TheRPGSite

Really, in all the rants against "indie" games I somewhat understood when games like Capes and Universalis were called "not-RPGs." There was no GM, roles exchange hands freely scene by scene, there is no such thing as "my guy." I even understood it somewhat with games like My Life with Master, where there is a set end condition and even a way to "win" and "lose" (kind of).

But Dogs in the Vineyard... How in the heck is it not an RPG? You have a party of characters, one per player, a GM who sets up a scenario, and the PCs try to solve the problems of the scenario. Hell, replace "town" with "dungeon" and "remove sin" with "kill the monsters" and you have D&D.

For that matter, how is Sorcerer not an RPG? The only really radical element there is writing the kicker...

I foresee much sophistry in your future.

Quote from: droogI foresee much sophistry in your future.

You mean from me or at me?

At you. Let me see if I can do it.

RPGs are defined by the first RPG, i.e. D&D. Since D&D has a central GM with unlimited authority, any game not exhibiting this factor is not an RPG. DitV instructs the GM to 'Say yes or roll the dice'. Therefore, it diffuses the centralised authority of the GM and thus is not an RPG.

Sorcerer, of course, is just as bad, since it instructs the GM to prep towards the players' Kickers. Also, it is written by a man who says roleplayers are brain-damaged. QED.

Quote from: droogAt you. Let me see if I can do it.

RPGs are defined by the first RPG, i.e. D&D. Since D&D has a central GM with unlimited authority, any game not exhibiting this factor is not an RPG. DitV instructs the GM to 'Say yes or roll the dice'. Therefore, it diffuses the centralised authority of the GM and thus is not an RPG.

Sorcerer, of course, is just as bad, since it instructs the GM to prep towards the players' Kickers. Also, it is written by a man who says roleplayers are brain-damaged. QED.

Heheheheh... As funny as that is to me, I'd kind of like to hear it from someone who actually believes it too. I mean, I don't think I'll ever agree with the opinion, but I would like to understand it.

Although you do a pretty good impression, I'll give you that. Focusing any conversations about Sorcerer into a conversation about the author? Genius.

Well, it seems to be mostly about identity politics and bruised feelings, so I don't think it's hard to understand. To sympathise, on the other hand – that's difficult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKaZH1_Psdg&mode=related&search=

Is that your Dog's gun?

Quote from: droogIs that your Dog's gun?

Hell no - MY dog carries a Walker Colt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONhgVHs5wYI

D8s Baby!









Which is to say I live in the UK, and so more admire guns from afar than play with them.

How about this.

If I "game the system" in Dogs as hard as I possibly can, while still keeping to the letter of the rules, I will become unbeatable in short order.  I do this by creating a list of dump traits, broadly useful, at 1d4.  I deliberately eat as much low-end fallout as possible, driving added d4's onto those traits.  When the first one hits 5d4, I start jumping up the die type and adding dice to the next one; I spend as much of my fallout as possible in this fashion.  Within four or five high-conflict sessions (and I will call for conflict ALL THE TIME), I have a nice stack of six or so traits at 5d10 each.

As a gamey-game, the rules do not stop me from doing this.

I don't do this because that's boring as shit.  See, Dogs mainly entertains me in ways that are not about being a gamey-game.

...

...And that's where some people latch on and start jumping up and down.  That last sentence:

See, Dogs mainly entertains me in ways that are not about being a gamey-game.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAs a gamey-game, the rules do not stop me from doing this.

I don't do this because that's boring as shit.

I'm not sure if that is different in principle than ruling out the Hulking Hurler, Pun-Pun the Kobold, or the Omniscificer.  

Links:
Hulking Hurler Build (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=142565&perpage=30&pagenumber=1)
Pun-Pun the Kobold (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801)
The Omniscificer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=546612)

:hyper:
Definition Thread?
Yes, Yes?!

Of course it's an rpg! It's just that it's a depressing and boring rpg. :gloomy:

Reading the rules, I wish there were a way to interrupt one conflict with another, instead of just allowing new arrivals to toss some dice into the pool of their choice.

But I haven't played it yet, so that opinion means fuck all. :)

Quote from: fonkaygarryReading the rules, I wish there were a way to interrupt one conflict with another, instead of just allowing new arrivals to toss some dice into the pool of their choice.

But I haven't played it yet, so that opinion means fuck all. :)

Wow. I was going to chime in with "DitV is one of those things I'm cool with calling an RPG. It's a really, really, hyper-focused one with one character style and a self-proclaimed "heavy shit" emphasis I don't need, but still an RPG", but...you can't interrupt a conflict with another? If two Dogs are arguing in a room and, let's say, a third Dog wrestling with a thief he caught come crashing through the window to the floor...what? They have to keep arguing while the other keeps fighting unless someone gives in? Their argument dice spill over onto the fight? The fight dice spill into the argument?

I haven't played it either, but unless this is different than I'm reading it;

PAGING D. VINCENT BAKER. Please pick up the white courtesy phone and finish your fucking game. PAGING D. VINCENT BAKER.

Quote from: JimBobOzOf course it's an rpg!

Yeah, that's how I feel too.  Roleplaying?  Check.  Game elements?  Check.

Quote from: Christmas Apebut...you can't interrupt a conflict with another? If two Dogs are arguing in a room and, let's say, a third Dog wrestling with a thief he caught come crashing through the window to the floor...what?

If two Dogs are arguing in a room about something; let's say the stakes are "Do we kill a Sinner or just throw him out into the desert?" You resolve that conflict as one thing, until one of the Dogs gives up. You could also have another  conflict happening at the same time between with a third Dog and an NPC with stakes something like "Do I stop this thief?" Personally, I wouldn't run those concurrently -- it's a lot easier not to -- even though they could be occuring at the same time in the gameworld.

