Quote from: Thanatos02Warthur'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.

Yeah, pretty much. In pretty much every Dogs game I've participated in we've come down on one side or the other of the paradox, ignored it, and had a blast.

I'm of the opinion, however, that it's a major failing of a rulebook if the mission statement it provides for a game doesn't actually manifest in play.

QuoteLike, 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.

Which is fair enough, but supposing the PCs ignore the problem the GM presents them and decide - for reasons of their own - that the real problem of the town is something else entirely? As GM you effectively have to back them up, but at the same time they've left the people which you as GM have identified as damaging community to keep doing what they are doing.

I think a revised DitV might have some application for the Pazifismustest of the Bundeswehr. Settembrini the Great should acquire the German license.

Nice idea. I fear the Kreiswehrersatzamt is out of any influence for the military. They are a universe unto themselves.

It´s concerning, though, how often the "Go kill some orks, if you don´t get our game"-crowd is relishing baby-executions, as long as it is in this artsy game package.

I'm not sure if there's a paradox or not--but I'm not sure that ignoring the problem counts as taking any kind of action to judge it. I also expect that you have to know what the situation actually is in order to judge it so that implies some degree of interaction ('detective work'--which in the game terms means doing anything reasonable to figure out what's happening).

If the Dogs arrived and then went down in a coal-mine to play cards, going "hey, the clue has to come and stumble across us no matter what so this is as good as anything else!" then the GM might well be within rights to fold the game up.

You could do this too if the PCs went in a dungeon and just didn't go past the first room.

So I think that the part that kinda sticks out for there is *ignoring* what's going on. I think the characters have to engage with what's going on and judge it to make it go away.

(But I'm not 100% on this)
-Marco

If the players ignore it, it's because of two reasons:
 1: The players don't want to deal with it.
 2: The players don't recognize it as an issue.

If it's 1, than 2 things are the likely scenerio:
 a: They're purposely ignoring playing in order to dick around.
 b: They twigged to something else, and want to follow up that instead.

This has a solution for each.
 For a: Go play Halo instead.
 For b: As the DM, account the problem as Solved, in that the PCs have decided it's not a live issue. (Dogs decide it'll work itself out.) Deal with this as you would anything else.

 If it's 2, than simply make it more obvious to them, and repeat.

If the Characters don't deal with it, and the Players do something else than:
 1: Treat the issue as if it wern't live. i.e. The Dogs deal with it by saying, "This isn't a big deal. Live with it, and get along nice, Town.". If you feel it'd continue to be contentious, deal with it in-game by having NPCs react to the situation the Dogs left until it resolves itself, or the Dogs deal with it.

 2: Go forward with what the Dogs are interested in. You already know the town dynamic, so you should be able to come up with something fairly easily.

 3: Railroad them. Nobody likes this, but whatever.

EDIT: the paradox is contingent, in this case, in the problem not being resolved because the players are unaware. If they're uninterested, it seems like a paradox, but it isn't. The problem is tacitly solved with an unspoken, "This is beneath our notice. Now, play nice."

Lo and behold!

Thanatos has finally dropped her mask and let out the Swine!

If only Pundit could see you now.

Quote from: MarcoI'm not sure if there's a paradox or not--but I'm not sure that ignoring the problem counts as taking any kind of action to judge it. I also expect that you have to know what the situation actually is in order to judge it so that implies some degree of interaction ('detective work'--which in the game terms means doing anything reasonable to figure out what's happening).

I wasn't making myself clear earlier. When I say "ignore", I don't mean "wilfully avoid becoming aware of what the problem is". I mean "on becoming aware of what the problem is, decide that it's a-OK and move on - or decide that something completely different merits their attention more."

Quote from: Thanatos02For b: As the DM, account the problem as Solved, in that the PCs have decided it's not a live issue. (Dogs decide it'll work itself out.) Deal with this as you would anything else.

Except the town creation process asks you to state what would happen if the Dogs don't come to town, and implicitly encourages you to make this a nasty, horrible future for the town. Either the fact of the Dogs observing the problem and deciding it is not an issue changes the situation so that these negative consequences do not occur - in which case it's going to be remarkably difficult for players to have any real investment in the game if they know there's no way they can screw up - or inaction leads to the negative consequences already determined for if the Dogs don't deal with the problem, in which case inaction is clearly "bad" on the player's part.

