[Dogs in the Vineyard] Our first Dogs experience!

[JamesDJIII]

While at MACE in High Point, NC, I got a chance to play in a Dogs game run by Jason Morningstar. My friend, Jon, who travelled with me to the convention sat nearby and was really impressed with how neat Dogs in the Vineyard was. Jon and I have played lots of RPGs with each other since 2000. I've owned Dogs in the Vineyard for about 2 years, but I've never been able to convince him or the other in our "regular" game group to try it.

So, after a few hours of observing our play, Jon asked me to run a game and of course I agreed.

I tried to read and reread the rules. I didn't expect to play until later this month, and possibly into the next. But, as it turned out, Jon was able to gather the troops. I arrived with only a vage notion of the first town they would see. Normally this would induce a flop sweat about being unprepared for the evening. As it turned out, this wasn't an issue!

Let me talk about the people that played. First, there was Jon. Jon enjoys miniature wargaming, like Babylon 5 space battle and most lately, Warhammer. He also enjoyed playing with Looney Lab's Icehouse pieces and all of the various games of strategy that go with them. And there was also Pete, who enjoys Amber, Ars Magica, and Heroquest/Herowars, as well as GURPS and Hero. We've all been playing together for some time. In the last year I've been absent more than not from the weekly games for various reasons. So, getting back to gaming was an unexpected surprise.

I explained the basics of the rules and the outline of creating characters. Pete and Jon usually enjoy alcohol in the first few hours of gaming. Typically I drink nothing. I sensed a bit of releuctance on Pete's part to get into Dogs in the Vineyard. He seemed like he wanted to "rush" things into the "real game."

We briefly detoured into a conversation about Dogs in the Vineyard having "legs". Pete's concern was that the game might not be good for extended play, like week after week of content in some marathon D&D campaign. I didn't try to convince that it could or would. Honestly, the length of the games is not important to me as much as how much fun I have playing it. I explained that I would gladly run the game for as long as they wanted to, no more and no less. If that was 2 games or 20, that was going to be fine by me. This seemed to satisfy Pete, and we went right into character creation.

Pete wanted to play an English convert (Pete is English, so the accent was easy) named Brother Algernon. His accomplishment was trying to learn to accept working with people of the "lower" classes. I don't think I did the best job of framing this conflict. I simply told Pete that he would be playing the part of him that wanted to be different, while I was the snobbish, old self. Although the conflict stage could have been better, he quickly picked up the basics of Sees and Raises.

Jon's accomplishment for Brother Joseph was that he wanted to stand up for himself. This conflict went much, much better in my mind. Brother Joespeh, while helping a group of hired hands herd cattle near Bridal Falls. Joseph overheard the hands making rude and blasphemous words against the Faithful. Brother Joseph's raises were about the need to present the Truth to the un-Faithful, being a Dog meant being righteous in the face of evil, etc. My raises were about the brutal whipping they would give him for his lip, that God already had a plan for these heathens in hell, etc. Joseph won the conflict and stood up to what he thought was injustice. We didn't follow-up with what happened, but I imagine that there was some rough language and thrown punches.

I didn't expect character creation to be done, and neither did anyone else. I looked down at my notes for "Willow Creek", the proto-town on paper. I told the guys that I needed 15 minutes to finish with the town. They agreed to take a break while I went through the town creation.

Willow Creek - Something's Wrong!

I had the idea that I wanted to involve the TA in some way, and I also wanted a crime as heinous as murder or rape. I didn't want to scare the players with judgments they didn't feel was "easy" to decide about. After the game it occured to me that this was probably not necessary with this group. I read about a particular event in Mormon relations with non-Mormons in Utath - the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This really grabbed me, so in it went.

The idea is that years and years ago, during a time when the TA soldiers were haunting the borders to the land of the Faithful, and shooting and rapine was not unheard off, a group of emmigrants headed to lands beyong were surrounded and killed. The surviving children were adopted by Faithful families.

1A. Pride - The old Faithful militia officer Parker Hume feels the he, and his people under his Stewardship, are better than other people. Killing other people outside of self-defense or war (in this case, enemy combatants who had no ability to resist) is justified.

1B. Injustice - Hume's men, possibly with their Mountain People allies, killed the emmigrants - including men, women, and children over the age of 6. They also take the younger children to be raised as Faithful, effectively kidnapping them from their surviving relatives back East. One of the surving children, Laura Oldsvald, who is now an umarried young woman, learns enough of what really happen to reject her Faithful family. (This is an injustice too, rejecting love from her family, I think.)  She's also reject righteous courtship from other unmarried men. Hume maintains that the massacre was the work of bushwackers and Mountain People who the militia could not "contain."

2A. Sin! Laura has begun to have sex with Matthew Hume, Parker's son. Laura's father has been taking to drink to deal with the increasingly hostile domestic situation. And of course, backtracking a bit, Captain Hume committed murder (even if it was a long time ago).

