need to talk about it in the group. There is a lot of a DnD mindset "get levels and loot" still in the heads of the newer players, meaning they do not play their BITs and they do not follow the goals they set. In other words, mechanical character development is still more important to them than the story (interestingly this does not really work for them because of the Artha mechanics).

What i plan is to show the GM this thread and discuss it with him first, and at the beginning of the next session discuss it with the other players.

Regarding Mel's advice, I do not want to rollback the scene, I'm more interested in the in-game consequences which can be invoked on the thief like the examples Mel, Z-Dog and Esteban mentioned. This will teach them, and it would also be a great inner conflict (greed vs. social standing). One of the priests beliefs is "Greed is the Downfall of the Dwarves", so he looks on these things quite seriously.


Umm, all right...was the gem on the outside of the door, maybe? ;-) Never mind...

This is a loop hole. Yes, the gem was formerly attached to the door on the outside of the hall. It was removed from the door before the DoW (without the priest noticing) and then revealed inside the hall. So it was in the hall at the time of the DoW and it was mentioned as the "proof" to take with us. The dwarf who orignally removed the gem from the door then persuaded the thief (no conflict) to steal it and take it with him.

Rodrigue

[Esteban]

But the bigger issue is the player-player relationship/communication. Despite my first comment, the results of a DoW have to be adhered to by the players.

I understand that, but sometimes I think players have a hard time with limiting their characters actions. I've found they keep thinking: "What would stop my character from doing this? Surely, not words!". You end up with much the same problem you get with escalating to violence in a DoW, only in this case the violence was the desecration of the temple proper and not of a person.

So in that regard, I think the player escalated to "violence" and the opposing sides (the other player's and GM) permitted it to happen by not pushing back hard enough. The player had already agreed to the stakes, he lost those stakes. It's up to the winners to enforce that their will be done, and by letting him swipe the jewel without consequence the others were implicitly allowing this break.

In this case, my comment of divine retribution was based on a local religious relic, a statue of the virgin mary that was reputed to have been found in a natural creek. Eventually, they built a church around it and it's a pilgrimage site. However, the statue was adorned with gold and gems and it became the focus of some thiefs' attention and was stolen from the temple. However, according to the story, the statue was found the next morning in the altar, because as the story goes the relic would always return to the creek's point of origin.

The Dwarf could have stolen the gem, but the gem might have vanished from his possession (since he lost the DoW). Unless you take the stealing as stepping up to "violence" at which point I think the lack of obstacles and complications are some form of tacit agreement to let the dwarf get away with it.

Anyways, my point is much like yours, something has to happen enforce the DoW's outcome. One way of doing it, without retconning the theft as never having happened, is to simply cause the gem to return magically to the temple.

[eruditus]

Yeah, it took me a while to figure this out. This is not really "social conflict resolution" as much as it is "player conflict resolution."

When they say "it's not mind control" I have always gotten the idea that "it's not mind-control because you agree to the terms of the conflict ahead of time and the mechanics are binding."

So for the character to say "surely not words" it's not the "character" making that decision. It's the player making that decision. let's not forget that character's don't actually exist and if they did they'd have strings manipulating their every move from their gods on high and we'd be fickle gods indeed, adjudicating their fates with dice.

Does anyone else thik that would be a fun setting? ;)
- Don

[Mel White]

I understand that, but sometimes I think players have a hard time with limiting their characters actions. I've found they keep thinking: "What would stop my character from doing this? Surely, not words!"...
It's up to the winners to enforce that their will be done...

Anyways, my point is much like yours, something has to happen enforce the DoW's outcome. One way of doing it, without retconning the theft as never having happened, is to simply cause the gem to return magically to the temple.

I know we're in agreement and I like your 'in-game' solution. I just want to point out that it's really not up to the winners to enforce the terms of the DoW--adhering to the DoW terms is implicitly part of the rules (or maybe explicitly--I'll have to check the book). Everyone at the table has a role in sticking to the rules!
Pardon the plug, but I like this topic so much that I've made my latest podcast episode at Virtual Play (http://virtualplay.podbus.com) about Duels of Wit!
Mel

[eruditus]

I know we're in agreement and I like your 'in-game' solution. I just want to point out that it's really not up to the winners to enforce the terms of the DoW--adhering to the DoW terms is implicitly part of the rules (or maybe explicitly--I'll have to check the book). Everyone at the table has a role in sticking to the rules!
Pardon the plug, but I like this topic so much that I've made my latest podcast episode at Virtual Play (http://virtualplay.podbus.com) about Duels of Wit!
Mel


Mel, I could probably add some audio to that with you. Let's talk offline about coordinating :) I think DoW's often have the most confusing issues. It's both due to being a forgein concept to some and the ideas being a little opague around the edges. I think a podcast and a few blog posts would be an excellent clarifying addition to the mileu.

[Esteban]

I just want to point out that it's really not up to the winners to enforce the terms of the DoW--adhering to the DoW terms is implicitly part of the rules (or maybe explicitly--I'll have to check the book). Everyone at the table has a role in sticking to the rules!

Indeed. I just think it bears mentioning that sometimes we have to give people a little nudge in the right direction. Eventually someone is going to inadvertently want to take the easy route and the others have to remind the offending member about the initial agreement.

So it's not the winner's responsibility (as I originally stated) to make sure the loser adheres to the agreed upon terms. But, it is the responsibility of the players in the game to make sure everyone is following the rules. Perhaps, that's a better way of phrasing it.