Live Dogs

[Levi Kornelsen]

Entirely independent of task resolution, my first thought was something along the lines of having each player create one protagonist (main character) and one town - they'd set a cast of characters for their own town.  Then, when the game was in action, there would be two or three scenes running, with a few players as protagonists, and the rest as extras, at any given time.  After scenes 'let out', players could mingle and decide which town to run at next, and with which characters.  As towns get used, the players for them would write new ones for the future...

Pushing this even further, it'd be possible in that structure for some players to create protagonists that weren't Dogs - things like regulators and rangers from the authority, sorcerers, and so on, and have them muddle up towns already "fixed" - which could happily introduce protaginist vs. protagonist 'overplots', as the Dogs spread the word that a Sorcerer has been working his way down the towns on the east side of the county (or whatever), and needs to be caught and put down.

That general area of group structure springs to mind; it opens up the ability to use stances and agendas beyond the normal limits of most live game structures.

[Andrew Morris]

Oh, Levi, I realised no one had asked you the single most important question -- have you run and/or played Dogs over any length of time?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Oh, Levi, I realised no one had asked you the single most important question -- have you run and/or played Dogs over any length of time?

Nope.

I also hadn't played Werewolf or Vampire in any form before I ran them live.  I was running tabletop games for four years before I was a player in one, and running live games for two years before I played one of those.

It's just how I come at games; getting in at the "deep end" has a long history of working better for me.

[Andrew Morris]

Oh, ouch. I'd be really worried about this. Dogs has a unique feel to it that I haven't seen...well, in any other game. Without really experiencing, understanding, and reproducing that feel, you'd just be creating a generic LARP set in the DitV universe. It might be fun, but it sure wouldn't be Dogs.

My strong recommendation is to get some Dogs actual play in (running or playing, preferably both). You'll see what I mean. If not, oh well, you just spent some time playing an awesome game! Win-win situation for you.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Oh, ouch. I'd be really worried about this. Dogs has a unique feel to it that I haven't seen...well, in any other game. Without really experiencing, understanding, and reproducing that feel, you'd just be creating a generic LARP set in the DitV universe. It might be fun, but it sure wouldn't be Dogs.

My strong recommendation is to get some Dogs actual play in (running or playing, preferably both). You'll see what I mean. If not, oh well, you just spent some time playing an awesome game! Win-win situation for you.

I'm waiting for my own copy of the book right now - and I have a few players warned that as soon as I get it, we're making characters.  Assuming that goes well (which I expect it will, though it may take a session or so to 'get it'), I'll keep them running while I check to see if the people telling me "run it live!" are serious.  If so, I'll use my tabletop group, and any other experienced DitV players around that are interested, as a core starting group for stepping it up.  If not, I'll probably work on Live rules anyway, just to see if it can be done, because it's an interesting challenge conceptually.

[Andrew Morris]

Excellent. I read the book, and expected Dogs to play a certain way, but the actual experience of it surprised me. The amount of trust I now have in the rules to lend a satisfying and interesting play experience without ever needing to "fudge" a roll is incredible. It's good to hear you'll be playing it soon. Your Dogs LARP will be better for it.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Your Dogs LARP will be better for it.

It would, from what I already understand, be almost impossible outside of a plan like that.  In effect, one of the basic principles of the game that I already get is needing to trust the players and their creativity once they know their way around.  A group of 'educated' players, on the spot and already enthusiastic, can teach a LARP's worth of new players to know their way and trust their own creativity far, far faster than one person.

In the meantime, I'm reading the threads on the board here.  There's some very, very great stuff here - which leads me to a question I'll raise in another thread.

[Levi Kornelsen]

The groundwork for the kind of game I'm talking about, which includes some RPG theory-stuff, I'm working on over here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/the_tall_man/

Eventually, when my (now running) DitV tabletop reaches critical mass, it's expected to form the basis of the Live Dogs game I hope to run.