2B. Demon Attacks! Demons have been attacking and killing sheep. I'm not sure if this is just the demons, possesed Branch memebers or Mountain People, or both.

3A. False Doctrine! Captain Parker beleives that sometimes you have to kill to defend the Truth, even when it's in cold blood.

I like this setup - it's not too complicated but it's something that I care a lot about, emotionally. I can dig this. I go with it.

What do the Townspeople want from the Dogs?

Cyrus Oldsvald - I want the Dogs to marry Laura to Matthew. I want the Dogs to bring Laura back into the fold and show her our family's love is honest,

Eliza Oldsvlad - I want the Dogs to get my husban, Cyrus, to stop drinking. I want the Dogs to get Laura right with the King of Life.

Laura - I want the Dogs to expose the crimes that I think Captain Hume committed. I want the Dogs to take me to Silver City where I can leave the Faith once and for all.

Matthew Hume - I want the Dogs to tell me the truth about the massacre. I want the Dogs to marry me and Laura. I want the Dogs to get Laura to repent.

Captain Hume - I want the Dogs to make Matthew a Dog. I want the Dogs to remove Laura from the Branch.

"Thunder Elk" Marrion - I want the Dogs to understand that the Mountain People were not all behind the massacre, as Hume maintains.

What do the demons want? They want Captain Hume to make his doctrine the law. They want anyone who threatens this new doctine to be a victim of it, in the name of the Faith, of course.

What do the demons want the Dogs to do? They want the Dogs to use their weapons, just like Captain Hume did, to protect the Faithful, probably on Laura first.

What would happen if the Dogs didn't come? Parker would kill Laura after he learns that she is pregnant and has ruined Matthew as a potential Dog. His deeds would be backed by his doctine of justified murder, and his Branch would now be his flock of his False Priesthood.

In the next post I'll talk about what happened when Brother Joseph and Brother Algernon walked into town!

[JamesDJIII]

Part 2

I described the terrain near Willow Creek, mostly rolling hills, with few trees. It's sheep herding country for the most part. Willow Creek itself is just small hamlet that straddles the real Willow Creek.

At first Pete and Jon didn't leap into proactive mode. They seemed to be sitting back, letting me drive until the "GM plot" showed up. I simply narrated how as they rode in people were excited and happy to see them. After all, the Dogs could solve any problem and set right any wrong. I described how the Steward, Parker Hume, was happy to see them. The whole town turned out to feed the Dogs at the meeting hall and to talk about where they had been, etc. After passing out the mail, Hume got right down to business: here's my son, I think he's Dog material!

Jon and Pete were noncomittal about helping Mathew but assured Hume they would do what they could. They decide to talk to Mathew and I basically make it clear, right up front, that while he appears to be a decent, trsutworthy young man, he's got his eyes on a particular young lady, Laura. Mathew professes to want to be a Dog in front of his father. Pete and Jon exchange that "aha!" look.

The Dogs ask the Steward if there's anything wrong otherwise, anything they can help with. The Steward mentions that of course, in every town there's some bad seeds (he's also looking over at Laura), but that the worst thing are the dead sheep. I was afraid that Pete and Jon would latch onto this as the "thing we have to fix". I tried to make sure I wasn't pushing them to one direction or another. I tried to keep the NPCs driving action and scenes, with each one basically looking at the Dogs as the one saving grace sent to them from Bridal Falls.

Instead of going into clue hunt mode, I tried to keep the scenes coming from person to person, and most importantly, where a conflict was waiting to be center stage. I asked if there was anything they wanted to do or people to speak to. They said they wanted to speak at the Sabbath to the Branch, but other than that, they had no immediate plans.

Hume wanted the Dogs to spend the night at his house, and the next scene is after their dinner together, and Human wants to the Dogs to interview his son. Hume mentions that he think Mathew has the makings of a great Dog, of course. He just needs to be "persuaded" away from the tempations of courtship at this time. Hume would rather have a Dog as a son than grandchildren right now.

Hume points out that he doesn't like Laura, who he reveals is not born into the Faith, but was adaopted. He dances around the subject of the massacre. Pete and Jon both again have that look, but don't press him. Instead they offer to talk to Mathew first, then Laura, and get the kids right with the Faith.

Brother Joesph and Brother Algernon go to the barn and start to pressure Mathew about his intentions about being a Dog. Mathew says he'd... well.. Mathew doesn't want to say! Conflict! Dice come out and Brother Algernon gets Mathew to admit that he's been seeing Laura in an improper manner. Mathew tooks a single die of fallout, giving to Algernon and Joseph's pressure. Mathew is releived that the Dogs are here to help. He begs them to marry him and Laura as soon as possible. Laura is the woman he wants to be with and raise a family with.

There's an understanding now with Pete and Jon that despite the simplistic situation, there's nothing simple about getting this untangled. It's a fantasic moment to see the looks on their faces when they realize that Laura might even be pregnant! What to do?

