Since there's a fair argument going on about Dogs at the moment, I wonder if people can help me with this paradox:

1: The GM in Dogs In the Vineyard is not allowed to make a moral call on the player character's actions. Only the players can make that call.

2: The GM in Dogs In the Vineyard has to come up with some kind of problem which is causing trouble in a town. This problem stems from pride, which leads to injustice, which leads to a multitude of other sins. By defining the problem in this way, the GM is saying to themselves "What that person did is prideful; what this other person did was unjust." In other words, he's making a moral judgement on these people. What they are doing is opening up the community to demonic attack, false worship, and - in the end - hate and murder, and if they are permitted to continue what they are doing the community will be destroyed.

3: Point 1 means that the GM cannot say that the PCs were "wrong" to ignore or condone the behaviour of the people the GM identifies as damaging the community in point 2. I would strongly argue that saying "Okay, you move on and the community falls into rack and ruin because of the actions of these guys who you decided weren't worth the trouble of messing with" is a means of indirectly expressing moral disapproval of the PCs' actions: having a community of the faithful be effectively destroyed or corrupted entirely is a bad thing. (Heck, in town planning the GM has to specifically decide what would happen to the town if the Dogs never arrived to sort out the problem.)

4: Points 1 and 3 imply that if the PCs ignore a problem in a town, it goes away - the very fact that the Dogs were present means that whatever happens afterwards is according to God's will and therefore moral. Point 2 implies that if the PCs ignore a problem in a town then the town's situation gets objectively morally worse. Causing that to happen through inaction - or through your own actions - means that you bear responsibility for the moral situation of of the town getting worse, and responsibility entails moral culpability.

5: Point 4 is a paradox. Either Dogs must address the problem the GM poses - in which case point 1 is bunk - or the GM cannot present to the players the terrible consequences to a town if they fail to solve the problem, because by presenting them with that horrible situation he is effectively saying "Hey, look, this is your fault guys."

EDIT TO ADD: To make it clearer, here is the Dogs paradox in a short version:

"Presenting players with negative consequences arising from their characters' actions can be a challenge to the morality of said actions if the players choose to take it as such, regardless of whether that's the way it was intended: you as the GM are presenting them with a situation which is likely to give them second thoughts as to whether they did the right thing. Dogs In the Vineyard prohibits the GM from making a moral judgement on the player characters' actions, explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, Dogs In the Vineyard does not allow GMs to present negative consequences arising from the PCs' actions: the PCs literally cannot do wrong."

At some point, you have to just say "DitV doesn't look like the game for you."

But this is what VB says on the matter:

QuoteYou play a town. As GM, you do your job: you have your NPCs a) spill their guts and b) pursue their interests. Your players do their jobs: they have their Dogs judge and kick ass. Eventually they have their Dogs dust their hands and ride away.

Great! Done. Whatever the outcome was, in terms of who shot who and who punished whom and who was raised up and who was cast down, that's the outcome, you've done your job and they've done theirs, and now you move on to the next town.

But then here's what will happen, one of these two things.

1) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "y'know, if I make these demons still be there, the players will feel like I've sucker-punched them."

2) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "oh MAN, if I make these demons still be there, the Dogs will feel like the world has sucker-punched them, but the players will feel like AWESOME."

If the former happens, the demons are gone; the Dogs dealt with them. If the latter happens, the demons are still there; the Dogs left them undealt-with.

Dogs is not about problem solving.
It´s a mirror-tool, a self-exploration tool.
It performs well in this regard.
Not everybody cares for that.
Those who do, should play it.
Others should give it a try.

Conundrum solved.

It's definitely not about problem solving, the PCs should discover what is happening right up front, the core of the game is the PCs deciding what to do about it.

As true insight has been gained, let us etch it in stone and deliberately stop any posting, to conserve this moment of progress of human knowledge.

Quote from: droogAt some point, you have to just say "DitV doesn't look like the game for you."

But this is what VB says on the matter:

Baker's quote assumes that, as a GM, you will always be able to predict how the players will take the situation you put in front of them.

At which I laugh, loudly and long.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, I really enjoy DitV, so long as I excise all the wibble about morality from the rulebook and ignore Vincent Baker's massively irritating prose style. Shooting people for God is pretty awesome so long as you don't think about it too much, and unfortunately - like many Forge games - Dogs strongly encourages you to think about it.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's definitely not about problem solving, the PCs should discover what is happening right up front, the core of the game is the PCs deciding what to do about it.

Really? The best Dogs game I ever played in required a fair bit of detective work before we got to the root of what was happening. And the town creation system seems to back me up on this: sure, it's obvious that hate and murder is happening, but is it really that easy to see where the black root of pride that caused all this has sprung from?

