Is a Good Town a Good Idea?

[lumpley]

The town's steward is responsible for - and capable of - taking care of such a town. The Dogs show up, the steward says, "yeah, this and this are going on, but I got 'em in hand," the Dogs say "cool, carry on, here's the mail, any babies you want we should kiss?" and away they go.

-Vincent

[TonyLB]

I mean, a pride-less Faithful town never has someone fall off a horse?

I like Vincent's answer from the practical point of view.  I'll chime in on the pure theological point of view:  Why would the King of Life allow as that a faithful man in a faithful town would have such a thing happen to him?

Perhaps it's a test of faith, of course.  But then it's not a bad thing.  Them's what as think it's a bad thing, they're well nigh sinnin' to think that.

[Andrew Morris]

No, it's still a bad thing. The fact that it serves the King of Life's plan doesn't make an unpleasant happening any more enjoyable, just more tolerable. When you break a bone, getting it re-set is a bad thing -- it hurts like hell. But it's ultimately for your benefit, so you deal with it. Still doesn't make it a good thing, except maybe looking back on it, with the rosy lens of hindsight. Of course, we might be just getting sticky with definitions here (bad = unpleasant vs. bad = morally wrong).

[lumpley]

Gah!

People are attacked by demons all the time. Demons bite them and throw them off their horses and burn their fields, all because people fuckin' sin all the time! And sorcerers too! And your aunt's possessed BAD by rum and rock and roll, you just know she is.

For towns the Dogs visit, use the town creation rules in the book. For towns the Dogs don't visit, do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT.

Or, if you want to get technical, the town creation rules are procedures you follow, not metaphysics, and towns the Dogs don't visit DON'T EVEN EXIST. Same as towns they DO visit.

"In towns without pride, do horses ever throw shoes?" My long-suffering ass.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Heh. Fair enough, Vincent.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I'm inclined to say that you could roleplay "between towns" as a town or two where nothing's wrong. Have some conversations with your fellow Dogs, a Steward or two, a wise old lady, and take your between-town fallout from whatever arises from the conversations. You might get to fill in some more stuff about your world, foreshadow some stuff that the players want.

It's really roleplaying the conversation that happens anyway. That might be fun. I wouldn't spend more than a half hour or so on it, though, either before or after a town with meat.

[Neal]

Lisa prefaced her post with "I had an idea for a town pop into my head, and I'm wondering how viable it would be."  I don't know whether or not she's satisfied with what she's read here, but I'm not, so I'll try to get this back on track by pointing a few things out.

First, my edition of the rules clearly states that the creation of a town begins with "something's wrong," and that translates, at the very least, to the presence of Pride and Injustice.  My edition also points out that Pride enters into gender roles when someone steps outside of those roles, for any of a number of reasons, and in any of a number of ways.  The Injustice that results depends upon the NPCs involved, but "Pride, enacted, leads to Injustice" is axiomatic in DitV.  So, where there's Pride enacted, there's Injustice, even if it never produces Sin.  And that sounds pretty much like the situation Lisa described.

In my response to Lisa's post, I tried to suggest ways she might fill in the blanks (as I saw them) with enough NPCs to give the Dogs something to do.  All of my suggestions were fairly low-key, deliberately Little-House-on-the-Priarie.  All of them pretty much stopped at the Pride/Injustice level, iirc.  The rules state, in Town Creation, concerning Pride and Injustice: "If the situation seems grabby enough to you, which it probably won't but if it does, you can stop.  Skip to step 6."

Step 6 in Town Creation deals with what each named person wants from the Dogs.  Lisa has made clear that her primary NPC has something she wants the Dogs to help her with.

Others replied subjectively that the town wasn't done yet, and that's fine.  Vincent even pointed out that the little things that afflict a congregation every day are the province of the Steward and aren't really things the Dogs need to concern themselves with.  That's fine, too.  But I'm not sure those responses are adequate to deal with the idea of a low-key town, as Lisa put it forward.

Lisa could create a low-key town that held her group's attention without ever once escalating the backmatter to the Sin/Demonic Attack level.  I think she could do so by multiplying and criss-crossing her Pride/Injustice conflicts.  And I think, if she's looking for a low-key town (more Hallmark drama than John Wu flick), that's one way to do it.  There are probably several others.

She would need to follow the Town Creation rules from beginning to end.  She would need to figure out what these named NPCs want from the Dogs, which ones had a claim on the Dogs' time, which ones couldn't ignore the Dogs' coming, etc.  She would need to figure out what would happen if the Dogs never came.  All that.  And she could do all that without a single ritual homicide, a single wife-beating, or even a single instance of harsh language.  The rules don't demand a hive of festering sin in every town, only that the GM push matters toward conflict once play begins.  That can be accomplished, it seems to me, anytime people are working at cross-purposes.  And if the Steward has his hands full, or is somehow prevented from being effective, that's a whole 'nother level of "what's wrong," isn't it?

I'd be willing to bet, if she played this low-key town to the elbows, throwing soap-opera problems at road-weary Dogs, her players would soon be eager to seek out the nearest heretical cult they could find.  But then, that's just based on my own experience with gaming groups, and it doesn't necessarily match up with Lisa's. 

And that's the point.  It's her game, her group.  I know she specifically solicited opinions, but she also laid down a basic idea for a "good town," and I think that idea has legs, if it's worked up properly.  Opinions (and more importantly, tastes) will vary, but the rules, as I read them, do support low-key towns.

[lumpley]

I agree with Neal in full.

-Vincent

[Brian Newman]

Low-key doesn't mean there's no conflict.
You have Pride, with Sarah stepping outside her role as girl and daughter.
You have Injustice, with Benedict being forced to put his courtship on hold.
Are they the kinds of Pride and Injustice that will lead to Sin and Demonic Attacks?
Probably not.
But Sarah's regret and Benedict's understanding nature don't take away the fact that there are Pride and Injustice here.

