Quote from: WarthurThis is clear from the explanations given here, and from various forum posts by Vincent Baker. I would submit that it isn't clear from the core rulebook; certainly, of the three different GMs (including myself) who independently ran Dogs one-shots in our local gaming scene, all of them ran it as an investigative game. I'm also not sure I would enjoy it if the situation were simply presented to me on a silver plate.

Whether you would enjoy it or not is one thing. But the book is pretty clear:

Quotep138
ACTIVELY REVEAL THE TOWN IN PLAY
The town you've made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don't have secrets a'tall. Instead, you have cool things — bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things — that you can't wait to share.

There's this interesting hump I have to get over every time I GM Dogs — maybe it'll go away eventually. It's like this:

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, "mostly?"

And I'm like "uh oh. They're going to figure out what's wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!" And then I'm like "wait a sec. I want them to figure out what's wrong in the town. In fact, I want to show them what's wrong! Otherwise they'll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I'll have my dumb poker face on, and we'll be bored stupid the whole evening."

So instead of having the NPC say "oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now," I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. "Things are awful! This person's sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!"

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That's okay! I have the NPC lie. You've watched movies. You always can tell when you're watching a movie who's lying and who's telling the truth. And wouldn't you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she's lying. And they get these great, mean, tooth-showing grins — because when someone lies to them, ho boy does it not work out.

Then the game goes somewhere.

Quote from: WarthurAgain, this is apparent from Baker's forum posts but if you judge the game on the basis of the rulebook this is far from clear.

At this point, I don't see that Dogs does anything especially revolutionary which couldn't have been achieved by writing an essay about how lame "gotcha" moments are and how GMs should be more careful about how they use them.

Whether it 'does something revolutionary' isn't so much the point. I won't quote another block of text, but if you read 'A Dog's Authority' (p44), 'Your Character's Conscience and Your Own (p45), the comments at the end of the 'Town Creation' chapter on p124, and 'Don't Play God' on pp143-4, it's quite clear what's expected of the GM. As clear as an essay (and where would that go?), which might have been ignored as well.

Quote from: droogWhether you would enjoy it or not is one thing. But the book is pretty clear:

I have to agree with droog on this one.  While many, many, many "rules" about how to "correctly" play the game can only be gained by pouring through Vince's web postings, this isn't one of them.

Quote from: James J SkachReally, jgants, the issue is that you can't have all three at the table at the same time.  In order to have a fulfilling experience, you must focus on one type of player and tailor the rules strictly to their level of play.

Games that do not do this are Incoherent.

I have had an enjoyable mix of players before...but then, I can't say my players have all fit into the above stereotypes, either.

Either way, I've had games where casual players run right alongside hardcore gamers, because the hardcore gamers understood that the casuals weren't there for the same reasons.

God, DiTV sucks ass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditGod, DiTV sucks ass.

So you've said.  Repeatedly.

!i!

Quote from: jgantsI have to agree with droog on this one.  While many, many, many "rules" about how to "correctly" play the game can only be gained by pouring through Vince's web postings, this isn't one of them.

Yup, Droog is right.  I recall reading that section because Vince was right to write it, I would have expected the players to have to work to find out what was going on and he goes to some pains to say that natural as that desire may be it won't work for this game.

Dogs, for whatever faults it may have, is actually a very clearly written game IMO.  My issues with it are about the dice mechanic which I hated, nothing else, for me my objections to Dogs are ones of pure personal preference and are not in any way a view on its merits generally.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo you've said.  Repeatedly.

!i!

Yes, but I continue to be reminded, and cannot get over, just HOW MUCH it truly sucks.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian NobleFor me, you can take my trad-model, GM-centric games out of my cold, dead hands. I'll never give them up for GM-less improv acting games. However, I'm ripping things out of story-games and using them as spice to my trad-model meal; to be sure, it's making my games better!

I'm open to play a GM-less game (like Universalis) from time to time, and I enjoy the variety of it. But most of my gaming is like Ian's, adn we're pretty happy with it.
 
