[Dogs] Red Creek Runs Red

[Da_Killah]

Yea, I played it as a bully and for all aforementioned reasons should have been stopped.  Ryan, I'm sorry if i made the experience any less fun, but as everyone has said you should have just stood up to me and stopped me from killing everyone that I did.  Not only this, but I didnt have that much of an advantage in combat.  It may have seemed like I had a huge advantage because I pulled all my dice out at once, but if you think about it you would have the same amount of dice that I do if you started with talking and escalated up.  If you remember you guys whipped my ass when the conflict was verbal, so if you guys escalated with me you would have had some dice left over from the verbal.  Anyway, I do take responsibility for playing the bully, but if you look at my character sheet I'm sure you would agree on my choice of actions.  My character was angry, hotheaded and violent.  Oh, and by the way Luke, you never checked my belonings until I pulled out my sword in combat.  Had you said something I would have toned it down a bit, even though it was my only excellent item aside from my cloak.  Oh well, next time I'll play a "gentle giant" instead of the agressive ogre-type character that I did.

[Brennan Taylor]

Wow, Luke... why are you complaining to the one player in the game who actually got how to play it?

Tony, come on. I'm all for playing to the hilt. But not at the expense of another player's fun. As Ryan has made explict, he didn't enjoy the session because Ravi was being aggressive and uncharitable. There are ways for Ravi to play hardball and for everyone to enjoy the game.

Yes, and in DitV the way to do that is to start conflicts with other players to resolve these issues, which the other players were consistently backing down from doing. I agree with Tony that this wasn't Ravi's problem. He created a mad Dog, and his brothers and sisters wouldn't stop him. So, he got to decide how this all played out.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I've played with folks like Da_Killah (Ravi?), and I have to recommend hard-line confrontational narrativism for playing with them. Luke, you can see the justifications and recriminations you folks have going on here, and I say that the best way for not having them is playing it hard, playing it fair and accepting the resulting story. This kind of player usually accepts that if he's playing high-risk, fast and hard, then his character might be the one feeling it in the end. Problems only crop up when the hard play is taken as an excuse to back down by the others; the other players let the situation look like the one player is abusing the social contract, when he's really just pushing the situation to come to a head. My experience with this kind of play comes from a lot of Dust Devils (I've not played DiV outside short demonstrations), and I like to say that the key to answering brutal and insensitive play is not moping, but engaging with the situation all the more harder. He kills somebody, you stress it. He kills many people, you stress it more. Show the consequences and dwell on them. Encourage other players to take a stance towards the action. Don't punish the action in an Act of God manner, but let the consequences of straight-edge, hard violence occur naturally in actions of NPCs and other player characters. With time they will be felt, and when the line is reached, the player will back down because he knows he can't anymore have what he wants. And that can result in some really strong narrativist play. This kind of play is NOT gamism or false play or whatever, it's just quick, crude and brutal stories about violence. The player's forceful actions cause the story to be about those actions, with all the other characters taking a stance towards the action. Such a character is very much "principal" in the way Ron's been telling me, not a protagonist. And that's fine.

Ravi: I think that there's no problem in having excellent belongings and high combat proficiency. Those are just fine choices in this game. However, I also don't think that your character as written is cause for anything in the game. It's all well and good if your character in his previous life was angry, hotheaded and violent. And that will certainly affect his current action. But you're still in the helm of the ship, and in Dogs in the Vineyard, as in some other games, nobody else can judge your chosen action in regards of "realism" or whether you're "playing the character". That's just not the issue. So stand bravely behind your character's actions; you have the right to choose them.

