TheRPGSite

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) (http://www.meekmok.com/sassy/dogs/documents/paint_creek.pdf)  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?

Quote from: Elliot WilenOr 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?

The hell kind of weak-ass apologism is that?

The basic theology of the game makes it morally right for you to do such a thing.  And expressly says that PCs are always right.  Sin is corruption, and you sleeping with your best friend's wife is why the crops are all dying and the well dried up. The Dogs are chosen by God and are essentially Judge Dredd with ex cathedra rights. That's what the game is about.

You may as well have asked if it's D&D's fault if the players go into dungeons and kill dragons.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe basic theology of the game makes it morally right for you to do such a thing.  And expressly says that PCs are always right.

Yes ... if you decide that shooting the guy in the face is what God wants then that's what God wants.  It's your fault that your story-universe has a vindictive bastard God.

Contrariwise, if you decide that forgiving the guy and convincing him to mend his ways and lead a blameless life, even if that seems really hard (or even impossible) is what God wants then that's what God wants.  It's to your credit if your story-universe has a God of mercy and compassion.

I've never found that having that burden on your shoulders ... that mandate to define God ... made the enterprise less morally challenging.  To the contrary, in play, I find that it makes everything far more difficult.  People don't want to stop at the good-enough answer ... they want to figure out what they really and truly believe to be Right.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo 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?

Well, for one, Mormons aren't race-based bigots.  Dogs was written with an early Mormon outlook and a loosely Christian morality to promote the idea that difficult moral situations cause tension.  Racial Holy War was written specifically to support the white supremacist agenda.

Personally, I feel it's wrong to be judgmental of any group in real life, and I find your seething hatred for the Mormons disturbing.

Quote from: joewolzWell, for one, Mormons aren't race-based bigots.  Dogs was written with an early Mormon outlook and a loosely Christian morality to promote the idea that difficult moral situations cause tension.  Racial Holy War was written specifically to support the white supremacist agenda.

Personally, I feel it's wrong to be judgmental of any group in real life, and I find your seething hatred for the Mormons disturbing.

It doesn't have anything to do with Mormons.  It has to do with the theology.  They could be Catholic witch hunting zealots, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, or Puritan, and the fundamental concept would still be just as barbaric and disgusting.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe hell kind of weak-ass apologism is that?

Chill out, you haven't seen my answers. ;)

Going into holes in the ground, killing critters the cosmos assures you are evil and taking their stuff; that's all right.

Having the power and responsibility to judge by your own discretion, in a world where good and evil are hard to find and separate; that's not all right.

That is very strange.

Here's something bizarre about the game that touches indirectly on what I think of it (in terms of the questions I raised).

On p. 68, the GM is given the option of either assigning Fallout normally to NPCs after a conflict, exactly as if they were PCs, or "if nobody cares about the NPCs' fallout", the GM can simply give the NPCs' two highest fallout dice to the players for a followup conflict.

What this means, I think, is that the GM has the option of either exploiting Fallout in a tactical manner--the way that players are encouraged to do, using "warmup" conflicts to improve their dice--or giving the players an advantage. It strikes me as completely arbitrary, allowing a GM who plays "all out" (which is encouraged elsewhere in the book) to frustrate players by having the NPCs get more and more powerful as play goes on, but at the same time giving an out for the GM to "go soft" on the players...with no real guidance as to when it's appropriate to do one or the other.

This screws up the player's effort to advocate for his character through the system, since the player now has to second-guess the GM when deciding what to do in the middle of a conflict. (If you're inflicting a lot of Fallout but you're going to have trouble winning without escalating, you don't know if you should drop out and pin your hopes on a followup, or go all-out to neutralize the issue before an adversary gets buffed up.)

I encourage you to post this concern on the lumpley games forum, Elliot.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHere's something bizarre about the game that touches indirectly on what I think of it (in terms of the questions I raised).

Hey ... y'know what? ... this all has 100% nothing to do with the actual play that started out this post.

Over here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121951&postcount=34) Pundit made the claim that a person could post about their actual enjoyment of DitV on the RPGSite without being thread-crapped all over by people whose only agenda is to show how much they dislike the system.

I guess he was wrong.

So Joe ... what did the Dogs decide was God's will in the town?

I'm assuming the Salt Lick Kid got hisself a holy salvation of hot lead ... most NPCs whose goal is "I fuck with the Dogs" end up with their brains spread across the street.

But what about Paul and the Steward?  Where did the Dogs come down with regard to them?  What about Shelley and (poor, sweet, suffering) Dee?

And what did they think was the right thing, overall, to get the town back on track?  I love the demonic attack of "GOLD!  Give them more gold!  That'll be sure to send things straight to hell!" ... mostly because it strikes me as very, very good strategy on their part.

