What troubles me about Vincent’s comment, and I wonder if it does you, is that it seems to imply that challenges to a character will always be stressed past the breaking point. I see some of that in the GMing guidelines as well. The way I think I resolve that, in terms of keeping the game worthwhile for me, is that there’s probably some crisis point where the character either does break, or (if he doesn’t die) he reaches some kind of transcendence that signals it’s time to retire.

I don’t wonder *if* the GM is going to the challenge the trait. It’s a nar game, and the character’s premise asks for it to be challenged, so I know not only that Brand will challenge it but that he will (in an escalating way, over some time) challenge it very hard indeed. That might mean he kills someone or something eventually. It might mean he dies. It might mean he accepts that his fellow Dogs will do the killing and learns to live with the inaction and hypocrisy of that stance.

Maybe he’ll find out that the trait he earned in the initiatory challenge: “I got me the will to be a Dog” will turn out to be a big lie, and he’ll have to walk away, shaming himself, his family and the community who so depends on him to be a Dog (the first one ever from their town).

Whatever the outcome will be, it’ll be rife with emotionality, intensity and story, and that’s what I’ve come to the game for… so I guess my answer is that I don’t find it troubling at all, in fact I kind of see it as the point. It’s the reason that I would come to Dogs rather than, say, playing a preacher in a low magic campaign of Deadlands.

Question for you… have you played a game (rather than GM’d)? If so, how did you feel about it in relation to immersion? Brand was shocked that I actually found it very complementary to my version of immersion, but I liked it because it allowed for firm social mechanics that were as supportive as those for combat, but that the raising/seeing stuff was physical rather than verbal, so because I’m good at multitasking and thinking of things in layers, it let me never break character once I learned to effectively make my stakes known by Jeremiah’s own words or actions in the game.

What’s your take?

Yes, what you describe as possible outcomes is basically what I’m talking about. What would trouble me would be if there was no way out for the character, if the only question was how far the GM had to push before the character crossed the line. Having the option to end the cycle of challenge by walking away, dying, or whatever, keeps it from being as simple as that.

About immersion: I’m not especially bothered by the conflict mechanics–the only real problem for me was when I had the dice to see/raise but floundered in my effort to find the right narration. The converse didn’t hold: if I didn’t have the dice (and didn’t want to escalate further), it wasn’t a problem to give or take the blow even though I might have some idea of how I might “naturally” respond.

What really strains immersion for me (so that I have to make adjustments to “get” the game) is the knowledge that (a) my character’s judgment of what’s right, wrong, and the source of the town’s problems is always correct–unless I choose otherwise, or another Dog disagrees, and (b) knowing that the GM is going to push my character’s issues. Without adjusting my expectations, I’d see (a) as a pushover GM who’s robbing me of the chance to worry about what’s “really” right/wrong/etc., and (b) as an invasive GM who’s picking on my character. In other words, I’d be jolted out of immersion by being very conscious of the GM’s heavy hand.

So just as I did with Polaris, I think I need to consciously prep by looking at the game as a kind of collaborative storytelling (like Once Upon a Time), not as a sort of low-tech VR.

my character’s judgment of what’s right, wrong, and the source of the town’s problems is always correct–unless I choose otherwise, or another Dog disagrees

Yes and no. A town in DitV has an established something wrong to it. There’s a sin of pride that leads to injustice and so on. That’s established before your character walks into the game, so your Dog can effectively be wrong. You can attribute the pride to and punich the wrong sinner, so you can be wrong. Will anybody (but another Dog) tell you that you’re wrong? Probably not.

So you can worry about what’s “really” wrong, right?

I think your last statement does hit it though… ensuring your expectation of the game is set at what it’s likely to give you makes good common sense.