Ultimately you'll need to play more and see whether Ravi's character is ever backing down, or if he's ready to go and die when for the first time he's faced by a superior force on the way of his victory. In the best case you'll have a situation where the prize to be won is relatively insignificant, so it really becomes a question of whether the player really thinks that victory is the only option. Even if the character dies, I think that the process will help illustrate that winning is not the important thing, but the statement. Let Ravi kill a couple of characters, and you'll begin to see if he really thinks that it's only interesting to play for the win. At this point it just looks that he has a more... forceful approach to dramatic pacing than the other players. The potential problem I'm seeing is that Ravi has a too one-sided dramatic sensibility, not that he's playing somehow wrong.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the local house rules and social situation. If you aren't communicating efficiently during the game and all that, it's possible that any one of you is the culprit to causing problems. Just try to be more careful in the future, eh?

[Da_Killah]

Let me clear up some things.  Eero, I had two traits that would make my desicions less simple.  They were "2d6-I will go to the ends of the Earth for the faith" and "2d8-I back my word with my fist".  Not to mention "d6-Angry", "d4-Hotheaded", and "d6-I don't know when to stop".  So if you can seriously tell me that not "playing the character" is a feasible option, then I cannot reason with you or take your opinions seriously.  The fact that those traits make my character good in combat and I used them alot, then there would be no way I could stop being violent without betraying my characters personality.  Since we are Role-Playing how I can not play my role.  So, my character was not nescecarily combat proficient(though I did put 7d6 at Body) as much as adrenaline fueled from other personality traits.  I do think I hold some responsiblity for what desicions I made, but had I not made them I would be "killing" the person that I had created.  Besides DitV allows me to be stopped without dieing, although I would have let him die since that falls under "going to the ends of the Earth for the faith".  It all had to do with interpretation, and since my character was violent then thats how he would see the faith.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Since we are Role-Playing how I can not play my role.

1 - the smaller point: People change. And Dogs is actually well designed to support that, because it lets you turn Fallout into new Traits with great flexibility if you so desire: e.g. "I went for the violent solution and got my butt kicked 2d4" or "I have doubt 1d6" (that'd require Fallout + Experience, actually).

2 - the bigger point: You created your role. Saying "I have to do X because the character is like that" just begs the question of why you, the real person, made the character, the imaginary person, like that in the first place. Big fat caveat: This does NOT mean that anyone who creates and roleplays a jerk is therefore themselves a jerk (otherwise I'm in real trouble myself!). It just means that the imaginary person can't make the real person do anything, and "I'm just roleplaying the character" explains nothing at all.

[Da_Killah]

"I'm just roleplaying the character" explains nothing at all.

What the hell are you talking about.  True I have to create my chracter, and I created a violent an angry person, but that doesn't make it less meaningful to stick to that character.  And by the way, the traits that I listed were all my traits save "d6-Excellent fighter".  So yes the character can change, but no mine did not.

[Eero Tuovinen]

What Sydney said. However, I don't think that this particular discussion is on the thread topic. I'm sure Luke can tell you all about the distinctions in detail if you're interested in the theory. I don't even think that it's such a big deal; if you want to think that your decisions are inevitable considering the character you made, I think that's cool. The game won't break by that, it just means that your decisions in the game are not subject to out-of-game discussion, as they're non-negotiably caused by the character. And certainly nothing in DiV requires players to discuss the events in any other than character terms. Although I AM left wondering where you got the idea that a player has to or should instate such incontrovertible laws of behavior for his character during chargen, not to speak of sticking to those facts during the game. I'm not sure that it's coming from the rules of DiV, at least. Perhaps you should discuss that before the next session you play?

I hope I didn't derail the thread here. Be nice to me and get back to discussing the actual play events, instead of hashing out whether a player has to base his decisions on preconseived facts of character. That's a theory topic if something is, and handling it usefully will require recognizing that there's plenty of different games out there and they expect a wide variety of behavior from the players. Takes a while to get the groundwork done, if you know what I mean.

[rafial]

I'm curious as to what the initiation conflicts were for each character.

[Luke]

Whoa there, tiger. Let's take a step back. And look at this logically.

