GM vs Players in Sin Hierarchy

[Vaxalon]

An important thing to look at, with respect to the Mind of God in DitV, is the demonic influence hierarchy.

Injustice, Demonic Attacks, Heresy, Sorcery, Hate and Murder.  Those are the GM's perogative.

Pride, Sin, False Doctrine, False Priesthood... those are the PC's perogative.

Pride isn't on the GM's list.  It lives inside the NPC's and as such, can't be detected by the players, not directly.  It CAN be judged by the PC's though... so when the PC encounters Injustice (and he knows it when he sees it, because the GM tells the player) the PC declares what the pride is, and that's the pride.

Sin isn't on the GM's list.  Again, it lives inside the NPC's.  When the PC's encounter demonic attacks, they look around for sin.  WHen they find it... that's what the sin is.  There's usually more than one candidate.

So when the GM presents a situation, and says, "This is Injustice," he has authority to say so.

When the PC perceives the injustice, and says, "The pride that brought about this injustice is (BLAH)," he has authority to say so.

The way I see it, the GM represents the worldly consequences of defying the Will of God.  He represents the WORLD.  The PC's represent the Will of God ITSELF, and as such, they represent God.  The GM says what happens, the players decide WHY.

Whatever ethics they use, whether personal or taken from the gameworld that they use to make those decisions... that's all part of the Will of God.

[lumpley]

Split out of On removing homosexuality and violating gender roles as sins...

Hey Fred. When I ask people not to post in a thread, please don't post in that thread.

Also, as it happens, you're wrong down the line.

The GM decides, at town creation, all and every detail of pride, injustice, sin, demonic attack, false doctrine, corrupt worship, false priesthood, sorcery, hate and murder. The players and PCs have no role in determining any of those things. They're set in stone when the Dogs arrive in town.

The Dogs decide what to do about it.

-Vincent

[Vaxalon]

Hrm, I'm confused, then.

Let's say that the PC's are unravelling a town where things have gotten to the "Demonic Attacks" stage.  I have down on my sheet that the Sin that has opened the town up to demonic attack is that the Steward is misusing his authority, and forbidding his son from getting married.

The Dogs come through, find the situation, and decide that no, the Steward isn't the one who's sinning, it's the Son, who's rebelling against his father's good authority and trying to take his intended bride to another Town to get married by another Steward.

Is there a mechanism by which the GM can correct the PC's on their misinterpretation? 

I had gotten the impression that the players had the authority on this question, that the town generation system was just that, a system for generating the town, and that the steps involved were not necessarily 100% authoritative in and of themselves.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Man, DiV must be the single game with most category analysis problems between rules layers ever. Requires careful understanding of this kind (I'd say "formalistic" like that thread in rpg theory, but it's besides the point) of game design. Let's take a shot here:

The question is, what is the role of the town creation system and the hierarchy of sins in the fiction? Town creation, everybody can agree, is a GM tool and has nothing to do with the cause and effect in the fiction. It's results are in the fiction, but the system itself is not, so those results are judged "as if they were real". Whether something is in the town because it's Pride or False Priesthood has no effect on anything in the mechanics or the game world, except insofar as the town creation has brought into being situations and NPCs for which a problem exists. But you don't write "Sinner" onto some NPC sheets because of the town creation and "Pure" on others, or anything like that. Then what about the hierarchy of sins? You'll notice that the book gives the hierarchy for the characters to use as a tool and calls it a theological tool for ferreting out the sins.

Now, you'll see that there is no contradiction or rules problems if you take the above literally, exactly as it is presented. The Dogs happen to have a theology that talks about a hierarchy of sins. It just so happens that it has something to do with the situations that Dogs encounter - the GM is explicitly forced to use a town creation system that accords with the theological hierarchy. Isn't that well and good? But that means nothing for the game in actual play, except that the players actually have pretty good chances of using the hierarchy successfully in interpreting the problems they face.

