I ran a one-shot session of Dogs this weekend, my first time running the game. Great fun was had by all: the five of us played literally all day. Unfortunately, it being their first time playing and my first time running, we didn't really understand how deadly the Fallout is from gunfighting.
I knew going into this that death by violence is important in Dogs. It says that your Dog believed in what she was fighting for enough to die for it. The rules are unforgiving: certain results mean your character dies, and the text allows no room for fudging. I read that, and I thought I understood that.
But as the dice were coming down -- I hated it.
It wasn't an angry hate, just a visceral revulsion writhing in the pit of my stomach. My players and I had spent all day getting to know and care about these characters, and now some damned plastic polyhedra were going to take them away? A few paragraphs in the rules and random chance were going to force me to look a player in the eye and say, "No, sorry, but -- you're not allowed to play anymore with this character you invested so much in?"
After the climactic gunfight, everyone had multiple d10s in Fallout. Everyone rolled. I heard gasps of relief as player after player escaped the death knell of double-tens. One player rolled 8d10 fallout and scored only a nineteen as his highest pair: he cried out in surprise. But then I heard a wail from the girl who rolled only 3d10 Fallout. "Twenty? Twenty means I'm dead?"
There was such shock on her face. She was a new player, having hardly if ever roleplayed before. Like many new roleplayers, she decided to play a character very much like herself. (Although unlike many new players, she was conscious of the fact.) She'd really been enjoying herself all night. I gaped. I had to take this character away from her now? The rest of the players and I shared a moment of stunned silence.
Then the player beside her leaned over to look at her dice. "No, no, you don't add them all -- just the highest two!"
The wave of relief that washed through the group was palpable.
Of course, then I had five Dogs dying on my hands. I really wanted to hand-wave the whole thing, to just declare that sure, the town doctor patches you all up with no problems, hooray, let's move on -- but I didn't. I tried to stick to the rules. I engaged them each in separate followup conflicts, seeing whether they'd fight their way back to life under the doctor's care.
The second such conflict saw another player on the ropes against my teriffic roll. I had all but run him out of dice. As I was killing him I was internally arguing with myself over whether this was okay. "I'm not supposed to fudge or pull punches. I won't. I won't! This player didn't seem to like his character as much as the others liked theirs. It was the most difficult character to relate to. It's okay if his character dies; it's okay. It won't hurt as much."
Then in a moment of creativity fueled by desperation, the player managed to pull in two more dice that turned the tables. His character would live.
Ultimately, I didn't have to kill anyone.
Today, I don't even think I could have. I'd have scrambled for some kind of "out," a house rule or something, and proposed it to the group on the spot. Maybe they would have refused me and just have accepted the death; I don't know. But I would be unable to accept the death myself unless we reached a separate agreement that this particular death is right: a separate agreement, distinct from the rulebook and dice, in full acknowledgment that fiat by consensus could fairly undo the death. Only then would it be okay.
It hurts, killing characters. I feel like I simply cannot trust a System to handle it -- even an exemplary system like Dogs in the Vineyard.
A handful of thoughts:
1. It isn't as lethal as you feared it would be. After the scare, no one actually died when following the rules. You did, however, get a lot of tension out of it. Some of the tension was probably good (when was the last time you got that much of a punch from game?) and some of it sounds not so good (too much of a punch), but it certainly was something worth thinking about.
2. You don't kill characters, players kill their characters. I know this takes a change in the way you view games, at least it did for me, but when someone is facing multiple d10s of fallout it is because the player chose to take it. If they do not, cannot, will not lose their character all they have to do is give and fold out when that huge raise they can't see comes along. If they do take the blow in order to keep fighting then they are saying "This is worth dying for."
The system isn't taking their character from, they are setting their character up to have the potential to die. You are not killing thier characters, they are. If you take the death potential away from this, you take the choice away from them. At that point the choice to take that 8d10 fallout, knowing it can't actually kill you, isn't really that much of a choice -- it's just an issue of getting some fallout traits.
Now that you've seen it happen, and your players have too, next time you'll all know. The first time I had a Dog die I felt the same as you do. Now I don't because when we're playing we know what taking a bullet with 6 dice means. I wouldn't take that choice away from my players, at least not in this type of game.
3. Even if you get the 20 you aren't dead right there on the floor, you still have another scene to do (if you want). Those scenes can be very, very powerful. Do not fear them, use them as a requiem and let the character go out in the manner the player finds most pleasing. If a player has the power to end their character in their own scene it makes a huge difference to how they feel about the game and their character.