What is "your character?" It is a series of numbers and descriptions you wrote down on the character sheet. Your character has no personality on his own. He can take no action on his own. Your character doesn't exist as an independent entity. He exists solely in your imagination if at all. He can't make decisions.  

However, you can. You are the player. You're a person. You've got personality and priorities. All the stuff on your character sheet, you wrote it there because you thought it was cool. You, Ravi, thought that it'd be cool to have those numbers and priorities. You, Ravi, thought it'd be cool to play them in a certain way. You, Ravi, played them to the hilt -- unrelentingly. You made those decisions. Not your character. You could have made other decisions. You could have played those numbers in a different way. You could have fought against the brutal nature you outlined on the character sheet. You could have made decisions that had nothing to do with what's on your character sheet.

In fact, now that I think about, you did. No one plays in a vacuum. You let yourself be inspired by Dan's righteous indignation. There was no roll. There was nothing on your character sheet that said your character was righteous or holy like Dan. You wrote that he was violent, hot-headed and determined. You also chose not to be swayed by what Ryan was saying. That was a decision that YOU, Ravi, made. Not your character. You could have decided "to give" on whatever conflict Ryan proposed. But you didn't. You wanted to play it a certain way, so you made certain decisions. But your character didn't make any decisions at all.

You dig?

This is just basic game theory, Rav. I'm not trying to attack you or anything. But the sooner you step back and take this all in, the better you will game.

crossposted with Eero
-Luke

[Eero Tuovinen]

Well said, Luke. Let me add one more DiV-specific thing before letting this particular question rest. Traits.

You see, traits in Dogs in the Vineyard are not inherently about what your character has to be like. They're more like inclinations or former experiences (as is the case very much with attributes that are added through play). You could say that traits are you yourself bribing yourself to act in a certain way. So if you have "d6 - Angry" as a trait, that doesn't mean that you've promised to other players that you'll play your character angry. Actually, there's no promise at all; the sole effect of the trait is that you've made it so that you can only get at that d6 by accepting angry action from your character. You the guy who generates that character are bribing the future you, who has to make all those in-game decisions, into making those decisions in a certain way. By choosing not to, you would be forfeiting those dice in that particular situation, but that's a player's pregorative and choice, not a way of breaking the rules. It's a valid and acceptable option. In some situations the cost of not having that die is less for the character than the cost of getting angry would be. What a fine situation!

Now, if the point of the game were to be winning, then forfeiting dice purposefully would very much be letting the other players down. Then your responsibility would be to make the best showing you could. In that case not getting to use those dice would be a penalty levered at you for not playing properly. But that's not the case in Dogs in the Vineyard, because it's not a game that's about winning. You can see this if you think about it for a bit: it's easy to win in DiV, because the tactics are so simple. Just take lots of big guns and use them sequentially until your dice overwhelm the opponent, for example. And even if you lose, that just makes you stronger in the long run, so there's no risk at all. And the GM can bring out an overwhelming force whenever he wants to. So if you look at the game from the viewpoint of winning, it's just not a very good game. Which is understandable, because the game is not about trying to win and get your way, but about having to choose what that way of yours is going to be. It's more "play" and less "game".

So that's why I'm saying that you always have a choice, even in the middle of the game. The most interesting situation is not necessarily when your character acts like you said he would at chargen, but when he chooses to act differently. Will your character ever understand the dangers of not thinking before acting? Will he encounter things so sacred that he chooses to let go of his gun? Those are the things you're finding out in DiV!

[Larry L.]

Ralph, I called Ravi a bully to his face. And told the other players that they had to stand up to him. I'm well aware of the brilliant power of the conflict resolution mechanics. I knew that they could frame conflict that would stop Ravi. But Ryan was at the center of the conflict. And often he was getting it from two sides -- from Dan and Ravi. Chris and Jason looked to follow his lead. As he clearly stated in his post, he wasn't interested in the game going in that direction.