If, for some reason, these two conflicts did get mixed up, both groups would have to Give on thier conflicts they were already in and immediately start a followup conflict with new stakes -- "Do we get the thief to confess/repent/return the stolen goods?" or something.

And Afraid -- Vincent's forthcoming supernatural horror game -- will use a modified version of the DitV rules which provide more support for this kind of thing as well.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWow. I was going to chime in with "DitV is one of those things I'm cool with calling an RPG. It's a really, really, hyper-focused one with one character style and a self-proclaimed "heavy shit" emphasis I don't need, but still an RPG", but...you can't interrupt a conflict with another? If two Dogs are arguing in a room and, let's say, a third Dog wrestling with a thief he caught come crashing through the window to the floor...what? They have to keep arguing while the other keeps fighting unless someone gives in? Their argument dice spill over onto the fight? The fight dice spill into the argument?

I haven't played it either, but unless this is different than I'm reading it;

PAGING D. VINCENT BAKER. Please pick up the white courtesy phone and finish your fucking game. PAGING D. VINCENT BAKER.

Exactly.

Calling it "not an RPG" isn't an insult to DiTV.

Calling it an RPG would be the insulting bit, because it would mean DiTV is one of the worst-designed RPGs of all time, and Vince Baker was dropped on his head one too many times as a child.

If you really want to argue that DiTV is an RPG, then I guess you can have it your way, but its utter crap by any standard of what RPGs are supposed to do.  If, on the other hand, its a "Story Game"; then that's not for me to judge.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditCalling it an RPG would be the insulting bit, because it would mean DiTV is one of the worst-designed RPGs of all time, and Vince Baker was dropped on his head one too many times as a child.

Out of interest ... have you read the book?  Played the game?

Quote from: TonyLBOut of interest ... have you read the book?  Played the game?

He's read it, but not played it.  We've had that discussion before.

And John;

Those uber-builds are awesome.  But do you get what I'm expressing?  Gaming the system in Dogs to any real degree is something that simply doesn't occur to players because of the way you play.  The game elements are there to support play - they aren't an equal partner in producing fun.

To me, it's absolutley an RPG; the emphasis on various parts is just different.  To people that haven't got much interest in moving the emphasis around in their definition, it's a crap RPG, or not an RPG at all.

And while I, personally, get a lot of fun playing with the emphasis of play on different parts of sitting down to an RPG, some folks simply don't - they know why they're at the table, enjoy what they came for, and feel badly served by something that tries to change up crucial parts of what they enjoy.

Is Dogs in the Vineyard an RPG?

(http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/img/ask-the-fruitcake-lady.jpg)

"Who the hell cares? If you want to... do whatever you want to do. What the hell is an R-P-G... what does a game need a name for? They have no sense. You can't go up to the thing and tap on the thing and call them, can ya? RPG, RPG, RPG. I mean, you're a fool..."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThose uber-builds are awesome.  But do you get what I'm expressing?  Gaming the system in Dogs to any real degree is something that simply doesn't occur to players because of the way you play.  The game elements are there to support play - they aren't an equal partner in producing fun.

My point is just that it's a difference in degree of emphasis, not a difference in kind.  (My impression is that you agree with this, just that you're emphasizing the difference in degree.)  

In both games, I think, there's some gaming of the system reined in by limits of what is acceptable.  At least, I certainly game the system in Dogs when I play as have most of my players, just within certain limits.

Ok, Pundit, what is "an RPG supposed to do?"

BTW, as for the conflict thing I could think of several ways to handle it pretty easily. I mean, you could just set the arguement aside or combine the two conflicts. I mean, imagine it, an arguement about whether it is better to kill the sinner or not be so brutal going on in a fight. If the side who says "kill the sinner" wins that winning is emphasized by the sinner in question beating up the dogs, thus showing that handling things in a less-than lethal manner isn't likely to do.

I guess what makes Dogs "not an RPG" is that it uses conflict as opposed to task based resolution. I was trying to think of differences between Dogs and D&D and couldn't think of many besides focus, but I had gotten so used to conflict resolution I didn't even consider it.

I loves me some conflict resolution, especially with Dogs poker style "betting" added in.

Rather disingenius thread idea, Sethwick. Kudos for a clever potstirring. :stirthepot:

Because you more or less selected one of the Forge games that is very much RPG material to argue your point.  Funky analogy time:

I say: Fruits tend to be sour. I don't like sour stuff so I don't eat fruit.

You come in and say: Kumquats are totally not sour, why do you say kumquats are sour?


Ah, but we weren't talking Kumquats in particular, we were talking fruit. See, while Forge stuff tends to get panned, and a few people are particularly religious about panning them as 'non-rpgs', I can't recall to many discussions about DitV in particular being not an RPG.  None, really. It's guilt by association.  Now you're doing 'defense by exception', roughly the inverse.

So, if we admit that DitV is in fact and RPG, then we must, perforce, agree that RPG's come out of the Forge, thus... according to this chain... invalidating the entire concept of forge games as 'not RPGs'.


Clever but pointless.

Yes, DitV is an RPG. Possibly incomplete and certainly narrowminded.  Burning Empires is an RPG.  It plays like a boardgame if you use the rules as written, but it does provide the tools... aside from that emphasis on boardgame-itus... to use it as an RPG.


Your point?  

Oh, yeah... I remember


:stirthepot:

Quote from:  SpikeI say: Fruits tend to be sour. I don't like sour stuff so I don't eat fruit.

