Earlier today I ran a REALLY good session of my STAR TREK mini-campaign adapted to GURPS.
If you saw my update to that character & name thread - then you know the premise of today's game session.
The players are the command crew of a Starfleet Destroyer. (Saladin-class that beem "Arams-ized") Their mission was to determine if a newly discovered intelliogent race qualifies for membership in the Federation or not.
First off, it turns out the natives are only around a Tech Level 6 in their devlopment (About 1916 to 1920s level of Tech ...if that). The ship detects very primitive flickering Television images being transmitted between two points on the planet. The Communications and science specialists figure out that this invention of 'television' only likely happened because the people on the planet studied Federation technology that might have crashed on the planet.
The Crew decided to beam down in two groups and to disguise themselves in hooded cloaks that approximate the native clothing that they saw on TV images. The 2nd group is mostly security personnel thjat beams down 30 minutes after the first bunch.
They get a response radio signal from a leader of the P'Chenqa named Chirneg, they meet up with him and then are taken to the main large village/"city" by way of a steam-powered open top wheeled vehicle that mostly looks like a wooden van with no roof. (VERY noisy steam-powered vehicle it is)
The Starfleet characters have a slightly- out-of-date Universal Translator that gives them a slight edge on communicating with The P'Cheqa and it helps figure out who the 'Tenq ' are.
It turns out the Tenk or P'Chenqa Tenq are a servant class or slave group that is sometimes treated badly by the majority of the population. It also winds up being determined that much of advance in the local technology is because of stuff scavenged and studied from a crashed Federation starship from 20 years earlier. The natives even have an old Stafrleet Uniform pinned to a wall as a shrine or tribute to 'The One Who Fell From The Sky". (Imagine that blue type uniform that Kirk's Dad and Captain Robeau wore in the new movie - that vintage )
The game session was scheduled from 2pm to 6pm at a local game store. Around 5pm the playershad the majority of the info they needed and many suspicions confirmed. They also had ddecided that there HAD been an accidental violation of the Prime Directive because of the crash of the earlier space vessel.
They basically told the local leaders : "WE are NOT Gods. " and "If you wanmt to ever join the Federation , then NO Slaves or slavery , and you can't be warring with each other."
Then they beamed the heck out of there and got out of Dodge.
For their last aqct - they had the ship's engineer start a local thunderstorm with a trick of the ship's phasers, then made a phaser beam appear to be a lightning bolt that - that took out and destroyed thenative-built tower that had the subspace transmitter. That way no other ships could stumble across the pre-warp civilization.
Here's the Horrible Realization thought I had later:
From what I've read about the game Dogs In The Vineyard, the player characters going around investigating towns and their populations in the old west and then pass judgemenbt on them in some fashion. Sometimes that judgement is harsh and dramatic.
The situation in my game session kind of parallels that idea - the players pass judgement on a location - whether or not the people deserve to be in the Heavens or travel in the Heavens above (be a part of an Interstellar Federation).
Yikes!, what a thought !!
STAR TREK could be run with DITV as a constant 'judging planets and their peoples" campaign.
Am I right ?
Or am I full of shit on this ?
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;363709STAR TREK could be run with DITV as a constant 'judging planets and their peoples" campaign.
That was the second re-skin I did of Dogs. 2006 or so. The critical points of contact for a DOgs re-skin seem to be:
* episodic
* characters judging people/communities
* community with a deep flaw
Obviously TOS is a clean fit.
Quote from: Halfjack;363711That was the second re-skin I did of Dogs. 2006 or so. The critical points of contact for a DOgs re-skin seem to be:
* episodic
* characters judging people/communities
* community with a deep flaw
Obviously TOS is a clean fit.
Still strikes me as a very horrible thought.
The Premise to DITV always seemed annoying to me.
Then again - the TREK version doesn't involve burning towns or passing a religious judgement.
That planet on its people were put on a 'hold' or caution because they still have a form of slavery there. No members of the local population were killed by Starfleet personnel. Hell, the ship commander even gave the local leader a warning that a small army was heading his way from a northern competing city-state.
- Ed C.
Yes, it actually is a close fit. But what makes DitV and why you would probably never use it for Trek, Ed, is that if you followed DitV practices...
No Starfleet regulations could ever be set in stone by the GM; the only thing keeping a player from declaring that the Prime Directive required dropping Elvis records and the blueprint for an A-bomb on the planet would be the other players. If they were okay with it, no Federation court-martial could say otherwise.
