Quote from: mythusmageThat's the thing, for the true believer there is no doubt or hesitation. "Kill them all, for God will know his own."

Eh, I know a couple of devout Christians who would object that "true believer" means homicidal psychopath.

Doubt is the human condition. Dogs are human. They are not divine. What they do is the will of the King of Life, the players know this, the characters do not.

Quote from: SethwickEh, I know a couple of devout Christians who would object that "true believer" means homicidal psychopath.

Doubt is the human condition. Dogs are human. They are not divine. What they do is the will of the King of Life, the players know this, the characters do not.

I think the track I'd take is more one of personal interpretation. Does God exist? What does he want you to do? Is he testing you? Is he worth following? Have you failed god? How can you be right when so many people are telling you to stop? Is that god talking to you or your pride getting in the way?

No one can tell the Dogs they are doing it wrong, but then no one can tell them they are doing it right either. And maybe there is no devine guiding force. No one can tell, unless you count the voices whispering to you and the dogma of the faith as proof. Or maybe its a capricious force doing mischief. Who the hell told the Dogs they were Gods Watchmen in the first place? What a crock that is. You believed that shit?

You gots to keep the free will vs. gods will debate going. And a fantasy setting means everything is up for grabs (if the player goes for an atheist then the GM might try to hint that there is a god, without actualy confirm it, while with a rabid fanatic you could maybe push a mundane angle to challenge them. Tricky though. Maybe for an atheist make sure everyone talks fantasy talk and says 'it was the Will of the King of Life' alot and lives most happily under the Dogma, and withers and dies if its broken, but a rabid fanatic gets lots of down and dirty 'FUCK YOU DOG. YOU SHOT MY FUCKING WIFE YOU CUNT. and lots of crying and starving children from the mundane problems they Dogs cause).

And its a lot like life.

Quote from: droogAnd you must decide. No gods, cults, clans or bosses to hold your hand and tell you what to do. Just you and a gun. Pure roleplaying.

If this line is not already part of the game's advertising...it should be.

Regards,
David R

Upbeat?  I don't remember being upbeat.

I've seen so much about how Forge games are different, but I often don't really see the difference except in degrees and playing style (and perhaps rules that enforce a playing style).

I used the term "neat" to imply devious.  I've always seen the "player empowerment," when discussed, focusing on the fact that players can help define the outcome of the conflict.  I've even seen that cause problems (in the Forge discussion of stakes being absurd or some such). But I've never seen player empowerment approached from this angle.

This is spectacular.  It's the ultimate in player empowerment - there's no force greater than what the player says.  I mean, sure, there's "fallout" and such. But, essentially, the player/character can do whatever they think and believe it's what God wanted - therefore, they have unlimited moral power.

Sure the townspeople might revolt or someone might want to track them for revenge, but a Dog is always right, morally, no matter what they choose. So the townspeople, if they revolt, are, by definition, morally wrong for defying the Dogs.  The person seeking vengence, by defintion, is morally misguided.

So instead of the GM playing God, the players do. It's Noblis in Mormon clothes. :eek:

Quote from: James J SkachSure the townspeople might revolt or someone might want to track them for revenge, but a Dog is always right, morally, no matter what they choose. So the townspeople, if they revolt, are, by definition, morally wrong for defying the Dogs.  The person seeking vengence, by defintion, is morally misguided.

Yep.

If the characters change the law, as a "revelation of new guidance", and the Church proper sends people to hunt them down...

From the view of the game that happens in, the Dogs are still right if the players so decide, and the Church is refusing to accept this new revelation.

"Right" and "Agreed with" don't have to be on the same bandwidth.

You've got it (James). One of the guys I play with got it right away too. He said something like "Dogs is the game, more than any other game I know, with the most powerful player characters."

And that makes it a shitload of fun to GM, because you never have to play moral policeman. You just set up the situations and play the NPCs to the hilt.

Quote from: droogYou've got it (James). One of the guys I play with got it right away too. He said something like "Dogs is the game, more than any other game I know, with the most powerful player characters."

And that makes it a shitload of fun to GM, because you never have to play moral policeman. You just set up the situations and play the NPCs to the hilt.

See, this is where I get off the boat. I can't think of one game I ever played in or GM'd in which the GM played "moral policeman."

A GM might note that a player who claims to follow "Thundred the God of Vengence" is really playing the character as if he were worshipping "Agricultura the God of Home and Hearth," but he would make no moral judgement that one was morally correct and the other wasn't. So the NPC might be the Bishop of the Church of Thundred come to set the player straight.