Uh, dude... you might want to get some help at the supermarket.  :confused:

Quote from: jhkimMy point is just that it's a difference in degree of emphasis, not a difference in kind.  (My impression is that you agree with this, just that you're emphasizing the difference in degree.)  

I do agree.

I just want to make sure that where the side is at is visible, because most of the people on that other side are really tired of explaining it, and tend to yell.

Quote from: SpikeRather disingenius thread idea, Sethwick. Kudos for a clever potstirring. :stirthepot:

Because you more or less selected one of the Forge games that is very much RPG material to argue your point.  Funky analogy time:

I say: Fruits tend to be sour. I don't like sour stuff so I don't eat fruit.

You come in and say: Kumquats are totally not sour, why do you say kumquats are sour?


Ah, but we weren't talking Kumquats in particular, we were talking fruit. See, while Forge stuff tends to get panned, and a few people are particularly religious about panning them as 'non-rpgs', I can't recall to many discussions about DitV in particular being not an RPG.  None, really. It's guilt by association.  Now you're doing 'defense by exception', roughly the inverse.

So, if we admit that DitV is in fact and RPG, then we must, perforce, agree that RPG's come out of the Forge, thus... according to this chain... invalidating the entire concept of forge games as 'not RPGs'.


Clever but pointless.

Yes, DitV is an RPG. Possibly incomplete and certainly narrowminded.  Burning Empires is an RPG.  It plays like a boardgame if you use the rules as written, but it does provide the tools... aside from that emphasis on boardgame-itus... to use it as an RPG.


Your point?  

Oh, yeah... I remember


:stirthepot:

Well, I asked particularly about DitV because I had heard it mentioned as among "swinish non-rpgs." It perked my interest because I really couldn't think of anything, besides focus and setting, that made it very different. So, I asked, and apparently it is conflict resolution.

Also, "narrowminded"? That's certainly a very negative way of saying "focused" and really not all that accurate anyway. Narrowminded implies something quite different from "very focused."

Also, it's not a good comparison to fruit. I mean, sourness can not really be traced back to a component part of a fruit (unless you want to get into discussions of a fruits molecular makeup). "Non-rpgness" can. I mean, it's obvious that something lacking or present in something makes it "not an RPG." DITV has roleplaying, a GM, personal characters, etc, so I was wondering what it did or did not have that lead some to say it wasn't an RPG. And I got my answer.

Also, your example of fruit did bring up something rather funny. If you had asked for the defining taste characteristic of fruit I would have said "sweet" not "sour."

Quote from: SethwickAlso, your example of fruit did bring up something rather funny. If you had asked for the defining taste characteristic of fruit I would have said "sweet" not "sour."

Bah. If I'd gone with sweetness I couldn't have used Kumquats in my example with a straight face.


I wasn't comparing DitV to a fruit, I was comparing you argument to a fallacious argument about fruit.  

DitV gets a lot of name checks in regards to Forge, because it is one of the more successful, even playable... RPG's.  

Think about it for a moment. The most RPG of forge games typcially mentioned as 'forgite' or what have you, is the most successful and recognizable stuff.  I've never bought or read DitV, never seen a book for sale even, yet I could probably hold my own in a discussion of the basic mechanics and game play, simply because it is discussed SO VERY MUCH.

It's an RPG. Yes. It is comparativly successful to the LESS SO games that come from the forge. Yes.

I hold that the two are linked and leave MY worries at the door. I was just commenting about your tactics. I've only seen you in two threads, one where you attacked anyone who didn't come  into a game with the story arc of their character preplotted as 'dead eyed and boring', stopping just past calling them 'non-gamers'.

And this one where you are :stirthepot:  with a debate you crafted out of midair for all I can see.   I only know two posters on this site that really care of DitV is an RPG or not, and they both agree it's a game and it involves role playing.  I merely call you on it, bring out the tactics involved for all to see.

Go. Eat. Kumquats.

Quote from: SpikeBah. If I'd gone with sweetness I couldn't have used Kumquats in my example with a straight face.


I wasn't comparing DitV to a fruit, I was comparing you argument to a fallacious argument about fruit.  

DitV gets a lot of name checks in regards to Forge, because it is one of the more successful, even playable... RPG's.  

Think about it for a moment. The most RPG of forge games typcially mentioned as 'forgite' or what have you, is the most successful and recognizable stuff.  I've never bought or read DitV, never seen a book for sale even, yet I could probably hold my own in a discussion of the basic mechanics and game play, simply because it is discussed SO VERY MUCH.

It's an RPG. Yes. It is comparativly successful to the LESS SO games that come from the forge. Yes.

I hold that the two are linked and leave MY worries at the door. I was just commenting about your tactics. I've only seen you in two threads, one where you attacked anyone who didn't come  into a game with the story arc of their character preplotted as 'dead eyed and boring', stopping just past calling them 'non-gamers'.

And this one where you are :stirthepot:  with a debate you crafted out of midair for all I can see.   I only know two posters on this site that really care of DitV is an RPG or not, and they both agree it's a game and it involves role playing.  I merely call you on it, bring out the tactics involved for all to see.

Go. Eat. Kumquats.

Okay. You say this, despite the fact that Pundit, a pretty high profile poster on this site has said in this thread that he wouldn't say it was an RPG.

I was wondering what was found objectionable about the more traditional "Forge" games, and DitV is the most prominent example I can think of. It seems that its method of conflict resolution was what makes it "a piss poor RPG."