There are many good ideas to be found in those new designs. Others, less so. But my gaming's improved since I contacted them, and some techniques and ideas have been useful, just as I found some good ideas and techniques and Vampire around 1991, that improved my gaming. And that's all for me.

welcome to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

yet every time i have asked about this people just complain because it seems like 'homework' or they automatically infer that i want them to go away and write something to rival the lord of the rings in depth!

Quote from: signoftheserpentwelcoem to my world!

i personally don't udnerstand why, if it's ok for the gm to do ALL the work, the player's can't get off their arses and make some kind of effort regarding their characters.

Because they regard it as work. And if you asked them, they would probably say that you shouldn't be doing any GM chores that you consider work, either.

Let's face it - most GMs like to work on game material on their own time. It's kind of a sub-hobby in itself. We just get frustrated when our fellow players aren't as enthusiastic and committed as we are.

The only time I ever REALLY had that problem was with every time I tried to run a Buffy or Angel game.

I would help the players make characters a week or so in advance, then spend the next few days giggling madly as entire seasons sprang forth from my mind, only to have the games die after a session...sometimes two.

Quote from: AosI'm a blacksmith and a sorcerer. It drives the ladies wild.

yes, but if i was a carpenter...

Quote from: droogOkay, E. Until you show me otherwise, I'll take this at face value.

The thing is, almost everybody feels that their ways are superior. Look at almost everything Settembrini has ever posted, for an extreme example. It's pretty hard to point at any one group and say that they're righteous. The most you can say is that some people are snottier than others. That doesn't seem to depend on what they're actually playing or talking about.

When you get to talking about a huge, heterogenous body of people like RPG.net, all generalisations are moot. I see a whole lot of people talking about things they know very little about, which is nothing new.

I wouldn't call myself righteous. I just like to be precise and stick to what I know. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but when they cross my arbitrary line of respect I start hitting.

You can take it at face value -- it's what I believe.

I also want to be clear that I think everyone's right in one sense -- most people enjoy their play and find whatever approach they take superior... for *them*

That's called "having an opinion" and everyone's entitled. I don't even have a problem with people suggesting the games they love (although I'm dubious that Wushu and DiTV are *really* the ultimate games for any genre).

What's problematic is when people start dictating to others -- or claiming that their approach is in some way objectively superior. And that's what the "theory" people I alluded to do. A lot of RPG theory tries to form a framework for this kind of dialog (the whole concept of coherence... hell, the whole concept of Creative Agendas, etc.)

There are a lot of people who buy into this to one degree or another. They may not adhere to a coherent body of thought, but check out any thread on Story Games, The Forge, or Knife Fight where people ponder the nature of traditional gaming, traditional gamers, or, say, immersion.

You'll find lots of speculation that's amazingly offensive and complete bullshit, couched in the pseudo-academic language of RPG theory (or sometimes not -- some people just use terms like "immature") -- an on-topic example is the  claim that shared GM authority is, in some way, "empowering" and the subsequent wondering about those sheeple-players who prefer the traditional model (are they submissive? Or actual masochists? Or maybe just ignorant and superstitious -- RPG theory has been trying hard to explain this phenomena for years!)

If you're not buying it (and it sounds like you're not), then we're on the same page.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.There are a lot of people who buy into this to one degree or another. They may not adhere to a coherent body of thought, but check out any thread on Story Games, The Forge, or Knife Fight where people ponder the nature of traditional gaming, traditional gamers, or, say, immersion.

It would help if people didn't try to explain things that they don't understand or like.  And I'm not simply claiming that they don't understand or like it because I'm guessing.  They often clearly state that's how they feel and then go on to speculate, anyway.

Quote from: John MorrowIt would help if people didn't try to explain things that they don't understand or like. And I'm not simply claiming that they don't understand or like it because I'm guessing. They often clearly state that's how they feel and then go on to speculate, anyway.

Add to that the compulsive need to invent words or redefine normal words into abnormal uses...