Players would have enormous control over the consequences of losing an argument, a fistfight, or even getting shot. (The rules could still declare death but short of that, it'd be up to the player, pretty much.)
The GM also wouldn't enforce the plausibility or difficulty of most challenges; as long as the "most critical player" had no problem with a proposed course of action, its effectivess would be determined strictly by the dice used by the player. Granted this does work pretty well for technobabble solutions.
Edit: Also, yes, you as GM would be encouraged to develop scenarios based on messed-up sexual premises, the players would be encouraged to solve things by shooting people in the face (and then feeling bad about it), and the GM would also be encouraged to develop scenarios that presented increasingly tough moral conundrums for the players, based on your observation of what gets under their skin.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363715Starfleet regulations
What regulations?
Wow, this actually kind of makes me want to play Dogs in the Vineyard.
Quote from: ticopelp;363717Wow, this actually kind of makes me want to play Dogs in the Vineyard.
BLASPHEMER!!!!
Don't Be-smirch the Great Bird of the Galaxy that way !!
(Shut up Jeff) Actually, thats a double in-joke. My Uncle, Aunt, and all my cousins are Church of Latter-Day Saints. (Also known as Mormons)
One of the many reasons I'm never likely to play DITV
(Or as I call it PITS)- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;363718Actually, thats a double in-joke. My Uncle, Aunt, and all my cousins are Church of Latter-Day Saints. (Also known as Mormons)
One of the many reasons I'm never likely to play DITV (Or as I call it PITS)
Good thing the game has a section for adapting the Faith to other religions/value-sets. It acknowledges not everyone is going to dig Mormonism or Utah.
Quote from: Koltar;363718BLASPHEMER!!!!
:eek:
Hey, I only said kind of... besides, my group would never go for it.
Quote from: Koltar;363718BLASPHEMER!!!!
Don't Be-smirch the Great Bird of the Galaxy that way !!
(Shut up Jeff)
- Ed C.
You know, you become more like this guy every day...
I don't care if you masturbate over the corpse of Gene Roddenberry. I just don't want you to hurt anyone when you rob convenience stores while doing your Klingon cosplay.
(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/2009/0204/18642086_640X480.jpg)
Quote from: Peregrin;363716What regulations?
Yes, well, that's the problem with translating something from book or TV to RPG. In the TV series, Kirk is a cool dude because he finds ways to get around regulations and proves himself right in the end. The regulations have "weight" earned by the writer and sold to the audience, which makes Kirk's approach all the more courageous, clever, and/or asinine depending on your perspective. In an RPG, the DitV approach blends author & audience in the person of the player, and the decision to override the letter of the law carries no risk and no doubt. (Edit: because the law is completely insubstantial.)
You might as well say that since the TV series never sees death for a member of the bridge crew, the game should similarly have a known 0% chance of a PC ever dying. I'm not saying that's an utterly invalid approach; however it does significantly remove the player from thinking in terms that the character would. That may not matter to the group, in which case: fine. But if it does, then something needs to be done to maintain that sense of risk & danger.
Quote from: ticopelp;363721:eek:
Hey, I only said kind of... besides, my group would never go for it.
The group today loved the game session.
At one point, I actually said something sort of like "Sorry, if there doesn't seem to be much combst going on ." I said it half-jokingly.
The players response ? : "No, this is great I'm enjoying this stuff. "
One of my long-term players is part of this group, in the past she has said about my game sessions: "Ed often does a mystery that has to be solved and thats a big part of the fun. "
They had a good time investigating the situation and trying not to start any conflicts. They were very prepared and there were instances of a player saying "Okay, I get my hand near my phaser ...just in case." For most of the game the characters were wearing cloaks or robes that hid their uniforms, weapons, and tricorders.
Heck, the main GURPS stat they rolled against most often was probably Perception. There was one instance of Stealth used, and a diplomacy skill rolll when an NPC was on the verge of being shocked /mind-blown by what one of the players was saying.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363727Yes, well, that's the problem with translating something from book or TV to RPG...
It was just a joke, dude. ;)
Quote from: Koltar;363713The Premise to DITV always seemed annoying to me.
Then again - the TREK version doesn't involve burning towns or passing a religious judgement.
Maybe not in your game, but I recommend a close review of
The Omega Glory (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Omega_Glory_(episode)). Starfleet at its finest. :)
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;363741Maybe not in your game, but I recommend a close review of The Omega Glory (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Omega_Glory_(episode)). Starfleet at its finest. :)
!i!
