[DitV] Contradicting Doctrine

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I haven't the faintest idea what any of that means in terms of our dialogue, Joshua. Please re-phrase two things, if you would.

1. What you think I'm saying

2. What you are saying

Thanks,
Ron

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

What I'm saying is simpler than I let on. Too many words, said I:

While I agree with you, that arguing the merits of your actions as a Dog is a matter of a regular ol' conflict, you should be clear as a player with both yourself and other players whether or not your action was righteous. I think it just makes a better situation when everyone knows, and it will definitely be better if you know your own character's motivations.

That is, a Dog can be wrong, but as the player, you should know when that happens.

That's all. It was a fluffier post than was necessary.

[TonyLB]

Okay... why?  Doesn't having an inflexible opinion about whether you're righteous just get in the way?

I mean, yes, I can go in with my personal contribution on the question of "Is my character right".  But if my character goes up against another Dog in a conflict about whether he did the right thing, whether I lose or win impacts my sense of whether  my Dog was righteous in the first place.

I integrate the contributions of other players and the rules system into my sense of the ongoing and evolving meaning of the character and his actions.

Am I disagreeing with you, or just misunderstanding you?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Thanks for the clarification, Joshua. I'm maybe with Tony on this one, but let me pose it differently. I'll paraphrase you, in hopes that I have it right.

What you're saying, it seems to me, is nothing more than Be mindful of Premise. This concept is central to any Narrativist play, which, I understand, is a relatively new thing for you and mainly restricted to Dogs in your experience. The Premise becomes especially hard-edged, for Dogs play, when characters differ over what Doctrine should be.

Now for my response:

Note, I said characters, not players. Whether the players even care about what fictional Doctrine should be in their fictional creation is a totally local issue. Whether the players are all grinning at one another in delight as their Dogs disagree, or feeling a kind of queasy but excited commitment to what their Dogs are espousing, or whatever, is all good. What matters is that they all like what is happening, as fellow authors and audience - not what they believe about it, if anything.

Finally, Joshua, I did request that you paraphrase my own point for a reason. I wish you had responded to that request. You are still forcing me to guess what you think I am saying, which is a terrible basis for discourse.

Best,
Ron