The defining reason for the game to require the GM to use the hierarchy of sins at all in town preparation (apart from it making for good scenarios) is that otherwise the expertise of the Faith and the dogs couldn't be guaranteed to be relevant to the situations the characters meet. It would be like playing a game of Star Wars jedi, but with the GM having decided that giving in to their emotions makes for good NPCs, and being in rational control causes evil. The characters' expertise would be irrelevant and wrong, and that's not what DiV is about. In DiV the characters meet towns with problems that are fundamentally explainable with the Faith's theology, and the only way to ensure that this is true is to actually construct the problems with the theological tools to begin with.

So that's my take. Vaxalon: your question is if the GM has any mechanic to correct the players in their misunderstanding. What you imply here is anathema to the game; there definitely is no tools for the GM to establish what the actual sins in the town are, as far as the Faith is concerned. The best he can do is bring in a NPC who disagrees with the players about what the sin is. The interesting question is, what would you need such tools for? There is no point in the rules where it is necessary to know whether a certain phenomenon is a sin in the hierarchy of sins. You can play your own example of Steward and Son quite happily even if the players don't disagree with the GM prep about theological matters. It's not the GM who decides what's sin, he just makes the town.

This might be easier to understand if you think of it this way: the GM constructs one hierarchy of sins in town creation, and uses it to prepare the situation in town. The players construct their own theological interpretation of the town's sins when they play (or they do not; nothing says that dogs have to dwelve into theology), but they don't have direct access to the one GM made; they only have the shadow it casts into actual play events. The two don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, exactly for the reasons of interpretation you mention.

Also, let me explain Vincent here, because it seems you might misunderstand each other otherwise. What you said in your fist post here was that a part of the hierarchy of sins is intentionally left undefined by the GM at town creation, to be filled out according to player action. Vincent then corrected you in that regard, stating that in DiV you're supposed to have a "hard" prep, with a firmly established situation you don't change nillywilly through the game.

Now, apparently when you're talking about how the "players have authority on the question of Pride", you're talking about how the characters during play may opt to declare somebody faulty of the theological sin of Pride. This is, however, different from the town creation Pride, which was already picked by the GM before. Do you see the difference? Both the GM and the players are constructing their own hierarchies of sin (or rather, the GM did his before play) and using the same words, but they're working from different materials. Here's a diagram of the process:
GM idea for a town -> GM town preparation -> a scenario -> actual play (-> characters using theology) -> judgement
Do you see how there's two places in there where the hierarchy of sins is used, but they are not connected to one another directly? At the first step the GM is utilizing the hierarchy, but there is no way for the GM's hierarchy to inform the players in any way. The only thing the players have is the actual play events and the GM's depiction of NPCs, out of which they construct their own hierarchy of sins. You could say that it's a puzzle ("What was my original hierarchy of sin like?" asks the GM), except that there's no right or wrong answer.

[Vaxalon]

I agree with you one hundred percent, and completely fail to see how you are agreeing with Vincent at all.

Since the hierarchy of sin that comes out in actual play is the one decided upon by the players, then that's the one that has authority.  The GM's hierarchy is part of the town generation.  If the PC's make a "mistake" in their interpretation of the hierarchy, then that mistake becomes the reality.

I suppose, in a long-running game, you can have re-visits to a town used to illustrate how the GM thinks the PC's got it wrong.  Or NPC's that move from one town to another.

[Eero Tuovinen]

You know, I bet Vincent doesn't understand where you get the words "authority", "mistake" and "reality" in your post. I don't, so that's where I think I agree with him.

I mean, riddle me this:
- Upon what, exactly, does the characters' possible theological determination of this or this being Pride have authority?
- How do the players see, in terms of actual play, whether or not characters made a mistake in their determination of this and this being Pride?
- How does the reality of the generated town situation change based on the charactes recognizing this and this as Pride?

The point being, you are writing about the hierarchy of sins in play (as opposed to town creation) like it had some discernible, special rules effect. If a character says "I think this is wrong.", does that have a special rules effect? If a character says "This is yellow.", does that? If a character says "This is Pride." does that? Because you seem to think that the latter is somehow significant for something, and requires a special GM response.