Cool, that's what I suspected. So, one player commits crimes that the other players, combined, have the power to stop. But they don't stop him. They let him do it, and complain afterwards that he did the wrong thing... In other words, they were willing to let someone else do the dirty work as long as they could wash their hands of the deed.

That is spooky, powerful stuff. This Dogs thing is some crazy firewater.

[TonyLB]

You, Ravi, thought that it'd be cool to have those numbers and priorities. You, Ravi, thought it'd be cool to play them in a certain way. You, Ravi, played them to the hilt -- unrelentingly. You made those decisions. Not your character. You could have made other decisions.

But is there any reason he should have played any differently?

Because, I reiterate, it sounds to me like he played a damn fine Dog, and then the rest of you (rather than stepping up and matching his performance with equally committed performances of your own) decided that you'd appeal to your wholly irrelevant experience in past games, to shame him into not playing that way any more.  As you said, you called him a bully to his face, just for using the system as it was meant to be used.

So in theory I agree: "My character made me do it" is not a justification for anything.  But then, Ravi doesn't need a justification.  Where do you suppose he got the silly notion that he does?

[Luke]

Tony,

We're in complete agreement here. Perhaps Ravi will back me up -- I never said he did anything wrong. I explicitly told the other players he was not acting wrongly. I was enjoying his play very much. I called him a bully because he was playing a bully. Should i have called him a diplomat? I also called him out because there's only one thing you can do to a bully -- stand up to him.

The disconnect, and I don't know why you're having trouble with this, is because Ryan was OOC visibly very uncomfortable in the game. He obviously wasn't enjoying himself. Trampling on other player like that in the name of playing full throttle ain't cool. Ryan admitted that he almost quit the game! In my book, that ain't cool. It's all of our responsibility to make sure we're all on board. But it's the aggressive player's primary responsibility.

I'm not talking about a hippy love in. I'm talking about stuff like this. One of the other players, Dan, IM'd me last night. He said:
"I felt like outright saying to him, unless you take some initiative, alot of people are going to die."

That would have been very cool. It would have been a strong player to player move. Dan obviously understood where the conflict was headed and what was at stake. Unfortunately, he was too old school to break out of character. I've played with too many bully players who have ruined WAY too many games to accept excuses like, "I was just playing my character" or "I was just doing what i was supposed to do." Bullshittttttttttt.

And let me reiterate: I had a blast last night. I really enjoyed the game, problems and all. But I think there's shit that could use fixing, that's all.

-Luke

[TonyLB]

The disconnect, and I don't know why you're having trouble with this, is because Ryan was OOC visibly very uncomfortable in the game. He obviously wasn't enjoying himself.

And yeah, I agree that's a problem.  I just think you're coming at the problem from a very strange angle.

The only person who has control over Ryan's feelings is Ryan.  Now in games where Ryan can be made powerless, and subjected to the will of another without any recourse of his own, then yeah he can be put into a position where he has no way to make his own fun and needs help from the GM and the group.  But Dogs just isn't such a game.  Ryan had the power to stand up to Ravi at any time, on his own, and didn't.

So you've got one guy (Ravi) who's having fun and driving the story because he doesn't expect anyone else to do that for him.  And then you've got another guy (Ryan... though by extension many of your other players) who isn't having fun and isn't driving the story because he does expect someone else to help him out.  Your problem, as far as I can see, is that expectation... the fact that, from previous gaming experiences, the other players think that they can turn to the GM or to non-mechanical social pressure to get their way, rather than standing up for it themselves and engaging with the mechanics.

Eliminate that expectation (by which I mean not just saying "Ravi is allowed to do that" but actually accepting, in your heart, that if someone doesn't make their own fun then they simply won't have fun and that's not your problem) and you force players to examine their own, very substantial, resources.  Support that expectation and you reward people for convincing themselves that they're powerless and need to be protected.  And, of course, they'll do what you reward them to do.

I really do think it's just that simple.  Not easy, but simple.

