thread: 2008-09-23 : Nonformalism?
On 2008-09-25, Brand Robins wrote:
Moreno,
That's true about fallout and such. I've taken to always using the "pass over dice to next conflict method of NPC fallout, and cutting scenes between conflicts so that there is almost always a time where the PCs doing fallout are out of scene so that they can take a few minutes "out of mode" and fiddle with their shit while play goes on. However, this clearly doesn't work in a scene where the PCs are all in a conflict and then all in a follow up, or any similar situation.
You also made me realize that we often take a rather slack approach to stakes setting in Dogs. Like, its pretty rare to take more than a simple statement about it ("his faithfulness is on the line") and I think that we don't always do that faithfully. Often when we start rolling dice its because this thing that someone was just trying to do is clearly what is at stake.
However, I don't think I'd do the same thing when playing Dogs with a new group or at a con. There we'd be lacking the social understanding of what stakes are and what the limits are.
So, long story short, I think some level of social front loading helps with enactment mechanics. When you all know where you are before you get there, it means you need less focus on the negotiation in the moment.