Their next step is to confront Laura, but we're out of time for the night.

Overall, I really enjoy letting the players do their own plotting and planning as to how the town should be "fixed." They easily grasped the basics of the conflict system. I had moments where I had to reference the rules, especially regarding fallout. I think by next game I'll feel more comfortable with the mechanics. I'm also looking forward to the moment when they learn about what the massacre was about and who was involved.

There's also a couple of wants and needs that are working at cross-purposes: Laura wants to leave the Faith, Mathew wants to marry Laura and raise a family here, Mathew's father wants a rightous Dog as a son and Laura to be gone for good, and so on. No easy answers,  and best of all I don't need to have the answers or some uber-important plot development to happen. I'm just going with the flow!

[Meguey]

This all sound good - have you played the next session yet? If so, how did it go? Has Pete backed off from the 'rush through' mode you mentioned in the first post?

[JamesDJIII]

We've played twice since then, actually.

They eventually, and mutally, decided that the town's Steward Parker Hume, had to die. They talked with him about the massacre first. I tried to play Hume as sympathetically as possible. He certainly regretted what had happened and really wanted his to move on in the Faith. Both players coaxed the names of the other officers involved, and shot Hume dead in the middle of an empty field. I didn't see that coming!

Both players felt as if that was what was needed to help heal the community, and in the larger sense, the Faith.

Hume's son spent a night alone and later came back to learn about his father's death. He opted to collected the body by himself. Interestingly, the Dogs played his death as self-inflicted. I haven't really decided what Hume's son will do when he notices that there is no firearm on his father's body. Does he accept the Dog's judgment?

In the meantime, the Dogs took Laura on a pilgrimage to Bridal Falls. The Temple elders agree to find someplace for her to live and work. They also get the story about Hume's death and basically nod, "Yeah, being a Dog is sometimes hard."

Pete didn't back off, unfortunately. By the third time we played, it was pretty obvious that he didn't like the game. He was particaulary combative. I essentially decided not to run this game with Pete again.

I'm going to run a demo of the game at my FLGS this coming month. I hope the response is as good as Jon's (enthusiastic, excited, rarin' to go).

[JamesDJIII]

Oh gosh! One more thing! I've been wrasslin' with the notion that once you start a conflict, and you roll the initial dice, it's easy to see who'se going to win.

Upon reading the rules and looking at other AP reports, am I right in thinking that you can add a lot more improvised dice by using things and such on the spot? (I mean, I know you *can* do this, but is this a very common means to try and tilt a conflict back your way?)

Thanks!

[Glendower]

Oh gosh! One more thing! I've been wrasslin' with the notion that once you start a conflict, and you roll the initial dice, it's easy to see who'se going to win.

Upon reading the rules and looking at other AP reports, am I right in thinking that you can add a lot more improvised dice by using things and such on the spot? (I mean, I know you *can* do this, but is this a very common means to try and tilt a conflict back your way?)

It's not easy at all to see who'll win at the initial dice throw.  Unless people are going for guns, there's two more pools of dice from escalation.  And of course, the traits, the items, the relationships (saved relationship dice can move mountains during conflict - I HATE Brother Malachi 2D6 will throw things into turmoil) and anything (or anyone) around them that they can conceivably use. 

Your initial pool says nothing.  You can pull one of the above into the pool every single raise.  If you're in a barn, you grab the manure shovel, or a pitchfork.  Or two horseshoes (that was a wicked raise from my game).  Or you can use the manure itself as a raise in a talking conflict "This stinks to high heaven, but it don't smell near to the crap coming out of your mouth!". (another great raise from one of my games, that led to the two horseshoes fight)

Not to mention the thought of how far a Dog will go.  Will they shoot a child to win an argument against them?  Really?  How about this old lady?  How about this pregnant woman?  Again, no judgment, but certainly interesting play. 

[lumpley]

Oh gosh! One more thing! I've been wrasslin' with the notion that once you start a conflict, and you roll the initial dice, it's easy to see who'se going to win.

Upon reading the rules and looking at other AP reports, am I right in thinking that you can add a lot more improvised dice by using things and such on the spot? (I mean, I know you *can* do this, but is this a very common means to try and tilt a conflict back your way?)

Improvised things play a part, but in the games I've run and played they're usually a last-ditch, when both sides are down to their last few dice.

The most important thing for conflict unpredictability is traits. Most conflicts, you should be pulling in better than half your dice over the course of the conflict, not at the start.

-Vincent

[JamesDJIII]

If I'm reading you right, then escalations are more important than traits.

I'm also aware that in most cases, you probably want to give when you see the odds are against you and come back in a follow-up conflict?

Thanks for the answers!

[lumpley]

You're right! Of course you're right about escalation vs traits, the importance thereof. You're also right about giving and followups.

-Vincent