I wasn't going to argue that it is an RPG. I was just asking why some people thought otherwise. I got my answer.

As for that other thread, you are exagerrating my words, but that  would probably be better discussed IN that thread. And in that thread I said I was going to think about it and try to put up something AFTER my finals, which end tomorrow.

Quote from: SethwickOkay. You say this, despite the fact that Pundit, a pretty high profile poster on this site has said in this thread that he wouldn't say it was an RPG.

"High Profile" around here doesn't mean "Typically agreed with".

Quote from: SethwickOkay. You say this, despite the fact that Pundit, a pretty high profile poster on this site has said in this thread that he wouldn't say it was an RPG.

Actually, he only said that when you forced his feet to the flames, metaphorically. He even caveated it by admitting that it IS an RPG, if only a craptacular one, and that by NOT calling it an RPG he was doing it a favor.

YMMV.

Yeah, it's an rpg. A story focused rpg but an rpg all the same. Some games focus on different elements - gm authority, player autonomy, story,...whatever - Dogs just happens to be more collaborative and story focused than most other rpgs.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBOut of interest ... have you read the book?  Played the game?

Holy fuck, you guys really have to come up with new material.  Y'all are pathetically unarmed for these rhetorical battles.  At this point, you're not just going into a gunfight with a nerf bat, you're going into it with a nerf bat whose foam has crumbled into an unwieldable gravel...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHoly fuck, you guys really have to come up with new material.

You're hardly one to criticise on that front.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou're hardly one to criticise on that front.

My rhetorical weapons work.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditMy rhetorical weapons work.

Your rhetorical weapons convince you that you've won the argument.

As we all know, there have only been two types of functional roleplaying game. The 'DnD' or 'Kill Things And Take Their Stuff', and the 'Vampire' or 'Lets All Dress Up And Act Petty!'.

In the former, there is a mission and the players work togeather against the world created by the GM. In the 'Vampire' the players scheme against each other, with the scheming arbitrated by the GM.

And Dogs is pretty much a straight 'DnD'. The GM makes a Dungeon (disguised as a Town), fills it with Traps (disguised as Moral Dilemas) and Orks (disguised as Cowboys). Coupled with the mechanics from Heroquest.

Whats not to like? It is a roleplaying game. Like CoC and Cyberpunk 2020 it's a spin on the classic dungeon crawl.

http://hunting.about.com/od/blackpowder/l/aa_loadcbrev_a.htm

You can also take out the cylinder and replace it with a pre loaded one. Clint Eastwood does it in Pale Rider, and it looks badass.

(http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/SwitchCyl.JPG)

Easier with a remington style pistol though.

Oh, and those big Walker and Dragoon Colts are horse pistols - you don't wear them on a belt but keep them in holsters over the neck of your horse.

(http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/EA00005_L.jpg)

Walker

(http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/EA00006_L.jpg)

Dragoon

(http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/EA00007_L.jpg)

Navy

(http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/EA00008_L.jpg)

Army

Obviously, this is the West That Never Was, so they arn't actually Colts, but thats the kinda look you are going for.

Not

(http://www.armchairgunshow.com/images/11SA2340.jpg)

Quote from: TonyLBYour rhetorical weapons convince you that you've won the argument.

Actually the rhetorical skill of the pundit is much more subtle. It isn't so much about winning (nobody ever really 'wins' an argument- the win is in having the argument in the first place). I think TheRPGsite is brutally efficient at scoring wins. After all, here you are.

But there's also making the other guy lose, which can also be done. And Pundit manages that one too, from time to time.  

As for Dogs in the Vineyard: it seems like an RPG to me, in general terms.

 Basicly all you do in this game that I can tell, is 1) Your characters stroll into a 'troubled town', 2) conduct interviews, 3) have "conflicts" regarding the trouble. The 'trouble' of the town is usually involving some form of sexually degrading thing- often something like infidelity or incest (as per the authors advice), and then finally 4) the characters invariably murder civilians (often including women and infants if actual play reports are to be believed) or possibly each other-- in order to illustrate the author's feelings about religion and morality. The end result is reportedly full of heavy themes and issues.

So at one point some of these guys tried to rename 'fun' as meaning 'having heavy themes and issues', but that kind of revisionism didn't stick.

So yeah, it's an RPG. It's an RPG for people who basicly hate themselves, but sure. RPG.

So it IS an RPG! You win! (Did you see what I did there?)

Finally: I love Erik Boielle's answer!

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually the rhetorical skill of the pundit is much more subtle. It isn't so much about winning (nobody ever really 'wins' an argument- the win is in having the argument in the first place). I think TheRPGsite is brutally efficient at scoring wins. After all, here you are.

Heh.  That's a cute argument.  You're basically saying "If you convince somebody to disagree with you then you've "won" by having an argument," right?  I will certainly concede that the Pundit is very good at saying things that people disagree with.

And yay!  I won the argument!  :D

Well, your'e close... But your'e a bit off.

Certainly many people do disagree with the Pundit. Undoubtedly. If your'e some kind of forgie choad, it's pretty much guaranteed. We all know this going in, it's a precondition- we fully expect you to disagree.

But then to draw you in and get you to actually engage on the topic- thats a win, because the audience isn't you. When we argue on forums, the audience is everyone else.

DitV is a roleplaying game. It's even a moderately traditional roleplaying game.

-Marco

So it's a win for both of us?  We get to play to the audience?

Cool.  Again, I agree that Pundit's rhetoric is very good at creating such discussions.

Quote from: TonyLBSo it's a win for both of us?  We get to play to the audience?

Cool.  Again, I agree that Pundit's rhetoric is very good at creating such discussions.

