So Kromm is a mormon now?

Somebody should check if polygamy is an ad or a disad in 4th ed.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityE.g., right now I'm wondering whether it's because in Trav chargen the G actually produces (etc) the S rather than, as I thought, the N, that's the reason why I like it.

That's a very good point. Do you like the G in Pendragon too?

As usual, Elliot makes the most sense here.

Quote from: droogThat's a very good point. Do you like the G in Pendragon too?

You mean random events for the Winter Phase? Mad props from me, clearly for the same reason. Although these don't govern the PC's own actions, they just provide him with a situation to react to ("23 peasants die from famine")?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo Kromm is a mormon now?

Somebody should check if polygamy is an ad or a disad in 4th ed.

Nope, not to the best of my knowledge.  But you can get extra points for two dependants.

However my point stands.  Gaming preferences are at least as silly as religion.

Quote from: WarthurIt does, however, mean that the game as written doesn't actually do what it claims to do, which is to make the players the sole arbiter of morality in the game.

This is a very good point. I haven't "explored" Dogs indepth but I can certainly see where you're coming from. I have a big issue with games not delivering on it's designers claims...hence my "problem" with a certain game of "Personal Horror" :raise: but Dogs perhaps is a much more overt example of this.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou mean random events for the Winter Phase? Mad props from me, clearly for the same reason. Although these don't govern the PC's own actions, they just provide him with a situation to react to ("23 peasants die from famine")?

Yes, you can run a solo game with the Winter Phase like with the trade tables etc in Traveller. It's the way both tie you into a given framework that's beautiful.

About Dogs, I don't know exactly what's in the book, but I do know from forum discussion that the author's intent is that the Faith is infinitely foldable, spindlable and manipulable by the players. If you want to declare polygamy to be False Doctrine, so mote it be.

Quote from: David JohansenGaming preferences are at least as silly as religion.

Oh, now I see what you mean... well, stated like that I have no objection. :pundit:

Why I think Dogs is NOT like an Adbventure Game:

Because there is no constructed challenge to overcome. The situation in the town is solved (and changes!) according to the moral judgement of the players. There is no true or false, just a situation acting as catalyst.
A catalyst for making the players think.

It´s a bit of a mindfuck.
Some get it before, some during play.
Some never.
The last group is the one group declaring DitV to be useful for all kinds of shit.

Alas I do think you can have the suspenseful and dramatic decision making in a regular setup, for me it´s even more worthwhile this way. In sofar, it´s true: Dogs doesn´t deliver anything I lack in my games.

Quote from: SpikeI'm not sure dice bidding is necessarily the way to go (with opposed bids from the bomb?? ugh...)

If it makes you feel any better, I'd phrase it as opposed bids by the bomb's maker, myself.

"Gently opening the case, I take a moment to trace the path of the wires, then cut the green one." *slides dice forward*
"You really thought it'd be that easy? That the GRU doesn't teach agents how to build a bomb? The yellow light starts blinking more rapidly the moment you cut the wire." *counters the dice, raises*

Etc. Just my thought. Alright, I confess! I read the idea in a "How do you handle traps with Wushu" thread. Still, it works for any narration-based resolution.

Quote from: SettembriniAlas I do think you can have the suspenseful and dramatic decision making in a regular setup, for me it´s even more worthwhile this way. In sofar, it´s true: Dogs doesn´t deliver anything I lack in my games.

Well, yes, you can. But what DitV does is drive towards that at every level.

The setting: only the bare bones of a setting, yet for many a very evocative one. Nothing to get in the way, plenty to spark conflict.

The situation: Town creation gets sneered at occasionally, but it's a reliable method of producing highly conflict-laden situations that the players can simply ride into and have an impact on. Compare Trollbabe, which has similar aims: Ron just gives you some examples and tells you to make it up.

The characters: you're young, naive, and you're carrying a very big gun. Oh, and you wield the authority of God. Now what are you going to do about it?

The resolution system: step by step you build the resolution of a conflict with Fate (ie the dice) playing a pivotal role. Because of the way Escalation, Fallout and Giving work, you control to a fine degree exactly how much you want to invest (that control is not subject to anybody else's decision, only Fate's).


Taken all together, it's an irresistable drive towards suspense and drama.

Quote from: droogAbout Dogs, I don't know exactly what's in the book, but I do know from forum discussion that the author's intent is that the Faith is infinitely foldable, spindlable and manipulable by the players. If you want to declare polygamy to be False Doctrine, so mote it be.

This is the impression I had. I would argue, however, that by describing the Faith's attitude to marriage, gender roles, society as a whole, stewardship and whatnot in the main rulebook Baker makes it much less likely that a party of Dogs are going to declare polygamy False Doctrine, because people are going to go into the game with a pre-formed idea of what the Faith is like based on these statements in the rulebook. Even though the players know damn well they could overturn every single statement about the Faith in the rulebook, I suspect many will feel an onus to keep their statements on doctrine broadly in line with the rulebook, because they don't want to be disruptive or be accused of wrecking the flavour of the Faith.

For example, supposing I were playing a Dogs game and I said I wanted my initiation conflict to be "I want to convince the Faith that necromancy is an acceptable - nay, vital! - part of the Faith". Even though that's entirely acceptable within the parameters on the game, on some level it feels to me like I'm being disruptive - I'm trying to rewrite the doctrine of the Faith to such a startling extent that its flavour will entirely change.

Really, what Dogs needs is a pre-game phase where the players decide between themselves what the doctrine of the Faith is going to be for this particular game.

Quote from: WarthurI would argue, however, that by describing the Faith's attitude to marriage, gender roles, society as a whole, stewardship and whatnot in the main rulebook Baker makes it much less likely that a party of Dogs are going to declare polygamy False Doctrine, because people are going to go into the game with a pre-formed idea of what the Faith is like based on these statements in the rulebook.

Maybe (maybe the book needs a rewrite), though it's worth noting that I personally haven't seen this happen. We had a female Dog who didn't believe in the Faith in one of the first games I played.

'Being disruptive' is what it's supposed to be. For example:

QuoteFor example, supposing I were playing a Dogs game and I said I wanted my initiation conflict to be "I want to convince the Faith that necromancy is an acceptable - nay, vital! - part of the Faith". Even though that's entirely acceptable within the parameters on the game, on some level it feels to me like I'm being disruptive - I'm trying to rewrite the doctrine of the Faith to such a startling extent that its flavour will entirely change.

I don't see it as changing the flavour as much as you say, but so be it. Note that you set the supernatural dial as part of the game, and all you've done is dial it up.

'What kind of necromancy?' is what's next. That would come from play, if the GM's doing their job.

And maybe one of your fellow Dogs isn't happy with your interpretation of the Faith, and wants to fight you over it. That's all good too.

QuoteReally, what Dogs needs is a pre-game phase where the players decide between themselves what the doctrine of the Faith is going to be for this particular game.

I think that's playing before you play, in the specific case of DitV.

Regarding morality in Dogs, consider this: the rules tell you what the elders of the faith teach, frex that polygamy is OK.  The rules don't tell you, and will never tell you, and the GM may not dictate, what God actually believes.  If your dog decides that polygamy is false doctrine, then play it out in the game.  Local stewards will resist him; other dogs will get involved; the elders will get involved.   Sooner or later, bullets will fly.  Perhaps the faith will change, probably it will not.  Never will the GM say, "Actually, you were wrong, the King of Life approves of polygamy."

It is really this simple.  Get it?

And Here! They! Come!