[Dogs] Red Creek Runs Red

[GB Steve]

However, conflicts between PCs can be very tense and unpleasant, especially if the players don't know each other well, so I can see how people would want to avoid this.

We had PVP conflict in the game I ran in Paris and it was a strong feature of the game. Dogs gives a way of settling this kind of conflict and if the players realise that its part of the game and nothing personal then I'm all for it. In some groups that's a big if.

As for combat-wombattry, as James says, everyone has roughly the same dice, although perhaps equipment might play a role if a player chooses big quality swords as well as guns. But even if other characters have a hard time standing up to a bullying character, I think that in Dogs, more than any other game, it's the GM responsibilty to show that PC the consequences of his actions and give that PC some tough moral choices based around their character concept.

[James Holloway]

However, conflicts between PCs can be very tense and unpleasant, especially if the players don't know each other well, so I can see how people would want to avoid this.

We had PVP conflict in the game I ran in Paris and it was a strong feature of the game. Dogs gives a way of settling this kind of conflict and if the players realise that its part of the game and nothing personal then I'm all for it. In some groups that's a big if.

Yeah, the social stuff is foregrounded a bit more in that kind of conflict.

As for combat-wombattry, as James says, everyone has roughly the same dice, although perhaps equipment might play a role if a player chooses big quality swords as well as guns. But even if other characters have a hard time standing up to a bullying character, I think that in Dogs, more than any other game, it's the GM responsibilty to show that PC the consequences of his actions and give that PC some tough moral choices based around their character concept.

But you can't do this if the guy doesn't give a hoot about the morality and just wants to pile up bodies. Now, none of us can read Ravi's mind, but if you want to play Dogs like it's Space Invaders or something, you may mess up other people's fun. I've known players who take characters with strong, violent moral convictions precisely so they have an IC excuse to kill everything they see and not have any qualms about it. The point of morality is to give yourself the excuse to fight.

[Da_Killah]

Once again I try to clarify and defend myself.  When I read the rules for DitV I thought that the Dogs were an organisation dedicated to the preservation of the faith as a whole.  Once I read that I thought that it was up to each Dog to take it upon himself(or herself) to interpret that as they wish.  Personally I thought that the Dogs could be very effective in instilling a fear of God into people by killing sinners with no questions or chance for redemption.  I thought that this would be the way for the Dogs to opperate so they could effectively lessen sin.  When I created my character I imagined an angry and violent person that does not wait for a sinner to redeem themself, but rather roots out all sin and blows its brains out.  The moment we walked into town I was talking about burning the thing down and killing all the people that were drinking to make an example of what comes of sinning.  So Luke I don't think you can say I started my killing based on Dan's religious righteousness.  Thank you all for putting down the rediculous claim that I have a massive advantage over everyone.  As it has been said we all have almost the same amount of dice.  I think that the psychological effect of pulling out 75% of my dice at once may have made a difference, but that is not my problem.  Also, i'm not changing my character because of you.  I wanted to try a less violent person because while I think that killing all sinners is effective, it's not the only way.  It seems that most people have forgotten why there was a conflict with the mountain people.  To refresh everyone's memory, Dan excomunicated Ryan's sistier and takes the cross that she is wearing.  When the chief refuses to forfeit his cross I try and take it from him with force.  He punches me and we start fighting.  After I defeat the chief and take the cross his Bravos attack me.  Note that I did not yet kill the chief.  Only after Dan and I defeat the Bravos do I kill the chief for not stopping their actions.  Besides the mountain people were all preaching to a false preisthood and as head of the tribe the chief is responsible.  Anyway, with hopefully corrected information maybe I won't be the scapegoat anymore.  And Ryan while I am truly sorry that you didn't enjoy yourself, you really should have just teamed up with someone and talked me out of my killing with little fallout all around.  O well.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

All the really important stuff in this thread got posted by page two.

People are now posting not because they want to develop their understanding, but because they feel they are not being understood - so they post louder and more forcefully, especially with that "barely restrained trying to be polite" tone.

That means the discourse is over and that the thread cannot continue.

Unless the people who played in this game can actually attempt to sympathize with one another's views, and quit hugging their own views and excuses to their chests, then they'll have to remain unhappy with each other.

And never mind all the bullshit disclaimers about "it's only a game" and "of course we're not mad at each other." You guys are fucking enraged with one another; it's painfully obvious.

Try to settle some of that emotion through honestly airing it before you think you can contribute here.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I think there's so much going on in this game that its impossible to actually come to any single item and say "there.  there's where it all went wrong".

Clearly people had different levels of understanding of who Dogs are and their role in the faith.  If all of the PLAYERS had been on the same page then those sorts of differences between CHARACTERS are super sources of wonderful in-game grist.  But when the players are conflicted there's a problem.

I also think not following the Town creation rules was a mistake.  Unlike other games that offer scenario creation advice the town rules aren't just there to provide ideas when the GM is creatively stuck and can't come up with anything.  They are rules that should be adhered to pretty religiously (pun intended). 

Also as Luke indicated above some of the conflict resolution rules weren't handled mechanically correctly.  This statement of Ravis'

I think that the psychological effect of pulling out 75% of my dice at once may have made a difference, but that is not my problem.

particularly raised my eyebrows.

Its not possible to pull out 75% of your dice at once ever.  The rules are very explicit about what dice you get.  You get the d6s from your 2 relevant attributes (depending on the type of conflict) and you get relationship dice from any relationship that is involved in the conflict or is part of the stakes.  Period.  That's it.  Those are the ONLY dice you get at the beginning of a conflict.

Trait Dice and Belongings Dice only get added DURING the conflict, one at a time, as they are called on.  If you narrate doing something "big and intimidating" during a raise or see then you can throw in your "big and intimidating" dice.  But you don't just automatically throw those dice into every conflict where maybe being big and intimidating is an advantage.  If you don't do it you don't get it.  If you can't specifically demonstrate a trait being actively called on in the middle of the conflict with your narration you never get those dice.  That's the built in balancing factor against very broad and vague Traits.  Its a lot easier to narrate a specific narrowly defined high imagery Trait then it is to narrate a vague one.  So if Ravi was basically taking his Angry, Hot Headed, and Don't Know When to Stop dice and throwing them into the pot right off the bat, that was very mechanically wrong.

Dogs is a game that is very sensitive to how all of the parts interact.  Its not like many games where the rules aren't all that exacting and so you can slop around in one direction or another without doing too much damage.  Dogs needs to be played pretty close to exactly as written in order to work best.

Towns created like X, combined with conflict resolution handled like Y, mixed with Dogs whose role is Z, equals great DitV play.  Start scrambling up the X the Y and the Z and Dogs play can derail pretty easily.

To me that's exactly what happened here.  Town creation wasn't by the rules, Conflict Resolution wasn't by the rules, and the players jumped into playing Dogs without the very important background information on the nature of the faith and stewardship to guide their behavior.

I'm not at all surprised that the game wasn't a home run with everyone.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I may not have been 100% clear. Closed thread means closed. No more posting here.

Thanks,
Ron