Our part in the audience (as the audience for each other) is actually quite minor.

But again, the win is that we have the argument, and by this vigorous exchange, people become aware that there is no monoculture here. At that point, even if someone- some unknown third party-- shows up to read and sees his side isn't represented (maybe he has a third point of view), he can be emboldened by the fact that all authorities are challenged, all assertions can live and die on their own merits. And sure, he can join in too.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHow about this.

If I "game the system" in Dogs as hard as I possibly can, while still keeping to the letter of the rules, I will become unbeatable in short order.  I do this by creating a list of dump traits, broadly useful, at 1d4.  I deliberately eat as much low-end fallout as possible, driving added d4's onto those traits.  When the first one hits 5d4, I start jumping up the die type and adding dice to the next one; I spend as much of my fallout as possible in this fashion.  Within four or five high-conflict sessions (and I will call for conflict ALL THE TIME), I have a nice stack of six or so traits at 5d10 each.

As a gamey-game, the rules do not stop me from doing this.

I don't do this because that's boring as shit.  See, Dogs mainly entertains me in ways that are not about being a gamey-game.

...

...And that's where some people latch on and start jumping up and down.  That last sentence:

See, Dogs mainly entertains me in ways that are not about being a gamey-game.

But, see, this is a ruse.  Because the idea of the Forge, if I get my GNS dogma correct, is that in a truly inspired GNS game, you wouldn't be able to play it as a gamey-game in the first place.  That makes DitV Incoherent.

Ironically, this, in my mind, makes it a traditional RPG right out of the chute.

Amusingly, a game that is incoherent (you could play it as a gamist or a narratavist) and follows most of the traditional RPG memes (dungeon/town, player/gm, adventurer/Dog) is the most successful production linked to a forum that pushes a theory that claims this is the incorrect way to design a game!

Quote from: James J SkachBut, see, this is a ruse.  Because the idea of the Forge, if I get my GNS dogma correct, is that in a truly inspired GNS game, you wouldn't be able to play it as a gamey-game in the first place.  That makes DitV Incoherent.

Uh, wrong.

To quote Ron:

"That muscle might be in a dog.  But that muscle doesn't define a dog."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUh, wrong.

To quote Ron:

"That muscle might be in a dog.  But that muscle doesn't define a dog."

OK...so then what the hell is Incoherent? I mean, my understanding, admitedly flawed by only have read the material, is the two or more Creative Agenda's are supported/possible.  Is this incorrect?  I mean, would D&D be coherent if it just said "Oh, by the way, you can play historical intrigue narratavist games with D20, but we think you should just play gamist adventures."?

So if you're playing gamey-gamed characters with dump stats and everything, that's OK, as long as everyone is?

Wait, perhaps Incoherence isn't really to be applied to game design, only to actual play.  If that's the case, then Ron shouldn't apply it to game designs.

Wow. What a Theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQrA4VKAwg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py8z1u79X9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbMHjFdFyF8

Quote from: James J SkachWait, perhaps Incoherence isn't really to be applied to game design, only to actual play.  If that's the case, then Ron shouldn't apply it to game designs.

Wow. What a Theory.

Only actual play can be, in GNS, one of the three things.  But a game can support and encourage a chosen one of those things.

And here we enter the territory where I have to state my own objection.  Because, yes, a game can support and encourage a given vision of play.  But there are far more than three possible visions or approaches, and lumping them into three categories, even if you can make it work, has no practical value to me.

Does the game have a vision?  Is that vision clear?  Does that vision make room for the things my group likes in play?

...If the answers to all these questions is yes, I'm, cooking with gas.

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually the rhetorical skill of the pundit is much more subtle. It isn't so much about winning (nobody ever really 'wins' an argument- the win is in having the argument in the first place). I think TheRPGsite is brutally efficient at scoring wins. After all, here you are.

But there's also making the other guy lose, which can also be done. And Pundit manages that one too, from time to time.  

As for Dogs in the Vineyard: it seems like an RPG to me, in general terms.

 Basicly all you do in this game that I can tell, is 1) Your characters stroll into a 'troubled town', 2) conduct interviews, 3) have "conflicts" regarding the trouble. The 'trouble' of the town is usually involving some form of sexually degrading thing- often something like infidelity or incest (as per the authors advice), and then finally 4) the characters invariably murder civilians (often including women and infants if actual play reports are to be believed) or possibly each other-- in order to illustrate the author's feelings about religion and morality. The end result is reportedly full of heavy themes and issues.

So at one point some of these guys tried to rename 'fun' as meaning 'having heavy themes and issues', but that kind of revisionism didn't stick.

So yeah, it's an RPG. It's an RPG for people who basicly hate themselves, but sure. RPG.

So it IS an RPG! You win! (Did you see what I did there?)

Finally: I love Erik Boielle's answer!

Wow... that's some opinion you got there... I've never heard anyone state quite so clearly their objection to RPGs having serious themes. It's just like... Wow.

So you don't watch movies what are depressing? Don't read books that leave you feeling down?

Personally I love dark movies where terrible things happen to people, and I like RPGs where the same happens.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOnly actual play can be, in GNS, one of the three things.  But a game can support and encourage a chosen one of those things.

My sense, being a person who (personally) doesn't use the terms much, is that a game is incoherent not when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and supports Y.  It's much simpler than that.  It's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X.  If it supports X and Y (and possibly Z, epsilon and Squid) then that's cool ... so long as it actually supports the way it tells you to play the game.

Anyway, like I said:  Not an expert.  But I think that's meant to be the gist.  More games should support Squid.

Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, like I said:  Not an expert.  But I think that's meant to be the gist.  More games should support Squid.

Squidism is inferior to Octopusism!

Quote from: James J SkachI mean, would D&D be coherent if it just said "Oh, by the way, you can play historical intrigue narratavist games with D20, but we think you should just play gamist adventures."?

Actually, I think this is very close to what GNS does say, as a design philosophy.

"I sweep my coat around and the bullets spark off it, like pang pang pang! I'm mighty with the power of righteousness!" Then you raise with something like this: "I Call you by your Secret Name and command you to drop the gun!"

I mean, whats not to like?

Quote from: rcsampleSquidism is inferior to Octopusism!

I'm-a gonna ink all over you.  Take that, you octopussy-whipped ... uh ... person!

Quote from: TonyLBIt's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X.

In nicely general terms, I think that's right.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm-a gonna ink all over you.  Take that, you octopussy-whipped ... uh ... person!

Not to mention that while you're arm wrestling the squid can use his extra two tentacles to poke the octopus in the eyes.

Squids #1!

And from an RPG standpoint, they're a much better D&D druid power gamer form because of the extra two tentacles. :)

The problem, as it seems to be with all Forge terms, is that it's a bad choice of words to describe the concept.

Quote from: TonyLBMy sense, being a person who (personally) doesn't use the terms much, is that a game is incoherent not when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and supports Y.  It's much simpler than that.  It's incoherent when it says "This game supports X ... X is what you play this game to do" and then doesn't, in fact, support X.  If it supports X and Y (and possibly Z, epsilon and Squid) then that's cool ... so long as it actually supports the way it tells you to play the game.

Anyway, like I said:  Not an expert.  But I think that's meant to be the gist.  More games should support Squid.

What do you mean "support," Tony? Generally when I read "this game supports Squid!" and actually read the game, it turns out to mean "This game virtually mandates Squid because the mechanics have been constructed so that you can't avoid Squid!" It's very difficult to "Drift" (did I use the term correctly? I mean Play X when only Squid is 'supported') these games without ripping them to shreds and reanimating the corpse.

-clash

Quote from: StuartThe problem, as it seems to be with all Forge terms, is that it's a bad choice of words to describe the concept.

I dunno - theres a subdiscussion about wether Inchoerence matters.

DitV, I think, for instance, takes a pretty ambivilant view on what its about. It presents an adventure format and ways of generating conflict and then sends you off to play.

It can't be incoherent cause it don't tell you how you are supposed to play it.

And its a good game. Good games don't have to be about something, they present a situation thats good for gaming - be it investigating dungeons disguised as Towns, Corporate Research Labs or Mansions your dead uncle has left you, or a politcial situation loaded with conflict (Like Vampire or Burning Empires).

Jason Morningstar says:-

QuoteI recently realized that I have no control over how people use and play my games, and that this isn't actually problematic. It sounds funny in the clear light of reason but I really needed to internalize this and stop worrying about it.

Ben Lehman says

QuoteThe thing about all these question type things is that my response is "huh, but I'll only be able to answer that when the game is done." (On reflection, the one game I ever could complete the power 19 about was a better thought-experiment than actual game ... huh.)

And not, like "done in my head." Like "done, playtested, revised, playtested more, about twenty times, printed, demoed at gencon, run for a thirty groups at cons and such, played with my good friends at home, shown to my mother and brother, discussed on the Forge for a year" done.

Seriously, people. You are thinking about the implications and social structures and design goals and creative agenda and such in your games while you design them? It's not that I don't believe you can, or that I don't believe that you do, it's just like looking at aliens reproduce with, I dunno, mechanical spores or something.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat do you mean "support," Tony?

What do I mean?  I mean it makes it easy to Squid.  You don't have to kit-bash rules for sucker-damage, or fudge the character creation rules that make builds of more than four arms prohibitively costly.  You don't have to consistently ignore the "aircraft piloting skills" section.  You just play the game, using the rules, and aiming for Squid, and the rules help you reach Squid.

Often, to my mind, support goes along with reward mechanics:  Playing Squid is the way to win the game, for some clear-cut measure of winning.

Like, for instance, there's the fallout rules in DitV:  As folks have pointed out, the smart way to game those rules is to have lots of conflicts where you take lots and lots of fallout at the level of talking and physical confrontation.

If you do that, you will find that you are having lots of conversations where both sides are scoring some really telling verbal points on each other, but neither side is willing to give up.  You're going to end up with situations where nobody is clearly right, and nobody is clearly wrong ... where each side has a strong, valid argument.  And you want the other guy to have a strong, valid argument, you want to explicitly and clearly take the hits from that, because that's where you get the fallout.

So I look at Dogs and I say "That game supports a strategy of letting other people get their licks in."  I can see, right there in the rules, that it's a good strategy, and that I'm going to benefit by pursuing it.  Since, as it turns out, that makes a world of sense with the types of stories that the game claims it's for telling, I'm pretty happy with that.

Does that make sense?  I know it's a bit wishy-washy, but I protest once more:  Not an expert! :D

Give an example of a non-Forge game that is incoherent.  Pick something fairly mainstream and well known.  I'm suggesting that whatever you pick, "incoherent" won't be the right term to describe that game and any perceived problems with it.  

"Incoherent" means it doesn't make any bloody sense.

Whatever game you suggest, I doubt it's actually "incoherent".

So the Forge concept might be ok -- some games don't mechanically support the thing they're supposed to be about -- but using the word "incoherent" is a poor choice.  As usual. :)

Quote from: TonyLBSince, as it turns out, that makes a world of sense with the types of stories that the game claims it's for telling

Where does it claim what sorts of stories its for telling?