I think they easily could lead to something much more serious.  Get enough people feeling prideful and unjustly treated, and something else will snap somewhere.  Sin always seeks the weakest point.

I also think it would be perfectly fine to have the Dogs visit this town, see that they don't want to waste their efforts on it, and move on... only to be called back in six months when Benedict's sheep are being found dead with their genitals cut out.  Oops.  Maybe they should have tried to find out what was really wrong the first time.

[Neal]

Get enough people feeling prideful and unjustly treated, and something else will snap somewhere.  Sin always seeks the weakest point.

Very well said.  And what happens in this bucolic little town when the actions of the Dogs, meant to remedy minor instances of Pride, end up producing Sin as someone feeling the pinch of Injustice lashes out?

Say, for instance, the Dogs direct Sarah toward seeking her calling as a Dog, as someone earlier suggested.  Well, that's fine for them.  But the branch steward is thinking, "Hey, it's my job to do the spiritual-intuitive thing, ain't it?  Who do these folks think they are, rubbing my rhubarb like that?"  And Benedict's thinking, "I can take waiting for Sarah, so long as she's still on the fence and angsting and all, but to have these Dogs remove her from my life for good?  No way!"

And to move the situation out beyond Lisa's characters...

How does Sarah's pa feel at the suggestion?  What about Ma?  What about Granny, who maybe used to be a Dog and has different ideas about what's best for Sarah?  And then there's the girl in town who envies the uppity Sarah her freedom, and just knows the Dogs are going to put her back in her place...until they don't.  Or there's the piano teacher, who "sympathizes" with the branch steward and urges him to do the right thing, which is (of course) to undo what the Dogs have done and reclaim his rightful authority.

The Dogs enter a town without Sin.  They find little instances of Pride and Injustice.  They push.  The town learns to Sin.

I like the idea, myself.

[Judd]

I've been thinking about this and kind of worked it out as I typed.

Sometimes after a rough and dark road the players need a session to just process, to work out shit within the group.

I might give the players such a session, with a town where the sin of pride is minor and fairly easily solves, its a seedling of a problem and gives them the time to work out their own baggage.

Or I might not.  I might decide that the Dog's life is hard and it is their lot in life to push on and keep on keepin' on.

If they want to get off of the rough and dark road that the King of Life has put them on, they have but to take off the quilted coat that denotes their vocational holy mandate, go back to the Watchdog Temple and get set up as a respected member of a community.

Yeah, eff 'em.

The road's hard.

If you don't want to walk it, take off the jacket, put down the guns and go back to the Temple.  There are others to pick up the calling and take your place.  There is no shame in the act of retiring your quilted coat.

[Judd]

The Dogs enter a town without Sin.  They find little instances of Pride and Injustice.  They push.  The town learns to Sin.

I like the idea, myself.

I hate the idea and let me tell ya why.

Because you are deciding how the Dogs' judgement will be received before they even enter the town.  You are judging their actions, which as a DitV GM, you are NEVER to do.

[Neal]

Judd, it was a thought experiment, a what-if scenario, an imaginative excursion,... not a plot outline to strait-jacket gameplay.  Players can do whatever makes sense to them, but some of the things they are likely to do would likely result in heightened tension, just as slapping a man in the face would likely result in his heightened emotional investment in a conversation.  I like heightened tensions and heightened emotional investment.  I like the idea that when Dogs push, things get more intense.  It seems to me that's what DitV is all about.  Don't hate, Judd; Escalate.

Also, looking ahead to the probable effects of probable actions is hardly judging the Dogs' actions themselves.  Their actions are their actions, and that's that.  Looking ahead to cause-and-effect is a tool to help a GM prepare for the otherwise unexpected.  Say what you will about what we should NEVER do, I find it quite impossible (and completely undesirable) to design a bit of game without looking forward to how my players will receive it.  In fact, refusing to look ahead is very disingenuous, considering it is that very process which permits a town to be created in the first place. 

All this is not to say those Dogs couldn't come into the town and not only fail to push anything to a crisis, but even find ways to salve the wounds of the proud and the resentful.  Hey, it could happen.  It would be pretty unlikely, from my own experience, but if it happened, it happened.  Like a little episode of Highway to Heaven, all forgiveness, shiny sunrises, and gentle lessons learned.  Probably quite dull, but not necessarily so, anymore than a low-key town would necessarily be dull.  Preparation needn't be the same as judgment, much less railroading.

[Judd]

Looking forward to how they will receive it and deciding that the very act that Dogs are supposed to do will push it into Sin are very different acts.

Playing dogs can make ya feel rough enough as it is without running a town where the Dogs very involvement is the straw that broke the camel's back.

To carry the camel metaphor too far: I like them to enter the town while the camel's lying on the ground, screaming in pain.

Its nothing personal; I just don't dig the idea.

[Neal]

Its nothing personal; I just don't dig the idea.

That's fine.  Taste's vary.  The point of all this was that there are ways in which a low-key town can become a blossoming field of crises, and one of those ways is for the GM to set the selfish desires of the NPCs at cross-purposes, so that by solving selected problems in a direct and public way, the Dogs will likely exacerbate hard feelings in others, even to the point where someone sins.  If the Dogs can find a way around that, so much the better for them.  Clever, clever Dogs.  But if they can't, then they can't, and someone gets to clean up the mess.

Anyway, if it isn't your thing, then it isn't your thing.  I just want to make sure we're clear on what does and what does not constitute violating the rules of DitV, and the difference between extrapolation and judgment.