[Dogs in the Vineyard] Our Dogs Set Forth

[Callan S.]

Hi Jonas,

How'd your actual play go? Could you give an actual play account of how it obscured in character scenes?

Looking at this account:

As the conflct went on, Jent wanted to pull in more dice. He uses his "Shamed in the Eyes of Others." Which is thought was amazing. Suddenly, he wasn't trying to shoot the boy out of religious rightousness, but out of feeling shamed because his peers were trying to stop him. That's great!

I see that the player, in his desire to win the conflict, draws on a quality of the character so as to gain more dice. But in doing so, adds extra depth to his character in front of all his fellow players.

If he couldn't win a conflict by doing that, would the 'shame' attribute remain obscure and hidden within the character? What's the character qualities that your seeing as being obscured during your play?

[JonasB]

I see that the player, in his desire to win the conflict, draws on a quality of the character so as to gain more dice. But in doing so, adds extra depth to his character in front of all his fellow players.

I want the motivation to use a part of the characters backround or personality not to come from without (to get extra dice and win) but from within the character itself (because it is the natural thing to do). Shame should come into context because the situation triggers that reaction in the caracter, not because the player triggers it.

I want more of the character controlling the player than the player controlling the character. Just like your own feelings and past experiences control you and not the other way around.

It was a bit to long since I played dogs for me to remeber any specific examples in good enough detail. I would very much like to try it again, but I don'tt know when that will happen. I enjoyed it more in the way I enjoy a board game, but less in the way I normally enjoy a roleplaying game. So, when I want to have pure roleplaying fun, I do not choose dogs.

[Josh Roby]

Hi, Jonas.  I'd be very interested in hearing about your expectations in regards to "playing a character" grounded in a specific instance of actual play.  That discussion should, however, go on its own thread.  Thanks.

[IMAGinES]

I want the motivation to use a part of the characters backround or personality not to come from without (to get extra dice and win) but from within the character itself (because it is the natural thing to do). Shame should come into context because the situation triggers that reaction in the caracter, not because the player triggers it.

I want more of the character controlling the player than the player controlling the character. Just like your own feelings and past experiences control you and not the other way around.

Could you say, though, that as that "Shamed in the eyes of others" is already on the character sheet, and not made up on the spot, that, in a way, the situation *did* trigger that aspect of the character represented by the Trait? Not saying that it actually happened in that given game, mind you, just that the rules don't preclude that possibility.

I'm of the opinion - based on nearly zero actual play, mind - that you can still play Dogs the way you want to, letting your character's "voice", if you will, drive the Traits you bing into a conflict (or even whether you Give) instead of the temptation of extra dice. This would be the player letting the Traits on the sheet serve as reminders of the kind of person his or her character is, much as that player might treat, say, a five-point Disadvantage in GURPS that the player bought because it matched their concept for the character, not because he or she wanted five extra points for Advantages.

Still, as Joshua wrote, that's likely something that ought to be discussed in another thread.

[Callan S.]

I want the motivation to use a part of the characters backround or personality not to come from without (to get extra dice and win) but from within the character itself (because it is the natural thing to do). Shame should come into context because the situation triggers that reaction in the caracter, not because the player triggers it.

I think the rules encourage an active descision by the player on how his characters mind works. So the player decides in this case that it would fit his character, for his character to be driven by the shame as part of his characters desire to win the conflict.

The player decides it right then and there. While you prefer the choice on how the character works to have already been made. And at this point in play, the characters correct reflex would be to forfil that. How far off am I?

[JonasB]

The player decides it right then and there. While you prefer the choice on how the character works to have already been made. And at this point in play, the characters correct reflex would be to forfil that. How far off am I?

Not far off att all, even if not every specific reaction can be decided beforehand. Much of it needs to be decided on the go, but I want it to come naturally from what is already established. Nothing prevents Dogs from being played that way, and I'm sure many does, but for me personally the system activates my "game" mode, where I do everything possible within the system to "win", obscuring the actual roleplaying. I'm a very competitive board gamer, but (or maybe because of that) I want my roleplaying experience to be nearly free from competition and "game". I simply prefer to keep my roleplaying and game separated.

[Callan S.]

So while some people would look at the dice assigned to shame and think "Well, shame just doesn't fit...nah, I'd rather lose the conflict than introduce something like that to my character", you'd have a hard time resisting because you'd see it as the way to win (that conflict). If so, I dig that! :) I think it'd be really neat if you play dogs sometime in the future and even neater if you post an actual play account! :)

[alejandro]

Hi, I'm alex and I played jent, the character who had to deal with the "shamed in the eyes of others." and I'd like to add that I knew at the time I was going to lose. there was no question. I proceeded to play my "hand" if you will because it was within character. I believe even having a discussion with the others regarding my inevitable loss.

Well just throwing that in to stir the pot a bit.