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhere does it claim what sorts of stories its for telling?

Well, on the back of my book (which is first edition, so YMMV) it says

QuoteYou stand between God's law and the best intentions of the weak.

You stand between God's people and their own demons.

Sometimes it's better for one to die than for many to suffer.  Sometimes, Dog, sometimes you have to cut off the arm to save the life.

Does the sinner deserve mercy?  Do the wicked deserve judgment?

They're in your hands.

That conveys (to me) the image of a game in which people wrestle with moral issues for which there are no easy answers.  Again, YMMV.

Quote from: Stuart"Incoherent" means it doesn't make any bloody sense.

Uh ... well, no.  "Nonsensical" means it doesn't make any sense.

Dictionary.com gives me the following for Incoherent:

Quote1. without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.  
2. characterized by such thought or language, as a person: incoherent with rage.  
3. not coherent or cohering: an incoherent mixture.  
4. lacking physical cohesion; loose: incoherent dust.  
5. lacking unity or harmony of elements: an incoherent public.  
6. lacking congruity of parts; uncoordinated.  
7. different or incompatible by nature, as things.  
8. Physics. (of a wave) having a low degree of coherence. Compare coherent (def. 4).

At least five of those definitions (1, 2, 3, 5, 6) seem, to me, to make perfect sense of a game where the description of the game is not meaningfully connected to the actual experience that the game supports.

I totally agree with you that the connotations of the word "incoherent" cover a much broader gamut than this.  It's a very poorly chosen word to communicate to people who are going to use it loosely.  But that doesn't seem (to me) to be because Ron wasn't paying attention to the formal definition of the word.  Do you disagree?

Quote from: TonyLBAgain, YMMV.

Yeah - this is key, since the description also fits with the

Quote"I sweep my coat around and the bullets spark off it, like pang pang pang! I'm mighty with the power of righteousness!" Then you raise with something like this: "I Call you by your Secret Name and command you to drop the gun!"

Its flavour text old son. The closest the text comes to saying what the game about is that over time the standpoints of the characters will become clear, and that its fun to watch people take positions on things. It may be about old testament retribution, or weedy librul modern man brings light to the uneducated old timers or whatever, or mormon ass kicking.

But what its about will only become clear when it is played. As with any game.

So DitV is a great game. But is it great because, or in spite of, the forge?

Calling a game "incoherent" to most people means this:
1. without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.

As in...

QuoteLOU: Here's the new copy game you wanted.

PETERMAN: Ah, yes. Well this certainly looks like a lot of words. In record time. I'm very impressed ... with both of you.

ELAINE: Thank you. ha ha

PETERMAN: Unfortunately, I am also disgusted. This is incoherent dribble! This is a total redo and I'm assuming I need it right away.

ELAINE: Well, I guess we'll just Hey, just gimme that.

Is Peterman saying the copy game is is not meaningfully connected to the actual experience that it supports.  Or is he saying that it doesn't making any bloody sense? :)

Whether Ron doesn't speak very well and didn't understand what the word means to most people, or whether he does understand, and has setup his Jargon so that he can politely say he's disgusted by other games and that they're incoherent drivel -- I can only speculate.

Quote from: Erik BoielleSo DitV is a great game. But is it great because, or in spite of, the forge?

You could ask VB.

I think one of the great things about DitV – maybe the greatest thing – is that it can take both Tony and Erik on.

Quote from: droogYou could ask VB.

Nah - he probably doesn't understand his own design techniques.

:-)

QuoteI think one of the great things about DitV – maybe the greatest thing – is that it can take both Tony and Erik on.

Yeah. For a True classic, like, er, Star Wars*, you want to be all things to all men (is it nazi bashing in space? or samurai in space? or epic mythslinging? or low down and dirty smuggling? Surprise! Its all of the above, and more!).

Not that possibly you need that kind of flexibility, and you probably can't set out to do it, but Vampire and Dogs have it in spades.

*Works for shakespeare to mind.

Quote from: SethwickWow... that's some opinion you got there... I've never heard anyone state quite so clearly their objection to RPGs having serious themes. It's just like... Wow.

So you don't watch movies what are depressing? Don't read books that leave you feeling down?

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

RPGPundit

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

Yes, this is an important point for angsty writers and designers to consider.

I don't know where DitV falls in this regard.

DitV is as depressing as you want to make it.

It's about freakin' mormons in rainbow coats. Not the biggest goth appeal, though the subject is way too dark for me. I'd rather play Kult...

Quote from: Sosthenesthough the subject is way too dark for me.

But it doesn't have to be dark! You don't Have to enforce the religion as is! You are explicitly given free rein to sort out problems! If you want to declare that homosexuality is a valid life choice you can! You can bring enlightenment to the faith with your words, or your oversized cap and ball revolver whatever is your whim! The Faith is just there to create conflict! How you sort it out is left to the players!

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.

Quote from: James J SkachIs there anything in Dogs that requires the GM answer this way, or is this just Mr. Baker's style?

The bit in GMing entitled "Don't Play God".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe bit in GMing entitled "Don't Play God".

Is that the entirety of it?  Because, boy, could that be taken any number of ways.

I mean, providing a cryptic, or even clear, answer to the question of "what does my god want me to do," IMHO, does not mean "playing God." If anything, the designer of the world in which the game is being played is "playing God" as much as the GM, at that point.

Quote from: James J SkachIs that the entirety of it?

Nope; that's just the title of the bit.