Quote from: WarthurI wasn't making myself clear earlier. When I say "ignore", I don't mean "wilfully avoid becoming aware of what the problem is". I mean "on becoming aware of what the problem is, decide that it's a-OK and move on - or decide that something completely different merits their attention more."

Yah, okay--I think if they do that then they've "judged" the event and that clears up whatever the problem was. I.e. I think it's potential sin that creates the problem and whatever the Dogs do in order to deal with it either judges and punishes the sin or resolves it as not-sin.

Now: that's not exactly in the books (I'm pretty sure--don't have one with me). That's my interpertation, if you will. Of course, all the time the guys on the Forge told me that I was misunderstanding and then resolving the "Impossible Thing" with my own, twisted reading of the words so maybe I'm doing the same thing here in reading Dogs as reasonably internally consistent since the danger of sin lies in sin-not-judged.

That'd be ironic

-Marco

Warthur:

It seems like 99% of what you post is about DitV. Why are you so fixated on it?   It seems like you like it, but have problems with it. Fine. It's not a big deal for anyone else. Some like it and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some don't care for it, and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some spit when they see the name and try to stomp it into the earth with posts, but the "Paradox" doesn't matter. The only one it seems to matter to is you, and if you just let go of the thing, and play it the way you want to, no-one would care. Let's move on, then. Play the game the way you want. Who cares what the designer wanted? The world is full of games to discuss. Dogs is done. Stick a fork in it.

Thanks!

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniLo and behold!

Thanatos has finally dropped her mask and let out the Swine!

If only Pundit could see you now.

Eh? :raise:

Quote from: WarthurEither the fact of the Dogs observing the problem and deciding it is not an issue changes the situation so that these negative consequences do not occur...

This one seems like the only logical way to run the game, really. The lack of investment because you can't get it wrong seems to be a problem with the game, and it's one of the reasons I don't care much for Dogs in the Vineyard. The paradox you've raised is a real one, akin to a bug in a program which raises its head if you enter input the programmer didn't anticipate.

QuoteThe lack of investment because you can't get it wrong seems to be a problem with the game

You guys don't seem to get that the game is about you and the rest of the table. No, in objective terms you can't get it wrong. But the actions you take are seen and judged by the people you play with. If you don't care about that, a large part of the game will be lost.

Which is why I say that at some point it ought to be clear that this isn't the game for you.

Quote from: droogYou guys don't seem to get that the game is about you and the rest of the table. No, in objective terms you can't get it wrong. But the actions you take are seen and judged by the people you play with. If you don't care about that, a large part of the game will be lost.

Which is why I say that at some point it ought to be clear that this isn't the game for you.

I already said I didn't play the game. Warthur does, though, and enjoys it. So... I dunno. Maybe you're missing something.

QuoteMaybe you're missing something.

I'm not sure what that would be. Warthur will have to work his own problems out, I suspect.

Warthur (and everyone else),

My personal feelings and thoughts on the matter (bearing in mind that I haven't played yet myself), which is all that I claim these are:

First, the thing with a GM setting up a town with a specific take on what the problem is and the players all deciding "no, it's this instead". . .? No different from any other roleplaying experience out there. How many times have yo set up something like, "OK, there's these forces in conflict, and Person A is a right bastard, while Person B is deserving of sympathy," only to have the players decide instantly on contact with the scenario, "Wow, Person B is a real bitch, we're all throwing in with Person A"? It happens time and again in my experience. The thing with Dogs is that you're expressly not supposed to jump up and down and go "No, you cads, B is the good guy and A is a rat, what kind of Lawful Good characters are you, you're not playing it right!" You're explicitly supposed to let the players make up their own mind about the situation, even if you've decided beforehand, "Abigail is Prideful and causing injustice between the Steward and his wife." And the PCs siding with Abigail doesn't mean her Pride doesn't exist, it just means that even if she was Prideful in her aqctions, the PCs see her plight as justification for her actions. Maybe the Steward and Wife have it coming in their eyes. Or maybe it's a sad, "nobody's fault, really" situation to them. I mean, if you told a real-life story of a messy love triangle to 10 people, you'd probably get at least five reactions, right? Even though the situation with all its actions and reasons for them is still the same? it's no different in Dogs; in fact it's the point of Dogs.