Quote from: WarthurReally? The best Dogs game I ever played in required a fair bit of detective work before we got to the root of what was happening. And the town creation system seems to back me up on this: sure, it's obvious that hate and murder is happening, but is it really that easy to see where the black root of pride that caused all this has sprung from?

The book has explicit advice saying you should lay the conflict out quickly and should not make the players work to find out what's going on, he then talks about how this is counterintuitive to how games are normally run but talks about why it's important in Dogs to do it this way.

So I'm not saying you were playing it wrong, wait, actually I am saying you were playing it wrong .  The Dogs are supposed to be basically handed what is going on on a plate, the game is in deciding what to do about it, the book is very explicit on this.

Quote from: BalbinusThe book has explicit advice saying you should lay the conflict out quickly and should not make the players work to find out what's going on, he then talks about how this is counterintuitive to how games are normally run but talks about why it's important in Dogs to do it this way.

So I'm not saying you were playing it wrong, wait, actually I am saying you were playing it wrong .  The Dogs are supposed to be basically handed what is going on on a plate, the game is in deciding what to do about it, the book is very explicit on this.

And this is why I don't play or run Dogs as-written.

Quote from: SettembriniDogs is not about problem solving.
It´s a mirror-tool, a self-exploration tool.

 What ?  A self-exploration tool?  Most people have their own hands.
Again this sounds like the RPGs as Therapy bunch of BS.

 think a nice game of TRAVELLER (Any version) or D&D sounds more interesting.

- E.W.C.

(Your [Favorite Game] is masterbatory.)
(My [Favorite Game] is real gaming.)

Just cut and paste that, and you're good to go. ^_^

From what I've read, from a philosophical point, Walthur is right. There is a paradox where Dogs is concerned, and it's a topic that I don't think is addressed well by someone saying, "Well, don't play it then."

Droog, guy, I'm sure you're tired of people knocking Dogs unfairly by now. Or something. But let's look at the face of it; the game, while not actually self-contradictory, suffers from being both non-intuitive and while it seems to possess the answers to commonly asked questions, it doesn't always resolve the difference between play and what the game is 'supposed' to do.

The important thing to remember, though, is that unlike a philosophy paper, a game doesn't have to be airtight. It just has to provide a good play experience. I don't personally think there's anything to Dogs that couldn't be done in most other systems, but then again, that's why I don't play it. The answer is, essentially, there is no answer to this paradox. There's a hole in the game that no amount of justification can really cover up. The only plug is DM fiat; the game is either run according to one paradigm or another, but not both at the same time.

The game encourages the players to weigh in and make a decision, and whatever they choose is the right one. I think if the DM had unlimited towns lined up, the issue of 'what happens if the PCs decide there's no problem here' would come up. This problem, in actual play, will boil down to the DM saying, "Guys, this is the adventure today. If you choose to blow through Whateverville, we're going to have to play Magic the Gathering instead of role-playing."

In the end, that's the solution to your paradox.

Quote from: Thanatos02Droog, guy, I'm sure you're tired of people knocking Dogs unfairly by now. Or something.

Well, it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't think the seeming paradox is real.

I like my masturbatory gaming to be a bit more sophisticated than:

"Here´s a moral dillemma, what´s your take on this?"


When it comes to wankery, some people have high standards.
Some can go with just the aura of sophistication, some need the real stuff.

Quote from: droogWell, it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't think the seeming paradox is real.

Warthur's paradox makes sense if you're not playing the game, but are, rather comparing stated goals versus possible outcomes. If you view the game's mission statement logically, then it becomes an issue. In play, it's different, because it follows differently.

Like, there are some assumptions.
1 - You'd like to play something.
2 - In order to play, something has to happen, or be made to happen by players.
3 - The assumed beginning is that the PCs are heading into a town where they are going to do something.

Now, generally, this means the DM has to set something up for the player's characters to interact with, so you've got the dilemma. Except the dilemma about 'is there something wrong?' goes away in play, because you've already made the assumption, complicit with players, that you accept something's gone wrong in the town.

If there's nothing wrong, then the players get to settle the peace, and explain why there's no problem after all. Some townspeople might disagree.

That is, even if the DM begins with the assumption that there's a problem, the PCs might decide differently, but they still need to make sure everyone's on the same page or... trouble.

So, this way, when you sit down to play it, there's no problem. Logically, before you make the assumptions, there can be issues.

GM: "You find a wallet on the dusky streets of Provo. It's stuffed with several $20 bills!"

Player: "Hmm... I turn it in  to the authorities..."

GM: "ok. Well, you find ANOTHER one. And this one has like $500."

Player: "What, like right next to it?"

GM: "It's like a block down."

Player: "Oh. OK, I turn that one in too."

GM: "er.. Ok. You round the corner. There's a huge sack of gold and diamonds! Oh..and an adulteress and her illegitimate infant."

Player: (rubbing hands together) "FINALLY!"

GM: "Ok. So how many times do you shoot the baby?..."