Basically, it's "Do not have prepared or concieved 'right' answers to moral questions.  That's not your job; it's the players job.  If you have prepared right answers, then you're not just posing a moral question, you're also answering it, which is no damn good."

It's a bit longer, but that's the basics.

Quote from: James J SkachIs that the entirety of it?  Because, boy, could that be taken any number of ways.

I mean, providing a cryptic, or even clear, answer to the question of "what does my god want me to do," IMHO, does not mean "playing God." If anything, the designer of the world in which the game is being played is "playing God" as much as the GM, at that point.

No, it's a bit more specific than that. It means don't play the in game God. The King of Life. You are not Him. You didn't write his scriptures. It is the players job to decide what the King of Life wants and what He believes. Whatever their characters do, in a sense, defines that. A Dog can do nothing that is not the will of the King of Life. What it amounts to is that, in game, no one has any real authority judge the PC but himself (although some would certainly try). Out of game, the GM does not judge the players or their characters. He ain't god.

So, there is possibly the first thing I've seen in DitV (not having bought it) that really is different. It's actually a very neat device to instantiate player empowerment. Nicely done.

Quote from: SethwickA Dog can do nothing that is not the will of the King of Life.

Ah, I think they can, but the only people who will know it are the Dog and his player.

So you can call down the wrath of a vengeful god on your renegade Dog, should you so wish (with, like, Thunderbolts and Avenging Angels, ifn you want).

And everyone else can wind you up talking about how Whatever happens was gods will anyway.

But you'll still know, deep down, if your guy really betrayed him.

Incidentally, it is my experience that having lots of player input often fails miserably - if you want to get deep in to this you either need to accept that sometimes the story is gonna go nowhere, or else have the GM have some fallback material he can bring in when things stop.

That and serve alcohol. Lots of alcohol.

Maybe in Dogs you shouldn't be afraid to kill the town and go on to the next one. And have some thoughts about where the traps might go.

I think it's funny & cool that Jim & Erik are so upbeat about exactly the thing that annoys me the most about DitV.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, there is possibly the first thing I've seen in DitV (not having bought it) that really is different. It's actually a very neat device to instantiate player empowerment. Nicely done.

Or a device to help a lazy GM.

"I hit for 6 hit points of damage. Is he dead yet?"
"It's up to you. Is he? The result... so... what is it?"

"Okay so we go into the town. What shops are there?"
"If you want there to be shops, there are shops. There's a shop... so... what is it?"

"I pray for guidance from my god."
"Okay, I give. You win. You now know exactly what God wants you to do. So ... what is it?"

"Player empowerment" can be, though is not always, another way of saying, "lazy GM."

Quote from: JimBobOz"Player empowerment" can be, though is not always, another way of saying, "lazy GM."

Can be, sure.

I'm lazy about some stuff, and hyper-keen on other stuff.  The group works with me, and it all works.

So, whatever.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think it's funny & cool that Jim & Erik are so upbeat about exactly the thing that annoys me the most about DitV.

Yes, and that Erik is such a fan.

DitV is about fanaticism. It's about the power of absolute assurance, when one will not entertain doubt or uncertainty. Whatever you do, however you carry out the mission, that is how God wants it done. No hesitation, no uncertainty, just do it. Satan's crime was not that he rebelled against God, but that he doubted God.

Quote from: mythusmageDitV is about fanaticism. It's about the power of absolute assurance, when one will not entertain doubt or uncertainty. Whatever you do, however you carry out the mission, that is how God wants it done. No hesitation, no uncertainty, just do it. Satan's crime was not that he rebelled against God, but that he doubted God.

The hesitation and uncertainty comes before you do what you do, and while you do what you do. After it's done, it's done, however it's done.

The best play in Dogs is in the uncertainty. And 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.

Quote from: droogYes, and that Erik is such a fan.

Dude!

I'm an ardent internet flamewarrior, so issues of Truth and interpretation of Canon and Intent are dear to my heart. I went to church for the first eighteen years of my life and my Mum has a vast collection off books on subjects like 'Feminist Theology' and 'Enviromental Theology' and the similarity between this vast body of work and internet arguments about the meaning of Star Wars entertains, appalls and scare me all at the same time. I've got an extensive collection of hang ups about the importance of pro-activity and chosing your own path. And I've got a fetish for precussion revolvers.

I'm so there.

Quote from: droogThe hesitation and uncertainty comes before you do what you do, and while you do what you do. After it's done, it's done, however it's done.

The best play in Dogs is in the uncertainty. And 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.

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

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 :D

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.

(http://dns.websitemanagement.net/clients/404/full_532_photo1.jpg)

(http://www.johnnyg.westhost.com/cwg53-savage-s.JPG)

(http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976666454-1.jpg)

(http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/123-4995A.JPEG)

(http://www.leverguns.com/images/fig8_1.jpg)

Loading your black powder revolver!

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/product_features/photos/pages/pf_bploading_large.html

And cleaning it (assuming you have access to modern cleaning products).

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/product_features/photos/pages/pf_bpcleaning_large.html

Although that second video does show how you take the cylinder out.

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

Wow.  I hope you know the breed well enough by now to stop getting killed by them.

Quote from: Divine HammerWow.  I hope you know the breed well enough by now to stop getting killed by them.

It helps I'm now living in a country where the fanatics don't have the control they once had. But it's really a matter of; speak softly, nod your head a lot, and keep your escape routes open. :)

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

uhh...what?

Quote from: kregmosieruhh...what?

To further confuse you ...

Quote from: Ludwig von Wolfgang VultureA thousand deaths is not cowardice, it is merely repetition.