I've seen it.
have the DVD.
Not one of their better episodes.
In the campaign I'm running the players & I are trying to do the whole thing as "What if it were done right with this look and trappings?"
(as in the ABRAMS-verse style of ships and uniforms) Prime example: The women officers wear the dark gray pants, NO mini-skirts on this ship for the main characters. (
Unless she is off-duty and thats what she considers a comfortable garment) - Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;363713Still strikes me as a very horrible thought.
The Premise to DITV always seemed annoying to me.
Then again - the TREK version doesn't involve burning towns or passing a religious judgement.
That planet on its people were put on a 'hold' or caution because they still have a form of slavery there. No members of the local population were killed by Starfleet personnel. Hell, the ship commander even gave the local leader a warning that a small army was heading his way from a northern competing city-state.
- Ed C.
Prime Directive is meant to prevent the crews from passing any judgement, but truth be told, ST characters spend a lot of time doing things that boder breaking the Directive, or breaking it.
Thing is, Dogs are not hold by an external law. What they decide is automatically right. The Lord is never going to manifest Himself to tell them they're doing it wrong.
Though there are some common points, there are also fundamentl differences.
I dunno' Ed, all this seems very thespy. It sounds like it was an interesting adventure and the most important thing is of course the players had fun. What I want to know is, what was the decision making process like ? Did they come up with these plans together or the did the Captain just give the orders? Was there some PC Vs PC conflict about how to resolve things ?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Koltar;363742I've seen it.
have the DVD.
Not one of their better episodes.
It's extremely heavy-handed, yes. The Yangs and the Kohms -- I get it. Still, not out of keeping with any number of episodes.
Also, you know,
Dogs in the Vineyard isn't a bad game, in either premise or execution. It has a bad reputation in some circles, but mostly by association (with either The Forge or Mormonism, or both). Don't let that bug you. I'm not suggesting that you run out and buy a copy, but don't be afraid to let the general concept influence your games, especially if you're running episodic mini-campaigns like you're describing. As long as you're not shorting your players and you're all having a good time, it's all good.
!i!
I like Star Trek, and I like Dog in the Vineyard. And yes, the Dogs are the ultimate authority ON SITE, but that doesn't mean that the big bosses back at the Temple might not take an exception if/when they find out about how a town was burned down. Its important to remember that there IS that one more layer of authority on Earth before you get to God calling the shots. In that regard, consider the Temple authority to be Starfleet Command. Then I'd say it'd be a pretty clean fit.
That said, I've always thought DitV works almost perfectly for Firefly, for example.
Quote from: Werekoala;363790That said, I've always thought DitV works almost perfectly for Firefly, for example.
Very true. And, of course,
Firefly is just someone's Actual-Play-log from their
Traveller game, so it almost comes full-circle.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;363793Very true. And, of course, Firefly is just someone's Actual-Play-log from their Traveller game, so it almost comes full-circle.
Which explains my unhealthy love for
Firefly. :)
Yeah, as several people have pointed out, Star Trek original series is an almost perfect fit for Dogs in the Vinyard. But don't go questioning your assinine prejudices if it really hurts that much.
Yeah, God forbid anyone ever makes a moral judgement in a game, heavens no! :)
Some people really enjoy a "tough moral choice" situation when it sort of just happens but would be weirded out at the idea of having that kind of situation actually represented in the rules, I think? If so, that's a fair perspective. I don't personally agree, but I understand where they're coming from.
Different people can want similar things but take very different approaches towards the goal. I tried Dogs in a group, it pretty much ran like you described your Trek situation, my dude almost shot a man in cold blood but backed down and left in disgrace, fun was had by all. I mean, "making moral judgements" isn't really that auteur or pretentious since, like you say, almost any Trek episode can be thought of in those terms.
The difference in mechanical terms was that rather than sort of putting the system over to the side while we did that stuff, we could affect "that stuff" directly with the stuff on our character sheets, and the consequences of my PC's actions ended up going back onto the character sheet as Fallout. I'd imagine with GURPS Trek that tension of "situation rife with conflict, outcome uncertain" and making judgements that could come back to bite you in the ass is totally there, still. It's just represented more in the setting elements than in the system.
Quote from: Peregrin;363733It was just a joke, dude. ;)
It wouldn't be funny if it didn't have a seed of truth to it, so whether or not you meant to raise it, there was an issue there that I thought was worth addressing.