4. Groups that aren't about the hard choices and hard consequences may not like Dogs. Despite the awesomeness that is me GMing Dogs, I have a lot of friends who don't enjoy the game because of issues like those you bring up (or don't mind the death, but just don't like the judgement at all). If, after a couple of times of trying it, you still don't like it, then it could just be that you're not on the same agenda that Dogs is.
5. Have you ever played Everway?
Brand's brought up some good points, so most of this has been eviscertated, 'cause he already said it.
However, the one thing he didn't say, I'm going to: Can you post the town and the run through the Dogs gave it, even in abbreviated form? I really want to see the town that left 5 Dogs bleeding on the floor!
James
Trying again...
5. Have you ever played Everway? Or read the articles about fortune/karma/drama and their use as resolution mechanics? Under that kind of setup, when would you be willing (comfortable) killing characters? Or letting players chose to kill their own character?
Dogs uses fortune for it, so is it the cold dice that are the problem? What if the player in the middle of a Dogs game said, "I want to kill the sorcerer now, and in return my character dies?" What if it felt right at the moment to you but not the player? The player but not to you? Is it about the character dying, or about you killing the character?
Hey Adam,
As a player that lives for the kind of moments you describe, I'd be very upset were you to attempt to somehow take those moments away through fudging or a house rule. Make certain that should your group decide to go the way of the house rule that everyone truly is on board with the decision and not just going along cause they think it's what they're supposed to do. The sort of choices that a game like Dogs forces you to make mean nothing without the consequences of those choices.
Of course, you may find that once that risk is alleviated that you actually miss it...
-Chris
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 11, 2005, 11:34:54 PM
Ultimately, I didn't have to kill anyone.
Players are only killed when they stay in those conflicts and elect to take the fallout.
They could always drop out of the conflict and if the stakes were set well, that'll be fine. The player won't get their way but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The GM kills no one, the players elect to stay in a conflict in which they could be killed.
Does that make sense?
Hmm, I think that perhaps this is just a matter of fully coming to grips with the consequences of raising the stakes, and realizing when something is worth dying for and when something isn't. Even Dogs has a mechanical point where if you do this sort of thing then you are risking everything, and that point is guns. I think it might be worth just thinking about that.
While I agree with everything that has been said in this thread, there is one thing to point out. To make a choice, the player has got to know the possible consequences. For that, it may not be enough to have read the rules. For my part, I didn't realize upon reading how tough fallout really gets. I mean, 8d10 fallout is bad even if you don't roll a 20. That's one hell of a healing conflict.
Adam, I think now that your players have seen what fallout can do to them, it'll make the game even better. Apart from that, you post sounds like an awesome game already and everything did turn out well, didn't it? No need to worry. Not that you sound all that worried to me.
- Frank
I know someone who once hand-waved a dying-conflct to save a dog. He's alive to this very day and the indie-game police haven't come to take away his copy of DitV. Really, I think the issue largely one of familiarity. I have played in lots of low-mortality games where the low/no mortality was achieved by a pretty good understanding of the rules.
Once the players are more familiar with the the mechanics a lot of this issue will go away (especially with DitV where death is only a possibility if the player chooses it to be).
-Marco
Rules question:
Once the player's taken fallout, it's there, and 2d10 or more mixed in means death is possible.
But. Assume you're in that 16-19 range. Is there any reason the GM can't give on the follow-up conflict? In a game with newbies especially, I would consider this option quite strongly. Also if the death didn't seem all we thought it would be when we were heading towards it, perhaps.
I don't see a textual argument against the GM doing this offhand.
----------------------
It's possible to overstate the significance of 'you chose it'. It's true that Dogs gives players more control over consequences for their character than most games, and I consider this a big whoppin' feature of the game.
However, even in traditional RPGs, there are often opportunities to run away during the big fight, etc. So in that sense, if you don't want the treasure or whatever, you can bolt in the middle. I have a player in my antediluvian D&D campaign who's carried Dimension Door on his character sheet since about 1980 for just this purpose; I can't count the number of times it's saved his life.
It's usually the case in a traditional RPG that you could have made a different decision that would have saved your character, actually. Dogs vastly improves on this because it's explicit in the rules instead of implicit in the way you parse the GMs sentences and interpret the situation: it's always your choice to take the fallout that carries the risk of death rather than give. But people will still make rash choices that they regret from time to time.
