That's a lot of exclamation marks! But I agree!

Sorry, but I actually think that playing the fundamentalist hardasses _is_ part of the core concept. That's one of the original bits, I think. No touchy-feely group hugs but some indoctrinated souls with "sola scripture" written all over their badges.

That's interesting, but -- especially without further removal from reality -- not my style. I could probably play that with a different setting. But then I'd throw out the whole stuff, just some slight changes is just watering it down.

Hmmm...d20 DitV...I wonder...

Quote from: James J SkachHmmm...d20 DitV...I wonder...

It's been done...(my damn players and their "d20 can handle everything...")

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SosthenesSorry, but I actually think that playing the fundamentalist hardasses _is_ part of the core concept. That's one of the original bits, I think. No touchy-feely group hugs but some indoctrinated souls with "sola scripture" written all over their badges.

It so isn't!

The book is filled with comments like

QuoteThe demons don't want the Dogs to pronouce that it's okay for the town to rob the store - because if they do say it it's probably not false doctrine.

That's what Dogs do, after all.

and, under Unbelievers

Quote-Dogmatists believe that what matters is obeying scrpture and dogma, not obeying God. They analyse their faith for legalistic adherance to precidents or rules, and thus don't recognise the true prompting of their souls.

Then it talks at length about how the author won't tell you what he thinks about things, and that no one except you can judge your characters actions.

Theres even a bit somewhere that talks about how Demons can, if you want, just be mundane things that cause friction in communities. Theres nothing to say that the King of Life has any different reality status than he does to real life.

Its whatever you make it.

I always considered the Dogmatists statement as the typical catholic-bashing so popular amongst fundamentalists. I might have read it wrong...

Re:  The intractibility (or otherwise) of the faith as put forth in Dogs:

I first played Dogs with Vincent GMing.  At one point I was so lost, trying to figure out what my character "should" do, according to the scriptures that nobody had given me any definition of, that I simply turned to Vincent and said "What are the rules on praying for guidance?"

He said "What ... you want a conflict where the stakes are, if you win, you know exactly what God wants you to do, in perfect detail?"

I breathed a great big sigh of relief.  "Yes!" I replied.  "That's precisely what I want."  I reached for my dice.

"Okay," Vincent replied.  "I give.  You win.  You now know exactly what God wants you to do.  So ... what is it?"

Quote from: SosthenesI always considered the Dogmatists statement as the typical catholic-bashing so popular amongst fundamentalists. I might have read it wrong...

I think so. Theres to much

QuoteYour character might be a remorseless monster or a destroying angel - I the author of the game can't tell the difference, your GM and your fellow players can't tell the difference, only you can

and

QuoteAt this end, barely any, where the demons are really just bad luck and the pressures a town has to struggle with to survive, and the ceremonies of the Faith only reassure the faithful and remind them of their commitmtents to one another

I don't think we are dealing with an actual card carrying fundie, or at least not one who doesn't see the other side.

Either way, you see an excuse in there to do whatever the hell you want, right?

Quote from: Erik BoielleEither way, you see an excuse in there to do whatever the hell you want, right?

That's always the case, as there are no defined scriptures. Whether you're a demon-infested double agent, a soullest dogmatist or someone who has a direct wire to the overpower, your actions might look absolutely the same.

I'd still say that the setting somewhat implies a more fire-and-brimstone approach. Not neccesarily by sheer violence, but the preaching won't exactly be Baha'I material...

I'd still much rather play Jedis with it. Copycat Mormons in banjo country don't do it for me.

Quote from: SosthenesI'd still say that the setting somewhat implies a more fire-and-brimstone approach. Not neccesarily by sheer violence, but the preaching won't exactly be Baha'I material...

Well, yeah, but if you really wanted you could run a bunch of morailty plays about the critical challenge of ensuring that all the children share their toys, or about how the barns would get built quicker if everyone worked together to build one barn at a time instead of each family struggling to build thier own.

However, like the book says, its not bad story stuff, but it just ain't sex...

QuoteCopycat Mormons in banjo country don't do it for me.

I find it wonderfully quirky, from the 'Hello Brother Jeduthan' 'Noon Sister Tryphena' thing through the coats and to, lets face it, the gorram guns. Or possibly starting with the guns and wondering how I can get one shipped yo the UK without getting arrested.

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/BlkPowder/black_powder_guns2.htm

It also seems like a really good format for playing westerns, which I think has been lacking from role playing games.

But that, as they say, is me.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIt also seems like a really good format for playing westerns, which I think has been lacking from role playing games.

Boot Hill? Deadlands? Werewolf Wild West? Spellslinger? GURPS Old West? Cattlepunk?

I agree that it's a distinct format, though. But too small a subset of the movies to consider it a complete wild west rpg...

Quote from: SosthenesI'd still much rather play Jedis with it. Copycat Mormons in banjo country don't do it for me.

It's pretty awesome playing Jedi with DitV.

Quote from: TonyLBHe said "What ... you want a conflict where the stakes are, if you win, you know exactly what God wants you to do, in perfect detail?"

I breathed a great big sigh of relief.  "Yes!" I replied.  "That's precisely what I want."  I reached for my dice.

"Okay," Vincent replied.  "I give.  You win.  You now know exactly what God wants you to do.  So ... what is it?"

I don't know why, but this touches the heart of it in a way, for me.

It seems to me that in most "traditional" RPG approaches, the GM would answer differently.  That is, the god to which the character is praying probably would have a preferred solution or at least some answer.  That answer may be cryptic or very clear.

Having written that, I certainly could see a "traditonal" RPG GM who prefers more player direction answering the same way. Is there anything in Dogs that requires the GM answer this way, or is this just Mr. Baker's style? If it's the former, than we get into the "constraining the GM" issue.  If it's the latter, than it's not a characteristic specific to DitV.

Quote from: TonyLBRe:  The intractibility (or otherwise) of the faith as put forth in Dogs:

I first played Dogs with Vincent GMing.  At one point I was so lost, trying to figure out what my character "should" do, according to the scriptures that nobody had given me any definition of, that I simply turned to Vincent and said "What are the rules on praying for guidance?"

He said "What ... you want a conflict where the stakes are, if you win, you know exactly what God wants you to do, in perfect detail?"

I breathed a great big sigh of relief.  "Yes!" I replied.  "That's precisely what I want."  I reached for my dice.

"Okay," Vincent replied.  "I give.  You win.  You now know exactly what God wants you to do.  So ... what is it?"

Oh why why why aren't my face to face groups the type to go online and find DitV on their own and have someone run it for me... That's awesome as hell.

Quote from: RPGPunditUnless you're 16 and writing bad poetry, "depressing" does not equal "serious", much less "deep" or "good".

RPGPundit

Nor does it exclude it. I'm a big fan of Russian Lit when I'm not reading nonfiction (which is my current kick). Despair, Fathers and Sons, A Hero of our Time... I don't think you can deny those books have serious literary merit or that some, or all, of them are pretty soul crushingly depressing.