[Dogs] Has it happened yet?

[Jason Newquist]

Well.  I've been reading the Forge for a couple years now, on and off you know, and don't think I've ever bothered to post.  Until now.  Was over in Actual Play, and saw a couple DitV threads, and was like, what's this?  A few raised eyebrows later, I was Googling, then clicking on BUY PDF.

Read it cover to cover, and I'm amazed.  Now, props to Ron Edwards and all Vincent's influences.  I own Sorcerer and several supplements, and enjoyed reading them, mostly.  But not like this.  This I got, immediately.  This seems written to play.  Reads wonderfully, and you can really see the game world.  Excellent work.

So I've read through the archives of this forum -- but not the Actual Play yet, that's next.  Until then, I thought I'd ask a couple questions.  Nothing niggling, or anything.  Just a couple "has anyone done this" type questions.

(1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them?  Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that?  I can see these problems cropping up in all kinds of player groups, given enough play time.  It sounds like it could be incredibly destrctive (physically and socially, and in other ways, too), unless great restraint is employed.  Has this ever happened in anyone's play?

(2) I'm particularly interested in this game for my online group.  We play live in a chat room (MUSH rather than IRC, but it could be either) from time to time.  My initial concern is tracking the dice pools.  Which have been used, which are left, etc.  Has anyone else attempted playing online?  How'd that go?

Thanks,
Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

I'd suggest that conflict among the Dogs would be absolutely non-destructive to play. Even if they ended up screwing one another (literally, I'm talking about sex), killing one another, blackmailing one another, or anything else you could name.

You see, there's absolutely nothing about that outcome or range of outcomes that would imply that the players are in any way in conflict or disagreement.

Same goes for Sorcerer, Dust Devils, The Riddle of Steel, or many other games with powerful relationship/passion mechanics.

Best,
Ron

[Judd]

(1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them?  Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that?  

Hells yeah, it happened in two games I ran, one was just last night.

Once it was at a table with gamers who've known each other for a long time and I should've made them do a conflict with dice and all.  I didn't and more fool me.  They were arguing over how to execute a man in the town square while he kneeled there before them.  It was the middle of the night and the square was otherwise deserted.

The soon to be dead fella asked, "If Dogs are the living will of the King of Life, what does it mean when two Dogs argue?"

One of the Dogs responded, "Think of it as God thinking out loud."

Last night two Dogs got into an argument.  One had tried to knife a Desert Territory soldier in a Temple DURING services with the entire town's congregation present.  They got into a public argument.  I made 'em roll for it and it went really well.  The argument ended with the Dog who attempted to knife the soldier proving his point and the Dog who was demanding peace in the Temple realized he was correct in his knife-wielding.

Good stuff and the game backs it up well with social and verbal conflicts being just as dramatic as good ole fashioned good fights.  The only other game I can think of that comes close is Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

(1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them?  Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that?  I can see these problems cropping up in all kinds of player groups, given enough play time.  It sounds like it could be incredibly destrctive (physically and socially, and in other ways, too), unless great restraint is employed.  Has this ever happened in anyone's play?

It's totally fine. In the last game I played, the only violence that happened was between protagonists. It's the most interesting type of conflict sometimes because of the differing moral and religious views of the protags.

I can't comment on the online play, but others here have done it.

[Jason Newquist]

Encouraging reports.  Followup question, then.  Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a PCs has taken a Relationship with another PC?  Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?

[Judd]

Encouraging reports.  Followup question, then.  Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a characters have taken a Relationship with another character?  Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?

My first group took many relationships with one another so they could more effectively back each other up in combat.  I am sure they would not hesitate to take a few d4's for one another if something went poorly.

In the group I ran with this weekend, one of them put her saved relationship dice into a relationship with the members of her posse too.

Absolutely.

[Lance D. Allen]

I have yet, to be honest, to take a relationship with any group members. But then, I've not taken any relationships at all except for one taken as fallout during the last session.