It seems to me that if the player and GM both agree that the potential death indicated by fallout isn't as cool as they thought it would be when they went into the situation, there's nothing wrong with the GM giving on the follow-up healing conflict.
The follow-up to my question for Adam is: if you really didn't want to kill anyone, 'hand waving' was actually (I believe, pending the answer to my rules question) the follow-up was perfectly within the game rules for you. So then do you think your players would have felt cheated?
I think as a learning exercise I would have gone through with at least a couple of the conflicts to teach the players how they worked, but Given rather than killing the PCs in the end if that was how the dice rounds went.
Calithena brings up a good point; If your PCs make it past the fallout roll to the healing roll, you can always give. It's perfectly within the rules. But I'll tell you right now, I'd feel cheated if you did it, especially up front. If you absolutely cannot forge through to the death of a PC during the healing conflict, then push it as far as you can before they have to give before you give. Make it tense. Make them think you're doing your best to kill their character. Then give. The reprieve should garner enough relief to cover the sense of disappointment in having the victory handed to them.
Probably your best bet dealing with the whole death thing is to have the conversation now, before you play again. Tell them you won't bend the rules. Make sure they realize that, by accepting d10 fallout, they could be killed instantly. And suggest the idea that maybe, just maybe, that is not only okay, but it's actually really, really cool. Have you read the Actual Play post about the Dogs that turned on each other? I'm sure someone has the link handy or remembers the poster, or the thread, or a PC name or something to do a search for and can post it. That was a totally unplanned near-Total-Party-Kill that everyone was blown away by, to include people who weren't even there, and had no emotional investment in the PCs. Point your players to read that thread, read it yourself.
Death doesn't have to be a tragedy for the players; It can be one of those cool moments they'll remember fondly for years and a source of growth for the surviving PCs.
I respect my players far too much to ever fudge their healing conflicts or Give on them. If they're going to tell me a choice they've made is worth dying for, there's no way I'm going to tell them, "No, it's not really". I don't even feel that's within my rights as a GM and as a player, I would be so very angry at the deprotagonization of my character from that choice that I'd likely stop playing with a GM who did that. I would never be able to trust that my most important choices had meaning again.
The trick is to make sure your players are aware of the mechanical choice they're making, even if you have to go so far as to say, "So that's my raise. If you Take the Blow here there's a VERY real chance your character will die. So consider that before you choose whether you're going to Give or continue on."
Wolfen, Coffeestain -
I tend to feel the same way as you guys, in most cases. But you recognize that's a matter of personal preference, right?
If either the player or the GM wants to abide by the conflict rules to determine life and death, than that's what ought to happen, and the GM should respect that and not give, I think. But if the player and GM both think that the scene didn't play out the way they wanted, and that what seemed like something worth staking a life on actually wasn't, I've got no problem with them giving.
Keep in mind also that if you, the player, want your character to die, you can Give too, and die. It cuts both ways.
Sean,
It doesn't exactly cut both ways because if the player chooses to Give, both options are completely in the player's hands where they should be.
Honestly, though it's not addressed specifically (as far as I know), I think this fits within the guidelines that the GM shouldn't judge the characters and shouldn't have a solution in mind. Certainly, it's all a matter of personal preference, just the same as it's a matter of personal preference to choose to play by any rule or guideline in the book. I just don't think it's within the spirit of the game.
Regards,
Daniel
Fallout conflict in Dogs is a little bit different from most conflict in Dogs.
Difference 1: The stakes are already set: does this character die or not?
Difference 2: The GM always takes the side of death, the player (or players, if there's a PC healer involved) always takes the side of life.
Observation: The player can give right away if he wants to die; end of conflict.
Observation: If either the player and the GM think there ought to be a conflict to decide the death of the character, than that desire dictates that there will be a conflict.
Observation: If the player wants his character to live and the GM wants the character to live, and no-one thinks there ought to be a conflict, the GM can give, and then the character will recover with medical attention.
Observation: If the player wants his character to live and the GM wants the character to die, then you once again resort to the conflict mechanisms to decide things.
There are all sorts of reasons you might want or not want any of these options. Observation 2 means than when Daniel's in a game, you always roll when his character's taken fallout, because he likes those things to get resolved that way.Observation 3 means that when I'm in a game with newbies, I'm within my rights to cut them some slack if I don't think they understood the full consequences of their decisions. Or if I'm in a game with experienced players, and we suddenly realize there's a way better thing that could happen than the character dying here - we think - we're within our rights to punt.
