Dogs in the Vineyard

Don't know why it cut me off

>tips for handling small encounters that other games handle with skill checks

>>50263546

It's been a long time since I played Doggo in the Winefield, but if I recall correctly, if you have a situation where something is AT STAKE, then you break out the dice for a conflict.

If nothing is AT STAKE, just talk it out. Remember, the characters are not normal people. If some slack-jawed yokel is lying to their face, its fair to then tell them, "you get the feeling he's trying to deceive you." and then leave it to the players if they want to esclate into a conflict. They might take a different path (following him to see who he contacts, investigating his home or talking to others for clues as to why he'd lie).

>>50263728

posted early by accident

it's when they turn to you as the GM and say, "I want to MAKE this guy tell me the truth" that it becomes a conflict, because then something is AT STAKE and their actions in forcing the matter could have consequences.

>>50263546
If nothing is on the stake then just say yes. Yes they noticed the lying and yes they managed to sneak etc. The entire point is to lead the characters to the situations where something *is* on the stake.

>>50263546
>"Do I notice anything?"
>"Is he telling the truth?"
>"Did I sneak well enough to be unnoticed?"

I hate sounding like a grognard, but it's sad that modern RPG players are conditioned to think that they need to roll for success in EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT AT ANYTHING. I've been in OP's situation, and it's hard to pull players out of that mindset.

>>50263886
generally I'd agree with you although in this case, with this system you actually would roll for all those things

>>50263939
Considering one of the book examples has the GM straight up tell players that the NPC they're interacting with is lying, I'm going to disagree with you. Sneaking might be a compelling conflict, but for what would amount to a perception roll in another system? God no.
As a GM, I want my players to get the information they need to piece together that Jeb's started a secret sex cult and his wife is getting the other women in on it. I want them to know that Harland is so pissed off he's going to try and murder them. I want them to know exactly how bad the situation is and sweat about how they're going to fix it. If they don't notice that Jeb's lying through his teeth or that the wives in town all have the same necklace shit isn't gonna get done.

>>50264027
This. There's no point in making the players roll for things that don't drive the story forward in before autists get triggered and try to derail the thread whining about muh failing forward

Tell the players that the NPC is lying. Now what are they going to do about it? "Notice he's lying" isn't worthy of a roll, because the only conflict is between the PC and their eyeballs. Rolling in DitV is reserved for situations where the outcome (success or failure) will have an effect on the story.

>>50264216
>Tell the players that the NPC is lying
yep this is literally what the rulebook say to do, don't keep any secrets about the town from the players, their job is to pass judgement, not solve mysteries

>>50264599

Well, they're supposed to solve mysteries, but not in the conventional manner.

DITV is meant to be played like an old school adventure game, where you can see the solution from the ground, but you need to figure out how to get there from here.

It's about asking the right questions to the right people, and making your decision from there.

To answer OP; In DITV, your players decide if they succeed or not: You need to encourage them to play up their flaws as well as their strengths, and reward them for it: If you get caught sneaking around, perhaps you get beat out and one of the mooks with a big mouth spills a hint on who/where to press before they toss you in the alley outside.

So, I'm assuming by this thread is that this RPG game is pretty good.

I was going to ask you guys on what your opinion of it was, but I'll just watch you guys talk it out.