Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7104044" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Maybe its confusing because my language/format didn't coherently illuminate what I was trying to get at?  Maybe this will do better:I wasn't asserting anything on my own behalf.  I was trying to solicit  [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] 's perceptions of correct GMing for a Story NOW agenda (as Dogs is) in such a situation.  I was asking if he thought 1 or 2 was more appropriate.I've seen a lot of sympathy for "realism" and a lot of aversion to "go to the (thematically signaled or system-premised) action" in this thread, so I framed things to take into account those components so as to gain insight into the mental processing he thinks a GM should undergo.I think you mean:"complications come from having to use more than 2 dice to 'See' in a conflict, triggering Fallout equal to the number of dice used to See (and scaled according to the type of combat), meaning the d4 will be more likely to complicate the Dog's life rather than aid it."Is that correct?There is also the component that Blood Relations come free at 1d6 in Dogs, so the player in question specifically chose to allocate their 1d4 Relation PC build die when they could have allocated a 1d6 if the brother came into play later.  Therefore, the player specifically signaled (a) they want their relationship to their brother to carry thematic weight in play (such that "go to the action" or Dog's "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" means that his brother needs to be a provocative centerpiece of play) and (b) they want it to complicate their character's life rather than aid it (there is also Reward Cycle stuff here because Fallout isn't just injury, but also xp and growth).Finally, I framed the hat there, rather than just his brother getting down with a prost, because (1) I'm typically (but not always) of the opinion that the slow simmer/implication of dramatic weight is more impactful than expository dialogue or being straight slapped in the face and (2) I wanted to leave it open-ended as to what was happening.  (2) Allows for me to solicit player input through reaction and avoid metaplot by keeping backstory loose and firming it up only when its continuity/on-screen relevant (therefore getting some "play to find out action" for myself).</blockquote>

Verification