A final Observation: Any time you take gun fallout, there is at least a 2.8% chance that your character will die straight up, on the 20. So the chance of dying without recourse to the medical attention conflict is always there when the guns come out, and nothing anyone can do about it. This means that the decision to escalate to guns is always meaningful in the character-staking sense, even if you're in a game with a GM and other players who are pretty casual about giving on medical attention conflicts.
two quick edits and then I'll leave the field to others:
- the first observation is a little weird to me: the GM could say, "no, I give, you live!" I guess then we need to resort to high pair to determine initiative, winner gives first, I guess. I have trouble imagining things going this way outside of a screwed social situation, but I'm trying to figure the rules here.
- the fifth observation should say 'the decision to take gun fallout' rather than 'the decision to escalate to guns'.
(Maybe we should hold the horses till Adam posts again.)
I think these are probably valid observations. As a GM, though, I'm not sure I'd ever want to Give in a life and death situation. The player wanted to risk the character's life. That's why they didn't Give in the conflict that started this all. The player said in explicit, mechanical terms, "I want to risk my character's life on this issue."
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 12, 2005, 12:24:24 PM
(Maybe we should hold the horses till Adam posts again.)
Second.
Wow! Lookit all the feedback. Thank you all. I'll answer those points that provoke me the most.
Brand (and Judd, making the same first point) --
Quote2. You don't kill characters, players kill their characters.
I thought I understood this, going in. It's good to see it restated. I was feeling more responsibility than I had.
I did remind them repeatedly that they could give. The girl who only took 3d10 Fallout? During the conflict she gave halfway through, rather than take even more.
So Brand, Kintara, Frank, Marco --
You are all right. Much can be laid at the feet of inexperience with this system. Next time, we will know better what d10s of Fallout
mean.
Back to Brand --
Quote4. Groups that aren't about the hard choices and hard consequences may not like Dogs.
We loved it. I knew we'd love it. We're all about the Story Now. Perhaps for that very reason we've never much had to address the question of System-enforced character death: for years we've avoided it with Illusionism, while playing otherwise Vanilla Narrativism.
Quote5. Have you ever played Everway? Or read the articles about fortune/karma/drama and their use as resolution mechanics? Under that kind of setup, when would you be willing (comfortable) killing characters?
Yes, I played Everway with this very group. I never read the rulebook, however. Another of our number was the all-knowledgeable GM. I don't recall using the Fortune systems -- just Karma and Drama. Unless drawing Tarot cards was the Fortune part?
You are right that I feel a mistrust for the dice.
*To me, the difference feels enormous between "this is worth a 2.8% chance of my Dog dying" and "this is worth my Dog dying." I would have no problem whatsoever with a player opting for the latter.
*But the former, the
chance: it feels too easy to gamble like that without really
meaning it. Once the player loses the gamble, how can I
not say: "Did you really
mean that? We [the group, by consensus] have the power to undo it, you know." Anything less seems almost
cruel.
James --
QuoteHowever, the one thing he didn't say, I'm going to: Can you post the town and the run through the Dogs gave it, even in abbreviated form? I really want to see the town that left 5 Dogs bleeding on the floor!
I'll start a thread on it in more detail later, but for now let's say it involved:
1. A man abusing his family in terrible ways;
2. A Steward who had been trying unsuccessfully for years to correct the problem peacefully;
3. And a firebrand who wanted to solve it with violence, whose wife was spreading gossip to help justify such a solution.
As for how the Dogs handled it: It is remarkable how art imitates life.
Chris --
I understand the dangers of irresponsible GM fiat. In order to undo a death, I'd have to get the whole group on board. The problem is that I just wouldn't be able to be impartial about it.
*It is hard for me to understand how a functional group can tell one of its own "no, it doesn't matter that you still want to play this character, we won't let you anymore."
Calithena, Lance, Coffeestain, Joshua --
It happened that I did Give one of the healing conflicts outright. Another player had taken only 3d10 Fallout: adding in Demonic Influence, I rolled utter crap on 6d10. He didn't even have to bring in any additional dice to survive.
It was actually pretty funny: The King of Life says, "You done yet?" and he goes "Nope." So the King's all, "Aiight then." Bam! He's healed.