I might sound annoyed here. I'm not, I'm just enjoying a sharp debate. Perhaps the above helps you to see why I think I agree with Vincent. You probably agree with us both, and we're just using different words.

[Vaxalon]

Okay, we're agreed that Actual Play is what it's all about, right?  That's where the SIS takes form.  Anything the GM does to prepare for the game isn't part of the SIS until it's revealed in play.

At least, that's how I've always understood what SIS means.

I don't understand your riddles, precisely, but I'll respond to what I THINK you're saying.

The PC's authority with respect to judging pride, sin, etc. comes from the fact that noone else has it.  An NPC can display pride, sinfulness, etc. but it's up to the PC's to judge it... and the further down the hierarchy of sin you get (sin and pride foremost) the more nebulous they get. 

I don't see that there's really a very strong mechanism at all, for players or PC's to see that they have judged pride or sin differently than the GM has, explicitly.  Since the PC's have the authority, they're not so much making a mistake as redefining sin, pride, etc. as play proceeds.

The reality of a town is the town as it hits the SIS.  Anything that comes before the SIS is just a plan, a guideline, and has no authority, as I see it, once the GM has presented the facts.

[lumpley]

I, the GM, have written during town creation that Br. Alvin's sin with Br. Benjamin allowed the demons to attack.

Fred, are you suggesting that during play, my players have some power to establish that no, some other circumstance allowed the demons to attack?

If you are, you're wrong.

-Vincent

[Blankshield]

Hrm, I'm confused, then.

Let's say that the PC's are unravelling a town where things have gotten to the "Demonic Attacks" stage. I have down on my sheet that the Sin that has opened the town up to demonic attack is that the Steward is misusing his authority, and forbidding his son from getting married.

The Dogs come through, find the situation, and decide that no, the Steward isn't the one who's sinning, it's the Son, who's rebelling against his father's good authority and trying to take his intended bride to another Town to get married by another Steward.

Is there a mechanism by which the GM can correct the PC's on their misinterpretation?

I had gotten the impression that the players had the authority on this question, that the town generation system was just that, a system for generating the town, and that the steps involved were not necessarily 100% authoritative in and of themselves.

I think I see the disconnect.  Fred, the bit I highlighted isn't a misinterpretation.  It's a judgement.  You're all good.  The Dogs have done their job. 

James

[IMAGinES]

I, the GM, have written during town creation that Br. Alvin's sin with Br. Benjamin allowed the demons to attack.

Fred, are you suggesting that during play, my players have some power to establish that no, some other circumstance allowed the demons to attack?

If you are, you're wrong.

If I can interject with my opinion, Vince - and, Vaxalon, my apologies in advance if I'm misinterpreting what you've written - I think the bone of contention is the fact that, no matter how the GM has developed the town along the Town Creation rules, which clearly state what Prides led to what Injustices led to what Sins and so on up Shit Creek (hmm - now there's a name for a Branch), the players can still come to the conclusion - even if all the facts as presented to the PCs indicate otherwise - that the Pride at the root of the Demonic Attacks/False Worship is something other than what the GM developed.

It's sort of like that part in Wolves of the North - where was it? Aha! Here we are:

When the Dogs confront him and start talking, he escalates to swords, transforms before their eyes and tries to kill Sigurd, in an impressive display of fiery demonic special effects. I tried to make his guy inhuman. I was trying to put a "monster" in the town to see what the players would do. I mean, if anyone was getting slayed with righteous fury, it was this guy.

Or not. The players ... decided that this was all the demons' fault. This poor fella needed saving! So they went into ultra supernatural ceremony battle mode and exorcised the damn thing. ... And when the guy had a nasty Fallout roll, they jumped into the medical conflict and saved his life. The willful possession and murder? Washed away. He gets mercy, with both barrels.