Quote from: Werekoala;363797Which explains my unhealthy love for Firefly. :)
:worship:
As far as I can tell, Dogs in the Vineyard is "Mormonism" via Hollywood (Not literally)
Quote from: Werekoala;363790I like Star Trek, and I like Dog in the Vineyard. And yes, the Dogs are the ultimate authority ON SITE, but that doesn't mean that the big bosses back at the Temple might not take an exception if/when they find out about how a town was burned down. Its important to remember that there IS that one more layer of authority on Earth before you get to God calling the shots. In that regard, consider the Temple authority to be Starfleet Command. Then I'd say it'd be a pretty clean fit.
I just want to say, I think this is also an interesting point. There are still a lot of ways that I find DitV annoying in its attempts to square the circle re: simulation and storytelling. And I don't recall how the game itself recommends handling "Temple review" in terms of impact on actual play.
Nevertheless if in Star Trek, you played out the response of Star Fleet to the PCs' borderline judgments, or rather the response of certain factions or individuals in Star Fleet, as a conflict, you might have something there. But that would still have to be circumscribed by a higher authority above the pure mechanics, for it to work for me. In other words if the players see a court martial/bureaucratic ruling/whatever as a judgment call or political wrangle due to actual ambiguity within the setting, that's one thing. If they see the mechanics as a way to redefine the setting at will, then it's something else altogether, and highly anti-immersive. Same goes for the GM--a GM who declares a conflict on flimsy premise and then refuses to Give as long he's got the dice, is going to destroy the integrity of the setting.
I think that is the biggest misconception about DitV - that the players have a completely free hand to do whatever they want, using God's Will as their justification. Doesn't work that way (or at least, it shouldn't). They are given their authority by the Elders of the Temple who get THEIR authority from God (supposedly), and the Dogs are the "paladins" of the faith, if you will, who still have to answer to the Elders. I think they're supposed to go back once a year or something and make a report if I remember correctly (been a couple of years) - but at least in my recollection, there isn't a carte blanc to do what thou wilt.
That'd be WoD.
Of course you could always have your Starfleet officers find and judge a Utah in 1890 planet.
That'd be the next system over from the OK Corral planet. :)
Quote from: Werekoala;363910That'd be the next system over from the OK Corral planet. :)
*Starts playing "Ringo"*
Quote from: Werekoala;363905I think that is the biggest misconception about DitV - that the players have a completely free hand to do whatever they want, using God's Will as their justification. Doesn't work that way (or at least, it shouldn't). They are given their authority by the Elders of the Temple who get THEIR authority from God (supposedly), and the Dogs are the "paladins" of the faith, if you will, who still have to answer to the Elders. I think they're supposed to go back once a year or something and make a report if I remember correctly (been a couple of years) - but at least in my recollection, there isn't a carte blanc to do what thou wilt.
That'd be WoD.
Sure, but again, how do you handle "answering to the Elders"?
The answer to that question is more academic (viz. "just how much don't the DitV RAW work as far as I'm concerned?"). How I'd handle Star Fleet is another matter. Which is: if a crew(member) did something which is questionable, or on which a point of fact is disputable, then a DitV-style conflict
could be used to play through the legal-political wrangle. Although there would still be a lot of problems to overcome, from establishing the dice of the prosecution, to deciding when one side or the other simply ought to give regardless of what the dice say.
Quote from: Sweeney;363814Some people really enjoy a "tough moral choice" situation when it sort of just happens but would be weirded out at the idea of having that kind of situation actually represented in the rules, I think? If so, that's a fair perspective. I don't personally agree, but I understand where they're coming from.
Just a little detail, as far as I understand DitV (haven't played it yet), the tough moral choice is the direction Vincent Baker tells GMs to follow in his GM advice section. It's not implemented in a hard way by the rules but the game is supposed to be underwhelming if the GM avoids this angle.
Compared to the typical WoD game where immoral behavior leads to mechanical drop in moral/psychological trait(s) there's a clear difference. If I remember correctly "tough moral choices" in DitV are the original case of "fruitful void" which has become a story-gamers fad at some point. Though there is something titillating about this "not present in the rules but implied by it" meme. Especially if one observe other type of games like Diplomacy (no rules about trust/betrayal, but it's all about it).