[jason-x]

:::OOPS::::posted this as it's own topic by accident...(first time poster here...sorry)

Hey guys-
I'm Jason.  I played Br. Phillip in Red Creek.  Anyways...Yeah so, it was kind of problematic.  Luke, your town was brimming with all sorts of cool shit.  There was the steward that was in over his head (Ravi's uncle); there was the amputee who hated me, despite the fact that I saved his life; the runaway bride, and of course lies, lies, LIES!!!!  YES!!  only, well....we didn't really get to all that.  The place I saw shit go completely wrong was when Ravi and Dan started hacking up mountain people.  Here's my problem:
I've read the posts here, and seen people say that all this conflict is what makes DitV interesting.  Sorry, but I have to disagree.  What's interesting, to me, are the difficult moral situations the game puts players in.  Now, I know....THIS situation COULD be seen as a difficult moral situation.  "You let him do the dirty work,"  "Why didn't you stand up to him?" and so on, and so on...Sorry.  Let's just be realistic about all this.  Ravi was playing to "win."  Plain and simple.  He said this.  He built up a powerhouse and just wanted to kill things (and quite possibly....take their stuff...heh) .  At least that's the way it seemed to me.  As soon as they saw that there was a tribe of mountain people it was "Well, they're Pagans...let's kill 'em."  Wow, what a compelling story.  What about all the other RAW, JUICY, MEATY shit?  What about the amputee who felt so INJUSTICED that he got this whole ball rolling to begin with?  How about making an example out of him?  What about Ravi's uncle?  Wait, you want PvP?  Make it count.  Call Ryan's sister a sinnin' slut, and drag her into the middle of town and put a gun to her head.  THAT's dramatic.  Not Johnny Cavalry Sword hacking up a bunch of mountain people.  There was just SO much other shit that was SO much more important than some mountain folk.  THIS is what went wrong for ME.  Everything just seemed so irrational.  It didn't make sense, and quite frankly, I didn't wanna play into it, because I felt it was...well...boring.  And not what makes DitV interesting to me.  And sorry, I'm not gonna get my guy killed so that a powerhouse character can "win."  That's just dumb.  And at that point, one character IS running the game.  Regardless if you stand up to him, you still HAVE to stand up to him.  ME? Jason/Phillip?  In my mind, I didn't wanna kill a brother Dog. 
No, I didn't expect Luke to hold my hand and step in when necessary.  Fuck all that (we did have some cool conflicts--and I think I even lost every one...).  But what about when my bookwormy guy came out of his shell and stood in front of a bunch of drunk, gun-toting fucks?  I made a stand, and it didn't amount to shit.  I think this was possibly a mechanics issue (not necessarily the game's mechanics, but our misunderstanding of them ) as I was in a conflict with the group leader, and then Ravi decided to jump in as well.  It was when he threw in his 800 or so dice that I gave.  But fuck it.  I played my guy, and in the end, as Dogs, we failed.  Because of some irrational behavior, which to me was just completely unwarranted, uniteresting and completely beyond my control.  Someone said that Ravi's guy made a damn fine Dog?  That's funny.  He kind of got an entire faithful town slaughtered.  Yeah.  Smooth.  It was only Chris, Ryan, and I that made any attempt at saving ANYONE at ANY time.  These guys were out for blood.  We were out to save some faithful people, redeem a few sinners, and -if need be- deal out death and judgment.  At least I was.
Look...sorry if I'm sounding like a dick or whatever.  I just wanted to chime in with my 2 cents.  In the end, it's only a game.  Of course I don't hate anyone, and no hard feelings or any of that horse shit.  I just feel like we completely missed the point of what makes Dogs different.  It was played like a hack-n-slash, when (to me), it's so much more.  Luke, thanks for having us over.  I'd still love for you to run a BW demo for us (PvP and all).  Ravi, Dan and Chris, it was nice to meet you guys. Maybe we can play again sometime.  Take care.
JX