Of course the choices of the players should have real consequences, and even if they pick the "right" answer those choices might not be pleasant. Remember that Vincent has a nice little acid test for whether negative fallout from a town is kosher: (from Droog's VB quote in this thread: 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."

So as long as it doesn't feel like dirty pool, you should feel free for their choices to turn out badly--in fact, if they choose to exonerate a Heretic whose plight they side with, and the town's welfare be hanged, then they're inviting these negative consequences. It's a way for all concerned to say "yeah, the town's gone to shit thanks to our actions, but it was worth it to do the right thing."

Second, and kind of related to the first, the thing about Sin is that it causes harm regardless of the motives of the Sinner. From the Vincent quote in the other thread: Sin is when, in response to some unremedied injustice, you do something destructive to your community. "Sin," that is, socially destructive behavior, destabilizes your community. All the lines of love, friendship and blood that hold your community together come under stress, because now someone's acting against them instead of along them.

See, by acting in defiance of social taboos, you create friction in your community. I should know, I've done it just by growing my hair long in a Baptist family. So just imagine what effect my brother had by renouncing Christianity and marrying his semi-Muslim girlfriend in a Wiccan ceremony. in both cases we put great strain on our family and community relationships. We may well (and usually do) feel like the strain is unfair, that of the other side would just relax and let live, all our lives would be easier. But the fact is, regardless of whose 'fault" it is, we bear the responsibility for our respective parts in straining the family bond. In both our cases, we decided that straining those bonds was worth it, to be who we are in our hearts.

Same thing happens in Dogs. People follow their hearts (the Faithful might be inclined to say "selfish desires") even though it means uprooting all the peace and stability around them. You know in Fiddler on the Roof, where Tevye's oldest daughter wants to marry a poor man for love, and he, with difficulty, gives in? And then his next daughter wants to marry a radical dreamer for love, and Tevye again gives in? And his next daughter wants to marry a Gentile for love, and Tevye just. . .can't? Not even by the end of the movie? That's the kind of strain we're talking about. The tradition-breakers might be more ignoble than that on occasion, but in general what makes the choice hard for the Dogs is that people will suffer, maybe even die, if the tradition-breakers continue, but the plight of the breakers is often sympathetic and resonant. So what do you do?

Third, the Supernatural obstacle is easily solvable in my opinion. Even with the Supernatural dial set higher than "none' or "ambiguous," there's nothing that says real, honest-to-God demonic activity is a direct judgment on the actions of the Heretics. Again, from Vincent: That's sin, what're the demons? They're just plain bad luck. They're the stresses on a community that come about through nobody's action, nobody's fault, just the hazards of trying to make a life in the real world. The well goes dry, the flood rises, locusts swarm, somebody falls off a horse or tries to clean a loaded gun. Shit happens, that's all.

Even non-metaphorical demons could be viewed as nothing more than opportunists, swooping in where division and strife flare up to wedge the rift open wider and pour salt on the wounds (and mix metaphors, apparently). Their presence isn't a sign that the Heretic is in fact evil or wrong, just that in going their own way the Heretic has to set her face against tradition, indeed against friends, family and community, and so is sucseptible to her very real indignation nursing (demonically, perhaps) into a vicious grudge.

As far as the moral implications of encountering a demon-possessed person, consider this: you've confronted a Heretic in a town, and she's demonically possessed--eyes red, spits obsceneties, claws at your throat, the whole deal. Do you shoot her dead, exorcise her then condemn her ways, or exorcise her then pardon her Heresy? Those are all very real and different choices, and allow you to address the rightness or wrongness of her position however you as a player see fit. I see a parallel between the Possessed-but-right Heretic and the more mundane way that noble causes get corrupted. I can easily envision a scene with a just-exorcised heretic: "Oh, how did it all go so wrong? I never meant for it to go this far; I just wanted a world where I could live in peace with she whom I love. But it grew to such a hateful thing; there was scarce' nothing I would not do to have my way--oh, King of Life, forgive me!" Just one example of how that sort of thing could go.

Once again, let me stress that this is all the non-playt4ested impressions of one man. Hope they're lucid and helpful.

Peace,
-Joel