Quote from: boulet;363918Just a little detail, as far as I understand DitV (haven't played it yet), the tough moral choice is the direction Vincent Baker tells GMs to follow in his GM advice section. It's not implemented in a hard way by the rules but the game is supposed to be underwhelming if the GM avoids this angle.
Compared to the typical WoD game where immoral behavior leads to mechanical drop in moral/psychological trait(s) there's a clear difference. If I remember correctly "tough moral choices" in DitV are the original case of "fruitful void" which has become a story-gamers fad at some point. Though there is something titillating about this "not present in the rules but implied by it" meme. Especially if one observe other type of games like Diplomacy (no rules about trust/betrayal, but it's all about it).
Try putting what you're saying into English, instead of pseudo-technical terms.
Quote from: Werekoala;363910That'd be the next system over from the OK Corral planet. :)
...and that was
another terrible episode that now - doesn't happen!!.
I love running this TREK game in a Clean Slate Universe.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363877As far as I can tell, Dogs in the Vineyard is "Mormonism" via Hollywood (Not literally)
Exactly. As far as I can tell there isn't a single thing in DitV that comes from actual Mormon doctrine, with the possible exception of a belief in an infallable church hierarchy. But a lot of faiths seem to have that issue...
For the record, I enjoyed nearly all of the TOS episodes, but especially seasons one and two.
Spock's Brain is certainly an exception to this. There is no excuse for that episode. No excuse at all.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363919Try putting what you're saying into English, instead of pseudo-technical terms.
Don't you see? He's speaking FRENCH! GHAH! Sometimes I think you aren't even a rodent!
-clash
Quote from: PaladinCA;363943Spock's Brain is certainly an exception to this. There is no excuse for that episode. No excuse at all.
"Brain and brain, what is brain?"
Quote from: PaladinCA;363942Exactly. As far as I can tell there isn't a single thing in DitV that comes from actual Mormon doctrine, with the possible exception of a belief in an infallable church hierarchy. But a lot of faiths seem to have that issue...
We don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. The closest we have is two specific beliefs - That the Prophet is always right when speaking through the Spirit and that if he lead us astray, God would remove him.
There are two related qualifiers for that: First, we are to pray to find out for ourselves whether the Prophet is right and whether he is a Prophet and two, the second only applies if the Prophet who said that was "speaking through the Spirit".
So no, we don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. We just believe they'll be corrected if they're wrong - And, of course, we need to "Think, ponder and pray" to find out for ourselves.
...But this is getting rather off-topic, so I'll close here. If anyone wants to reply, quote me in the Pundit's forum and send me a PM, so I know the thread is there.
Quote from: jeff37923;363723You know, you become more like this guy every day...
I don't care if you masturbate over the corpse of Gene Roddenberry. I just don't want you to hurt anyone when you rob convenience stores while doing your Klingon cosplay.
There are a lot of ways you could respond to Koltar's quote that do not involve insinuating that he's a criminal, Jeff. Please pick one of those other ways. This sort of thing crosses the line.
RPGPundit
Am I on Ed's IL list ?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;363990Am I on Ed's IL list ?
Regards,
David R
No, I can still read your comments David.
I just didn't have a lot of sleep the last few days and I worked a long shift yesterday.
Almost think the game session went as well as it did because I was functioning on almost less than 2 hours' worth of sleep on Sunday.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Werekoala;363905I think that is the biggest misconception about DitV - that the players have a completely free hand to do whatever they want, using God's Will as their justification. Doesn't work that way (or at least, it shouldn't). They are given their authority by the Elders of the Temple who get THEIR authority from God (supposedly), and the Dogs are the "paladins" of the faith, if you will, who still have to answer to the Elders. I think they're supposed to go back once a year or something and make a report if I remember correctly (been a couple of years) - but at least in my recollection, there isn't a carte blanc to do what thou wilt.
That'd be WoD.
That's exactly opposite from how Dogs does it, and, yeah, no wonder people think the game sucks at that rate. :) The deal is that while the Dogs enforce frontier towns, they're totally left to their own discretion as to how to do it. The Dog speaks with the moral authority of one whom God speaks to directly, but there is no God, there's just the player running the PC.
Once the Dogs become Dogs, no one can question their judgements. Or rather, they can
question them all they want, but the Dog has the ultimate authority. And carries a gun. This being a Western setting (or Trek, right?), though, that authority comes from either convincing people to go along with your judgements,or forcing them.
