I just came back, not an hour ago, from my LGS: Castle Perilous.  The new location they have allows 24-hour gaming, which is pretty sweet on a Tuesday night.

I ran the second and final scenario of a game of Dogs in the Vineyard this evening and am still quite impressed by how well the game does in actual play.  I know there are some detractors around here because of where the game comes from, but it's seriously worth a try.

In playing this evening, it struck me again how monotonous the game would be if played long-term, but it's an awesome game for 1-4 sessions of fun.

We had five people in the group: Me (running), two of my best friends, and two new friends from the game store (both of which I met through all of us being big-time C&C players).  I'm still amazed by how quickly people pick up the way the dice work, and how it forms a neat little strategic mini-game that doesn't detract from the overall roleplaying.

I ran this town (Paint Creek)  and found it really good for a two session game.

Even if you don't know much about the game, feel free to read that town description.  It was made using the rules of the game, and presents a pretty complex town.  It will also help teach a bit more about what the game is about.

Quote from: joewolzI know there are some detractors around here because of where the game comes from, but it's seriously worth a try.

That's really not fair--many of the game's detractors (e.g. me & Kyle) have played the game and just didn't like it. I kinda liked it the first game, but the later ones became...annoying?

Quote from: joewolzIn playing this evening, it struck me again how monotonous the game would be if played long-term, but it's an awesome game for 1-4 sessions of fun.

This has been my experience too. I wonder if that's the reason why so many folks wish to port the rules to other settings? (Although I wonder how this would help) And thanks for the link.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: joewolzIn playing this evening, it struck me again how monotonous the game would be if played long-term, but it's an awesome game for 1-4 sessions of fun.

That is similar to the conclusions of the one person I know who's played this game.  He found it reasonably pleasant as a one-off experience, but wouldn't want to play it again -- it exhausts itself quickly.

(This report is the reason why no one else in the group ended up playing it.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenThat's really not fair--many of the game's detractors (e.g. me & Kyle) have played the game and just didn't like it. I kinda liked it the first game, but the later ones became...annoying?

My distaste for the game has everything to do with finding the concept and driving theology of the game morally repugnant.

Quote from: J ArcaneMy distaste for the game has everything to do with finding the concept and driving theology of the game morally repugnant.

In a way, that's the point.  Like any good RPG, there is a thematic component, a push for story.  Castles & Crusades, my favorite game ever, pushes for a heroic story of epic deeds.  DitV is made to make you squick yourself out, it's a game about judgment, after all.

But enough of that for now.

Quote from: David RThis has been my experience too. I wonder if that's the reason why so many folks wish to port the rules to other settings?

It could be, but I don't think it would help.  The game is just too repetitive to be played a lot.  I play a few sessions of Dogs (usually 1 session, but once I did three in a row) every three months or so, and that seems to be just enough to keep it fresh and exciting.  Dogs is generally my compromise game, since all my friends know it, it's easy to teach, and I have yet to have anyone play it with me and not like it.

I agree that Dogs is a short, sharp shock of RPing. I think that's a good thing.

Quote from: joewolzLike any good RPG, there is a thematic component, a push for story.

Is it possible to talk about Dogs without making dodgy claims about RPGs in general?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIs it possible to talk about Dogs without making dodgy claims about RPGs in general?

Would it seem more tolerable to you to rephrase that as "a push for conflict" (since conflict does drive stories)?

No, that's beside the point.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIs it possible to talk about Dogs without making dodgy claims about RPGs in general?

I would have made the same assertion about C&C or D&D or any other game.  I'm using the textbook definition of thematic, to whit: "of, pertaining to, or producing a theme or themes."

All RPGs do that to some degree.  I think the most successful do it well.  I think my favorite (which I should have said instead of "good") RPGs all have that push for story.

This discussion is already retreating into vacuous definitions. [<--please excuse this snark, I've thought better of it]

It's like me saying, "I didn't like how the couple in License to Wed lamely swallowed the reverend's teachings at the end." And you say, "Well, that was the plot, and every great movie has a plot."

That's even leaving aside the contentiousness of saying that a great game has to have a push for story--even if we interpret that as broadly as possible, as just having "something to do"--which begs the question of how precisely the "story" has to be defined by the game.

You might mistake this as an expression of dislike for "focused" games. Not at all. I'm saying that an RPG doesn't necessarily have to have a tight focus out of the box, but if it does, then it's responsible for that focus. In short DitV has a particular aboutness, which (aside from possible issues with the players) ultimately turned me off. I've liked other "focused" games. I also think there are elements to Dogs which I'd like more if they were presented in a more generic, less-focused fashion, because then I could swap in my own themes.

Elliot great post(s)

Quote from: droogI agree that Dogs is a short, sharp shock of RPing. I think that's a good thing.

You know one of my players commented on this. He said that I always think that rpgs are supposed to support long term play etc. But rpgs don't really have to do this. (Not talking about system here) He used my recent Savage Worlds campaign as an example of how the game does what it's supposed to do ("and let's move on") but really would not support long term play and it would become repetitive after ...well let's just say 5 sessions was a good idea.

Sorry Joe for this slight derail.

Regards,
David R

QuoteDitV is made to make you squick yourself out, it's a game about judgment, after all.

So why is being a Mormon lynch mob and shooting people in the head for such horrid crimes as adultery an acceptable pasttime, but RaHoWa isn't?

I don't happen to think either are, but for some reason, while both are no less based on noxious belief systems, one is somehow "edgy cool" and "pushing boundaries" or whatever mindless platitude used to describe it on any iven day of the week.

Or rather, you can ask: is it the fault of DitV if players have their characters shoot people in the face for adultery?

Regardless of whether DitV is "at fault" for allowing this sort of behavior, is it ever okay? Like, if the players believe their characters are bad people? Or if the players themselves feel bad about it afterwards?