The difference I see, given Levi's response, is that in Dogs, the player would be "right", whereas in Traditional RPG X, the NPC representing the Church would be "right." There are several ways in which this could lead to interesting moral dilemas to role-play, no less than in DitV (IMHO).

If it has a set story or plot, it's a story game, not an RPG. An RPG, properly-speaking, gives the participants a setting to play with, but doesn't dictate what transpires there.

Overall, I believe that an RPG must have all of the following:

1. A traditional player/GM relationship.
2. No set story or plot.
3. No "live action" (LARP) aspect.

Quote from: YamoIf it has a set story or plot, it's a story game, not an RPG. An RPG, properly-speaking, gives the participants a setting to play with, but doesn't dictate what transpires there.

Overall, I believe that an RPG must have all of the following:

1. A traditional player/GM relationship.
2. No set story or plot.
3. No "live action" (LARP) aspect.

This is exactly the stuff that should be in my Breakdown thread

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYep.

If the characters change the law, as a "revelation of new guidance", and the Church proper sends people to hunt them down...

From the view of the game that happens in, the Dogs are still right if the players so decide, and the Church is refusing to accept this new revelation.

"Right" and "Agreed with" don't have to be on the same bandwidth.

I dunno man - the game won't judge you, but thats a far cry from saying you were right.

When the young lovers have been cast out in to the desert, the indians massacred and the posse from base are about to set fire to the brushwood at the base of your pole, a Dogs gotta wonder what kind of Right this is.

I think I'm going to step out of this thread and let Erik write the responses....

I see a disconnect here. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about fanatics. To the fanatic your opinions, your take, doesn't matter. Their's does, for they act in the name of God. The only opinion that matters is their's.

Doubt doesn't come into the picture for them, for they will not allow themselves to doubt. Uncertainty, hesitation, of no concern for they will not allow themselves to be uncertain, to hesitate. When you deal with a fanatic you're not dealing with a rational person.

That's the trouble with many people today, assuming that everybody is just like them. You know, reasonable, willing to entertain other points of view. But the fanatic is unreasonable, and avoids other points of view as though they carried some fell disease.

DitV is, in a sense, a kind of post-modernist RPG. Post-modernist in that the player is supposed to explore the nature of fanaticism, while at the same time retaining his wilingness to doubt, to question. And to keep this up in the face of oh so many temptations to just believe.

Here's a mean trick you can play on the GM in a DitV game. Act with absolute confidence and assurance. Have no doubts, no hesitations. Act as tough you knew what you were doing and freak the guy out something awful.

Quote from: Erik Boiellea Dogs gotta wonder what kind of Right this is.

"God says I'm being tested."

"You're out of your damn mind; you know that, right?"

"Heaven awaits me."

"Dipshit."

Quote from: Erik BoielleI dunno man - the game won't judge you, but thats a far cry from saying you were right.

When the young lovers have been cast out in to the desert, the indians massacred and the posse from base are about to set fire to the brushwood at the base of your pole, a Dogs gotta wonder what kind of Right this is.

A Dog's gonna be assured of the rightness of his actions, and that the Church he once served so faithfully is now in the hands of The Enemy and His servants.

I can't say as many of you have actually met a real live fanatic. I have. I've had to deal with the type on a one to one basis, from Nazis to Literalist Christians. I know fanatics, I understand them. You either kill them, drive them out, or find someway to breakdown their defenses. There can be no compromise, for they understand not the word. Anything that degrades the human condition is not to be tolerated, and fanatics are all about degradation in the name of a greater good.

I have died more times at the hands of fanatics than most of you have been alive, I know the breed.

Quote from: mythusmageA Dog's gonna be assured of the rightness of his actions, and that the Church he once served so faithfully is now in the hands of The Enemy and His servants.

Well, he might be, but then again the game isn't going to comment one way or the other.

Dogs Can be hardcore conservative fanatics, or they can be evangelical reformers, or just guys who go to church because thats what you do and take a decidedly wooly line on dogma or whatever else you want.

Possibly in the same party - I suspect that if you end up in a mexican standoff between dogs over how to resolve the problem with the fundie wanting to burn the heretics, the reformer wanting to change the law and the guy who just want a quiet life trying to get the other two to calm the fuck down then things are going very well indeed.

One of them is going to get their way, but they may all think they were right.

(even in a high supernatural quotient game you should be able to sow doubt - are those lighting bolts from heaven direct from the hand of god, or are you playing Mage, and they are experssions of the individual warping reality to their will. If magic comes from God then how come renegades and unbelievers can use it?)

So sure its a musing on these themes, but the line you take is all your own.