As far as "the Scripture", the rulebook has a couple of basic rules that can't be violated. Except when a Dog thinks they have to be. And again these are rules that the townsfolk are breaking; Dogs are only limited by (a) their actual ability to get shit done, and (b) other Dogs.
So not exactly Trek in that sense, except I could totally see Kirk filing a report to Starfleet and just happening to leave out the part where he broke the Prime Directive six different ways.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363955We don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. The closest we have is two specific beliefs - That the Prophet is always right when speaking through the Spirit and that if he lead us astray, God would remove him.
There are two related qualifiers for that: First, we are to pray to find out for ourselves whether the Prophet is right and whether he is a Prophet and two, the second only applies if the Prophet who said that was "speaking through the Spirit".
So no, we don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. We just believe they'll be corrected if they're wrong - And, of course, we need to "Think, ponder and pray" to find out for ourselves.
...But this is getting rather off-topic, so I'll close here. If anyone wants to reply, quote me in the Pundit's forum and send me a PM, so I know the thread is there.
Personally, I prefer HBO's show "Big Love" for my Hollywood-ized Mormonism.
I mean, how can you beat Harry Dean Stanton for your prophet?
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363955We don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. The closest we have is two specific beliefs - That the Prophet is always right when speaking through the Spirit and that if he lead us astray, God would remove him.
There are two related qualifiers for that: First, we are to pray to find out for ourselves whether the Prophet is right and whether he is a Prophet and two, the second only applies if the Prophet who said that was "speaking through the Spirit".
So no, we don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. We just believe they'll be corrected if they're wrong - And, of course, we need to "Think, ponder and pray" to find out for ourselves.
Actually, Narf summed Dogs up pretty well after all, so hey! I guess it is relevant.
Replace "Prophet" with "Dogs", bam. Assume there is no God (which we can all agree on in terms of the actual RPG, at least; your PC only gets the Spirit speaking to him in the sense that you, the player, are his moral compass).
So there you go. Dogs have the authority to command almost anything. Other Dogs do too, and they can contradict each other. And average Joe Townsfolk can pray on it, and decide, well, this Dog isn't really hearing the Spirit, I am, and act against them. And then the Dog is like, well, I know what God told me (what the player wants to happen), am I gonna shoot this dude if I can't change his mind? Or two Dogs can end up drawing pistols on each other over their differing interpretations of the Spirit speaking to them.
In that sense it's a commentary on how social groups schism over different interpretations of their religion, but it's Kirk or Malcom Reynolds or Commander Shepherd, too. Society says "This is how the world works, this is how things are supposed to be". Captain Spaceman shows up and has a different opinion. Shit gets complicated. It's a good, solid setup just because it sets up conflict.
Quote from: Sweeney;364029That's exactly opposite from how Dogs does it, and, yeah, no wonder people think the game sucks at that rate. :)
Yeah, I wasn't clear if I remember the rules that way, or if that's how I did it. Must have been the latter, because it makes more sense having someone on Earth being one step above the Dogs, just in case they need reining in. And really, it makes more sense my way, so I say - unofficial variant! :)
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;363955We don't believe our hierarchy is infallible. The closest we have is two specific beliefs - That the Prophet is always right when speaking through the Spirit and that if he lead us astray, God would remove him.
In theory, you are correct. But does it really work that way? Not quite.
We could take this to a subforum Narf, but I don't think that this would be a discussion that would cause anything but pain. It is an area of my life that still brings me a lot of grief or pain and it probably always will. I probably shouldn't discuss it either.
I'll just agree that DitV has very little or nothing to do with the real church, especially the church as it stands today.
Quote from: RPGPundit;363967There are a lot of ways you could respond to Koltar's quote that do not involve insinuating that he's a criminal, Jeff. Please pick one of those other ways. This sort of thing crosses the line.
RPGPundit
There are also ways that Koltar could have made his post that did not involve a jab at me for disagreeing with him (and you) about the suppossed awesomeness of Gene Roddenberry in the past.
Quote from: Werekoala;363905That'd be WoD.
What, WW games never featured "elders" with authority over the PCs and power to back it up? Wasn't that one of the major complaints about the über-NPCs featured in the oWoD metaplot and the political structures of the various supernaturals?
Quote from: GrimGent;364081What, WW games never featured "elders" with authority over the PCs and power to back it up? Wasn't that one of the major complaints about the über-NPCs featured in the oWoD metaplot and the political structures of the various supernaturals?
Well, not the way my guys played it.