But overall I had the clear impression from the text that I was not supposed to just give, at least not without making it hard for the characters. "Escalate, escalate, escalate," says the book. And with all the dice out on the table, the players know if you're going easy on them.
Thanks all for your feedback!
I am most interested in discussion continuing on the ideas I marked with a
* above, although maybe there's nothing to talk about but my quirky hangups. This doesn't feel like a mere Creative Agenda clash to me: it feels like I have a particular Social Agenda that this crazy Dogs episode did a great job of revealing.
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 12, 2005, 08:45:49 PM
*To me, the difference feels enormous between "this is worth a 2.8% chance of my Dog dying" and "this is worth my Dog dying." I would have no problem whatsoever with a player opting for the latter.
*But the former, the chance: it feels too easy to gamble like that without really meaning it. Once the player loses the gamble, how can I not say: "Did you really mean that? We [the group, by consensus] have the power to undo it, you know." Anything less seems almost cruel.
Actually, I can understand this. Mo (my wife and most frequent player) has this same issue. If she is ready to lay things down, she is ready to lay things down. But things that require her to gamble with it, one way or the other, drive her nuts. In fact she shows a preference away from Fortune mechanics in general. Ironically she likes Dogs a lot though, so I'm not fully sure what to make of that. (Other than that cream always rises).
If you look at my replies on this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17974.0) you'll see an example of what I mean. In that situation my wife lost her character in a brutal, traumatic way and didn't have a problem with it. Of course, she also didn't roll to live or die. She just let it happen. The only part she wasn't happy with is that she couldn't save her worst enemy, which is something she rolled for. And it wasn't even that she wasn't happy with the result, it was that she was unhappy with the gambling aspect of it. I think she wanted to say something with it, one way or the other, and felt like the point at which she was rolling was letting the dice, rather than her, have the say of it.
Aside:
Quote from: glyphmonkey on December 12, 2005, 12:25:08 PM
As a GM, though, I'm not sure I'd ever want to Give in a life and death situation. The player wanted to risk the character's life. That's why they didn't Give in the conflict that started this all. The player said in explicit, mechanical terms, "I want to risk my character's life on this issue."
It never stops wondering me how fundamentalist people tend to get round here, and how much Meaning they tend to read into one tiny ephemera. Fine if it works for you, though.
- Frank
What's even stranger though, Frank, is that people are less fundamentalist about that kind of stuff around here than almost anywhere else in the RP world, in general.
So this:
Quote*It is hard for me to understand how a functional group can tell one of its own "no, it doesn't matter that you still want to play this character, we won't let you anymore."
This is definitely a personal preference thing.
People really hate losing at basketball too, but when the ball goes through the rim that last time, and you have fewer points, well, that's the end. You lost.
It's a game? Character investment is different for different people?
Here's the thing. The group might have something invested in death as part of play. In old-school gamist play it's a form of failure, but it doesn't even have to be that: maybe you're trying to play a sort of blood opera game, or just a big, epic sweep Game of Thrones kind of game where it's important that lots of protagonists die en route to resolution. That's the feel you want for your story.
So you decide to adjudicate that randomly.
It sucks when authors kill your favorite characters in the middle of books, too, but I don't stop reading if the book is otherwise good when that happens.
Am I missing something here? A player says "my story isn't over". The GM and the rest of the group say "yes, it is, we're playing with these rules and the dice said it's over. Suck it up, you can make a new character and get back in ASAP."
I realize this is misery-inducing for lots of people, and that there are a lot of gamers who would rather play it your way. I'm just saying there are also a lot of gamers who are fine with it if a character they weren't 'done with' dies. Even if they're heavily invested in the character. All this is going on in our imagination, remember. It's not like any actual human beings were killed by the outcome of this game.
I have a practical take and a personal vision.
Practical take: Part of what you must do in the first two three sessions you play is work this stuff out with your group. "How lenient do I be in those medical aid conflicts?" fits right in with "what counts as a good raise?" and "how much supernatural?"
As such, give or don't give, and be prepared to do the opposite next time, nothing to worry about.
Personal vision: I do not believe that a player's ownership of her own character is sacrosanct. Some schools of thought about RPGs consider it fundamental; not me. When you play Dogs, you volunteer you character to be changed, totally beyond and outside of your own control. People's emphasis above this post on "if a character dies, it's because the player chose it" is misguided, I think; instead I'd say "if you want to hold your character as she is, don't play her."