Thanks for asking Tony!  I still have issues with "discussing my character" without being asked, so I was trying to not be rude.  I'll answer your questions as best I can.

Quote from: TonyLBSo Joe ... what did the Dogs decide was God's will in the town?

God's will was to dynamite the creek and cover it with rock so the gold was inaccessible.  They argued for a long time over that since the gold was initially used for good.  They also took all the "useless" or "decorative" (their words) items from the homes of the faithful and from the beautiful church and sold them East to help the poor on the west side.  

Quote from: TonyLBI'm assuming the Salt Lick Kid got hisself a holy salvation of hot lead ... most NPCs whose goal is "I fuck with the Dogs" end up with their brains spread across the street.

They pushed him and pushed him, and the PCs confronted the Salt-Lick kid and his posse in the street at dusk.  He did end up killed, but as he lay dying (Fallout determined he needed medical or he would die) one PC wanted to save his soul, and got him to repent and convert in his last moments.

Quote from: TonyLBBut what about Paul and the Steward?  Where did the Dogs come down with regard to them?  What about Shelley and (poor, sweet, suffering) Dee?

They ambushed the congregation at church and brutally killed Councilor Paul for being a "false prophet."  They stripped the Steward of his responsibility and replaced him with Paul's widow.  They also made Judah the new Councilor.  

Quote from: TonyLBAnd what did they think was the right thing, overall, to get the town back on track?  I love the demonic attack of "GOLD!  Give them more gold!  That'll be sure to send things straight to hell!" ... mostly because it strikes me as very, very good strategy on their part.

Well, they dynamited the gold and told the congregation to start trying to convert the west side of town.  I just grabbed this town from the file when the players decided to play Dogs.  It ended up being a really cool town to play.  Kudos to whoever wrote it, since there's no author attached.

The game was very satisfying, and my ego yearns to be able to take credit for anything at all...but I really can't.  The players did all the cool things and someone else wrote the town.  I had the only first edition copy of the book!  And one player used my dice!

I always find it fascinating to watch PCs choose which NPCs in the town they're going to care about, and which they're going to sideline.

No happy ending for poor conflicted Dee?  Awwwww ....

Still ... dynamite is good!

Quote from: droogI encourage you to post this concern on the lumpley games forum, Elliot.

You're becoming predictable, droogie.

Quote from: TonyLBHey ... y'know what? ... this all has 100% nothing to do with the actual play that started out this post.

Over here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121951&postcount=34) Pundit made the claim that a person could post about their actual enjoyment of DitV on the RPGSite without being thread-crapped all over by people whose only agenda is to show how much they dislike the system.

I guess he was wrong.

I didn't know "threadcrapping" meant "posting anything other than fawning enthusiasm". The OP didn't offer a specific focus for this thread other than, "Here's some AP."

I did miss the fact that this was posted in Craft/AP, maybe that precludes topic drift away from the actual play. If so, I can see that a number of my comments are irrelevant.

Quote from: TonyLBI always find it fascinating to watch PCs choose which NPCs in the town they're going to care about, and which they're going to sideline.

No happy ending for poor conflicted Dee?  Awwwww ....

Still ... dynamite is good!

Dynamite is good.  They completely ignored Dee.  I forgot to put that in there, sorry.  I don't even know why they ignored her, and we talked a bit about it after the game.  They couldn't come up with a reason either.

Very socialist little Dogs though, weren't they?  Not merely socializing sources of destabilizing wealth, but actively destroying them, and then appropriating the gold that remained in order to balance things more evenly.

Has a nice "Bonfire of the vanities" (in the original, heretical sense, rather than the recent-novel sense) to it though.

Did they get into arguments between themselves about what the right stance was?  Was there a minority opinion that didn't get put into action?

Quote from: TonyLBDid they get into arguments between themselves about what the right stance was?  Was there a minority opinion that didn't get put into action?

Absolutely!  One of the Dogs was adamant about driving off and destroying the west side of town.  He almost made the argument stick, but cooler heads prevailed.

Whoa-HO!  "They're all unbelievers anyway, the desire to help them is what's dragging this town down, root 'em out they're the cause of the trouble"?  AWESOME!

That's some grim, nasty, self-involved preachin' goin' on there.

Quote from: TonyLBWhoa-HO!  "They're all unbelievers anyway, the desire to help them is what's dragging this town down, root 'em out they're the cause of the trouble"?  AWESOME!

That's some grim, nasty, self-involved preachin' goin' on there.

It was, and it was one of the coolest moments in the game too.  On the other hand, one dog went around trying to convert people, and he was the number one opponent to the "burn the infidel!" sentiment.