Quote from: PaladinCA;364059In theory, you are correct. But does it really work that way? Not quite.
At risk of turning things nasty I want to follow this up a little bit with some explanation of how it tends to work in practice because it's very appropriate to the question of dealing with the elders in DitVY
So, when you've prayed and gotten your answer from the spirit and you go to the elders and it disagrees with the answer they got from the spirit, what do you suppose happens?
Yup, you get their position explained to you and told to go pray again until you get the right answer.
In practice the only right answer is their answer. Now, THEY happen to be a large and diverse collection of people with varying opinions on various things and so stuff is often resolved by a vote in a council meeting, but these almost always look up the hiearchy for answers rather than down it.
Quote from: David Johansen;364095In practice the only right answer is their answer. Now, THEY happen to be a large and diverse collection of people with varying opinions on various things and so stuff is often resolved by a vote in a council meeting, but these almost always look up the hiearchy for answers rather than down it.
This is, in fact, how many decisions are reached. But you will never see a major decision proclaimed as anything other than being from the direct guidance of the President of the Church (the Prophet) or the Quorum of the Twelve.
When someone is asked to fill a local calling in the church, they will often be told that the Bishop or Stake President has felt compelled to extend that calling to them through inspiration. And while I won't deny that there is such a thing as the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the reality is that the Bishop or Stake President has met with other church leaders and discussed potential people for the positions they needed to fill. Together, they make a recommendation and then pray about that choice. If they feel good about that decision, the calling is extended.
Is prayer a factor? Sure. But it isn't the only part of the process. I took a sociology course on the organization of religion and most church hierarchies tend to follow this pattern.
Excepting, of course, The Esoteric Order of Dagon.
Quote from: PaladinCA;364116This is, in fact, how many decisions are reached. But you will never see a major decision proclaimed as anything other than being from the direct guidance of the President of the Church (the Prophet) or the Quorum of the Twelve.
When someone is asked to fill a local calling in the church, they will often be told that the Bishop or Stake President has felt compelled to extend that calling to them through inspiration. And while I won't deny that there is such a thing as the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the reality is that the Bishop or Stake President has met with other church leaders and discussed potential people for the positions they needed to fill. Together, they make a recommendation and then pray about that choice. If they feel good about that decision, the calling is extended.
Is prayer a factor? Sure. But it isn't the only part of the process. I took a sociology course on the organization of religion and most church hierarchies tend to follow this pattern.
"Together, they make a recommendation and then pray about that choice. If they feel good about that decision, the calling is extended."
In other words, the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;364120"Together, they make a recommendation and then pray about that choice. If they feel good about that decision, the calling is extended."
In other words, the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
I suppose. My point is that it isn't the decision or inspiration of just one man. If a prophet was to "lead the church astray," it would actually be a group of men leading it astray. And that is why no LDS prophet has led the church astray. It isn't possible given the decision making process.
It also has the benefit of reinforcing the "inspirational decisions" that are made, because he would be removed by God if he was leading the church the wrong way. Since he isn't removed, he must be leading it correctly. Neat.
Kind of like when the prophet is right, he was talking with "the spirit." If the prophet was wrong about something, he was talking as "a man." Apparently Brigham Young did a lot of talking as "a man." Kind of a convenient guideline for church leadership when you think about it. Brilliant really.
As I said, my intent was to provide insight for running Dogs in the Vineyard not to provoke the discussion further.
But in that light, I often joke that leadership callings are 10% inspiration 90% desperation.
If you deal with the elders in DitVY this could be a good way to model it. These are busy, dedicated people who are often more concerned about getting back to their cows and kids than finding the truth or making the right. In fact, given the moral nature of the game that could be a very interesting way to run it.
re. Brigham Young, it always seemed to me that the trick would be to get him to stop talking, the guy would go on extemporaneously for hours on end.
Quote from: David Johansen;364130As I said, my intent was to provide insight for running Dogs in the Vineyard not to provoke the discussion further.
But in that light, I often joke that leadership callings are 10% inspiration 90% desperation.
If you deal with the elders in DitVY this could be a good way to model it. These are busy, dedicated people who are often more concerned about getting back to their cows and kids than finding the truth or making the right. In fact, given the moral nature of the game that could be a very interesting way to run it.
re. Brigham Young, it always seemed to me that the trick would be to get him to stop talking...