If you want to hold your character as she is, don't play her.
Dogs very concretely and in very specific ways takes away your control of what happens to your character and who your character becomes. Death is the most dramatic example, that's all. It might be that you'd have this reaction to the game even if no character's life had been at stake.
I'm glad this thread exists! Thank you, Adam.
-Vincent
Quote from: Frank T on December 13, 2005, 03:58:40 AMQuote from: glyphmonkey on December 12, 2005, 12:25:08 PM
As a GM, though, I'm not sure I'd ever want to Give in a life and death situation. The player wanted to risk the character's life. That's why they didn't Give in the conflict that started this all. The player said in explicit, mechanical terms, "I want to risk my character's life on this issue."
It never stops wondering me how fundamentalist people tend to get round here, and how much Meaning they tend to read into one tiny ephemera. Fine if it works for you, though.
What's fundamentalist about this? I go into something wanting to have the crap beat out of my character and maybe kill him. I have a way to do that. If I don't want to do that, I don't have to.
It's like racing cars without the danger of crashing: you get bored of having your foot on the floor all the time because you can't do anything dramatic.
You also break the game in some serious ways: You're giving the GM power of life and death over the characters and You're making the game lose its thematic kick by making it no longer be about choices about violence and its consequences.
You can solve both by saying to the players, "If you want to live, I'll give." after the dice are down. That way, they get to say something both ways, and without breaking the rules.
Hey Joshua,
I'm not sure if we're still on topic for this thread, so Adam, please feel free to cut this discussion at any time.
Fundamentalism is "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth". (Source: dictionary.com).
There must always be meaningful choices. There must always be statements and theme. Any mechanically enforced decision in the game must relate to the underlying issues. As the GM, you must strictly enforce the Narrativist agenda at all times. The consequences of any action must be pushed through without mercy lest deprotagonization occur (which the Good Lord forbid).
I am speaking figuratively, of course. But there is an attitude round here of making actual play fit the theory to the last ephemera. It's not your conclusions, it's your assumptions. As I said, fine if it works for you.
- Frank
Brand --
That actual play report sounds cool and powerful. I bet I'd enjoy the kind of play Mo brings to the table.
Sean --
You're right about it being a matter of personal and group preference. I suppose that the situation I'm thinking of is an inherently dysfunctional one: it's where most of the players are committed to this whole "dice determine death" thing, and one player isn't -- but that player
doesn't realize it.
Character death is distinctive. You can talk about it, but you cannot experience it up-front. You can only encounter it well into play. It's a time-bomb of dysfunction. It cannot be prevented unless each player really knows himself well. What do you do when the time bomb goes off, and it's nobody's fault, it's just that the player didn't
know?
In this case of Dogs play, we mostly had players who didn't know from the system what they were getting into -- but we also had one newbie roleplayer. Fortunately, I don't think my group is committed to "dice determine death:" if real unhappiness had occurred, I think we would have done all we could to change things for the unhappy player. And that feels pretty functional to me.
Vincent --
Thanks for the excellent commentary. This in particular is challenging:
QuoteIf you want to hold your character as she is, don't play her.
I think there's a question of degree here that's important.
I don't want to hold a character as she is. Watching her change in ways both planned and unplanned -- that's where the fun's at! You say Dogs takes away your control of what happens, but after this session my players remarked on exactly the opposite: Fallout in Dogs offers you
incredible control over your character's growth.
Change is a spectrum, though, and mechanically-determined death is an extreme. This Dogs session re-exposed me to it after a long time away, and I discovered that despite all the excellence of the Dogs system, when it cranked the Change dial up to death I suffered the same discomfort I remembered from watching friends' characters die in other games.
Part of the shock, I think, was having that feeling happen while I was in the GM seat.
Anyhow, I think there's a dial here that my group can set if death really upsets us. I read a thread in the Lumpley forum a while back about a Dogs group that saw a character die in one episode -- and the next episode the character was alive again with no explanation. Playing the game like that -- non-linear, a bit surreal -- could be a lot of fun as well. Maybe the game ends after everyone has died once.
Joshua and Frank --
Feel free to spin off another thread if you like, linking back to this one to discuss the Actual Play from another angle. I did approach this game with a more "fundamentalist" approach than any I'd run before. "System does matter," right? I'm not supposed to change the rules if I want Dogs to be as cool and powerful as I read about online.[/naivete]