[DitV] Playing Dogs in a Gamist Pawn stance

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, with all the background, and the aftermath, I'd say you've a right to be pleased. A new GM with traditional players running a non-traditional game?

Seems it went very well, considering.

I'm hardly an old hand with DitV, but I tend to obsess about any game that charms my attentions, so I've the benefit of having read a LOT of Actual Play posts. I'm also a big fan of system and applications thereof. I'm also a bit pedantic once I get going. Re-reading my advice, I winced and was glad you didn't seem to take offense at it.

But keep in mind what you've mentioned here as good and bad (Sustain and Improve, as we'd call it in a military After Action Review) and I think you may find the bumps smoothing out, and a really interesting campaign of Dogs emerging.

I, for one, eagerly await further posts about your game.

[matthijs]

I've never met your players (obviously, since I live pretty much on the other side of the planet from you), but I'm getting a strong feeling that it's a control issue: they really need to feel secure and in control in their games, to the extent that they're uncomfortable trying games they haven't run a zillion times and that one of them is GMing. The attempts to ignore the system, and to define it as a bad game before even trying it, sound to me like they're saying "I don't know what's going to happen, and I'm not sure I can handle it, so I'm going to say it's crap and not play along".

I'd guess that in a short while Shadrah's player will either proclaim publically and stubbornly that DitV is no good, probably focussing on one episode where the system didn't work out; or he'll buy the game and run his own campaign in it so he can be in control.

[lumpley]

This is wonderful! Everybody's saying everything I could possibly say. I'm just reading happily along.

-Vincent