In light of the topic at hand, and considering that the Dogs are a fictional entity, it would still be pretty cool to have dealings with a hierarchy. The Dogs would obviously make decisions and have near impunity, much like British Naval Commanders during the 17th and 18th Centuries. But their decisions could be reviewed by a higher authority and that could lead to some fun roleplaying moments.
Also, the decisions surrounding the Prime Directive do lend themselves well to the mechanical aspects of DitV. Following the Jedi Code would also lend itself well to the mechanics of DitV. Moral quandries, ethical situations, and that sort of thing work well.
And Ed, it isn't anything to AARRGGHH Wtf? about really. Regardless of your mechanics, it sounds like you had a good game. And plenty of people that play DitV have good games. No need for false and divisive swinery labels.
Hey, don't go messing with Ed's simplistic us vs. them worldview!
Quote from: two_fishes;364158Hey, don't go messing with Ed's simplistic us vs. them worldview!
"Must worship the great leader."
Quote from: PaladinCA;364135And Ed, it isn't anything to AARRGGHH Wtf? about really. Regardless of your mechanics, it sounds like you had a good game. And plenty of people that play DitV have good games. No need for false and divisive swinery labels.
Nope.
It was several hours after I was home, and I my brain was working on very little sleep hours.
I really did have tne mental thought equivalent opf : "AARRGGHH Wtf?" or "Oh Shit!" when I realized the parallel to the basic premise of PiTS...Sorry DiTV.
The main difference in attitude and style tho is that the characters in my scenario aren't harsh judges of the situation. They have to decide what is best for everybody - both native P'Chenqa and others that might stumble across the planet. When they destroyed that subspace radiop with their phaser beam - they were doing that so that other interstellar travelers would not be lured to the planet to make the cultural contamination worse ...or possibly exploiut the native population.
As for Puppies in the ...Dogs in the Vineyard? Kind of already know I would playing in or running the game. There is a wikipedia article on it and other extracts I've read from it and about it. Definitely a screwed up game as far as RPGs go.
And yeah - my players did have a good time. The guy playing the Captain turns out to be an atheist in real life and has issues with religion in general. When the NPC leader of the P'Chenqa was referring to the Starfleret officers as
'Messengers of the Gods' or as ones that
'travel with and near the Gods' - he had a problem with that. As a result in-charascter he did his best to straighten out the idea and get the P'Chenqa thinking closer to the reality of the situation.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;364161As for Puppies in the ...Dogs in the Vineyard? Kind of already know I would playing in or running the game. There is a wikipedia article on it and other extracts I've read from it and about it. Definitely a screwed up game as far as RPGs go.
Do you find Dark Heresy screwed up at all?
Quote from: Peregrin;364164Do you find Dark Heresy screwed up at all?
You mean the 40K universe in general?
Yes.
There are past threads on here somewhere where I lamented the lack of any 'sympathetic' or "good Guy" factions in the WH 40K universe.
The funny thing is that regular customers to the store who play WARHAMMER 40K all the time have agreed with me on that one.(!)
- Ed C.
I think there is something missing in the ST/DitV comparison and that's authority. Not the authority of God or Starfleet Command/Elders, but in the PC party. There's only one captain on a starfleet vessel. Yeah sometimes Kirk, Spock or McCoy would work at cross purposes but for the most part it was "our party vs. the planet". In DitV, all the Dogs are equal and in any given "episode" they may have different motivations, intents and holding different stakes in the various plots. Dogs can very easily turn into a PvP game, which really doesn't fly too much in Starfleet. :)
You can hack that in pretty easily, though. "The highest escalation the crew can take against the captain is "Just talking'."
It throws the power balance out of whack but in an interesting way rather than just breaking it. And it fits since McCoy certainly never held back when he thought Kirk was doing something stupid.
But yeah, it's likely actual physical conflict would only be directed to non-Starfleet personnel. You still get judgement calls and arguments about those calls, which is the meaty stuff.
Quote from: Sweeney;364285You can hack that in pretty easily, though. "The highest escalation the crew can take against the captain is "Just talking'."
It throws the power balance out of whack but in an interesting way rather than just breaking it. And it fits since McCoy certainly never held back when he thought Kirk was doing something stupid.
But yeah, it's likely actual physical conflict would only be directed to non-Starfleet personnel. You still get judgement calls and arguments about those calls, which is the meaty stuff.
And, to finish that thought, McCoy followed the chain of command anyway. Kirk was the captain; it's not for the medical officer to countermand him (Except in certain circumstances, like the captain going crazy)