Conjuring another example, and I'm sorry for changing examples on you, Vincent, but this one works for my rationalising - Maybe it's misinterpretation of evidence, maybe it's a player deciding that the wants his Dog to be a boneheaded reactionary, but all of a sudden the Dogs are proclaiming that, instead of  Br. Jebediah's evident Pride in his well-made house being the cause of the demonic attacks that caused the other decent houses in town to collapse per the GM's notes, it was realy Br. Saul, whose simle, homespun, ramshackle existence concealed a holier-than-thou Pride, which led (through a chain of convoluted logic) to the demonic attacks. And, in the fashion of a Dog, the players drag Br. Saul out and put a bullet into his brainpan.

It's less that the Dogs are changing the SIS, as such, it's just that, from reading the rules anyway, the GM has little recourse to illustrate, in-game, that "No, you pillocks, Br. Jebediah was the proud one all along! You just blew a hole in an innocent man's head!" Effectively, while the Dogs' judgment doesn't redefine the "objective reality" in the SIS, it might as well have done so - unless the Dogs come back to town later on and are confronted with the consequences of their mistake (which they could again judge incorrectly).

Now, I have no practical idea of how hard this sort of player-mangling would be to pull off; I've only got as far as character and town creation myself, my actual first DitV game as GM may be as far as a month off. But is that sort of close to what you were getting at, Vaxalon? Or have I performed some glorious misinterpretation myself? :-)

[Vaxalon]

Vincent, if I'm wrong, I find nothing in the rules to tell me I'm wrong.  I don't see, in the rules, any mechanism to tell the players that they haven't successfully guessed what I have on my town creation worksheet.  Am I missing something?

James, I agree that "The Steward isn't sinning, it's his son" is a judgement.  It's only a misinterpretation from the point of view of the GM.

Rob, when you said:

...no matter how the GM has developed the town along the Town Creation rules, which clearly state what Prides led to what Injustices led to what Sins and so on up Shit Creek (hmm - now there's a name for a Branch), the players can still come to the conclusion - even if all the facts as presented to the PCs indicate otherwise - that the Pride at the root of the Demonic Attacks/False Worship is something other than what the GM developed.

You did, indeed, have the bone of contention.

[Vaxalon]

Vincent, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong... I'm willing to admit it.

Let me put the issue to you another way.

IF the players have misinterpreted the situation, and decided someone else is sinning than I have down on my sheet, what do I do?

[lumpley]

You actively reveal the town in play, of course.

You play your NPCs fully and with passion.

Once play starts, all outcome bets are off. And it really truly doesn't MATTER whether the players have misinterpreted the situation you've created and assigned blame in a way that doesn't reflect the true history of the situation. We agree about that. The Dogs get to kick whoever's ass they want.

Let me say that again, with emphasis: we agree about that.

That's a different question, however, than the question of which pride caused the injustice or which sin allowed the demons to attack.

You said this:

When the PC perceives the injustice, and says, "The pride that brought about this injustice is (BLAH)," he has authority to say so.

I only object to the player's retroactive creation of cause and effect - Dogs doesn't work that way, unlike many Narrativist games. In Dogs, as GM, I happen to already know "the pride that brought about this injustice." The player doesn't have any authority to correct me; it's a done deal.

The player, via the Dog, does have the authority to blame whomever she feels is to blame, and to enact whatever judgement she feels is called for, totally disregarding the set history of the situation, if that's what she wants to do. That's what we agree about, with emphasis.

So sure, if you want to talk about what power and what obligation (if any) I have as GM to correct the player, to make sure that the Dogs are acting on a correct interpretation of whole information, then fine, let's talk about that. In another thread, though, and only after you understand the underlying structure of who decides what.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

I only object to the player's retroactive creation of cause and effect - Dogs doesn't work that way, unlike many Narrativist games. In Dogs, as GM, I happen to already know "the pride that brought about this injustice." The player doesn't have any authority to correct me; it's a done deal.

So what happens when the player sets the stakes as something like, "Br. Vigor's pride started this whole chain of events," when the GM has decided it was someone else's pride that did so? I know you're supposed to push for smaller stakes, so I have feeling that the answer is to not allow stakes like this, but how would you handle this in play, Vincent?

[lumpley]

Exactly. "That can't actually be at stake," I'd say. "It didn't."

-Vincent