Inter-PC conflicts, on the other hand, I've had a little experience with. Lemme make this clear.. It was fun. I can see how it could be problematic in a group that isn't used to that sort of thing, but in a system where it's quite possible for either side of a conflict to decide whether or not to take fallout, there's not nearly as much stress in it. Just make it clear that inter-PC conflicts are just part of the fun, and you shouldn't have any problems.

[Kaare Berg]

The PVP conflict in my first Dogs Game saw both use their relationships against each other. They all seem to prefer the relationship To my Fellow Dogs to the I am a Dog trait.

One Dog, aka the gunslinger, was struggeling with guilt after killing an inocent kid. When the other two dogs were about to waltz in and force the kids mother to confess to her sins he tried to stop them.

It began as a heart and aquity discussion. They all called on their relationships. Escalated to physical when the gunslinger ran out of "talking dice". The other dogs brushed by him, leaving him with a ton of tempting gun dice just begging to be used. He gave and entered the house.

These relationships get dragged in as often as they can.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Encouraging reports.  Followup question, then.  Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a PCs has taken a Relationship with another PC?  Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?

One of my favorites, paraphrased from a character of mine: 'I prevented Bro. Anthony from learning to read - 2d4'

Inter-character relationships are an excellent, excellent aspect of the system. In fact, mechanically speaking, it's a huge benefit because it helps you in conflicts like 'Can you convince Sr. Hagar she should be ashamed of herself?' with 'Sr. Hagar is a selfish bitch - 6d4' and 'Can I save Bro. Cyrus' life?' with 'Bro. Cyrus and I are married by the King of Life - 4d6'

I just convinced myself to secretly marry another PC next time the opportunity presents itself.

N.B. Intercharacter relationships are the crux of the Mountain Witch system. I'm really happy that designers are adding mechanics to the social system of inter-character story. It's something that's freakishly missing from earlier games.

[Vaxalon]

I think it's important to remember, that players often aren't used to losing control of their characters when they lose a TALKING conflict.

WHen I run Dogs, I might have to say to my players, "In this conflict, everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over.  If you want to continue the conflict, it becomes physical, a shoving match, a fistfight."

That's not something most players have any experience with.

[lumpley]

Yeah, Fred! That, what you just said.

"Everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over," I'm going to remember that.

-Vincent

[Jason Newquist]

The soon to be dead fella asked, "If Dogs are the living will of the King of Life, what does it mean when two Dogs argue?"

One of the Dogs responded, "Think of it as God thinking out loud."

This is precisely the situation I had in mind, incidentally.  Sure, there are implications to the players about PVP conflicts, but depending on the circumstances, there might also be interesting game world consequences, especially if the Stakes involve a question of Doctrine. Might makes right.

Reminiscent of Certamen in Ars Magica.

[Vaxalon]

Yeah, Fred! That, what you just said.

"Everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over," I'm going to remember that.

-Vincent

Cool.  I know I'm getting to understand a game when I can elaborate something better than the creator did.

:)

[beingfrank]

I think it's important to remember, that players often aren't used to losing control of their characters when they lose a TALKING conflict.

WHen I run Dogs, I might have to say to my players, "In this conflict, everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over.  If you want to continue the conflict, it becomes physical, a shoving match, a fistfight."

That's not something most players have any experience with.

This is exactly why I want to run Dogs with the people I play with, and why at least one of them doesn't want to.

One player is very used to winning every Just Talking conflict sie gets into in real life.  When I started explaining some of the things in Dogs to them I got a number of responses:

- But if I come up with a better argument while Just Talking, why shouldn't I win regardless of what the dice say?  Anything else is wrong and unfun.
- People who are not good with words will hate the game because they won't be able to think of ways to See and Raise.
- Any game where the players get to decide what God says to the PCs is riding for a fall.

This is where I started bashing my head against the table.  Frankly, I think my mistake was talking about it, instead of just running it.  My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'

[Vaxalon]

My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'

I think that's how I'm going to do it.  I'm just going to sit down with the rules, have them start making characters, and dive right in.

By then they will be familiar with conflict resolution instead of task resolution, from playing Primetime Adventures.