[DitV] The Narrative Wall

[jburneko]

Hello,

First I have to say that Dogs in the Vineyard is by far the easiest game to GM I have ever played.  The town creation rules are pure gold.  They act like an ever present editor over my shoulder and mould my scenarios into better things than they would have been otherwise.

Last night we completed out fourth town.  Over the course of the game as a whole I've been experiencing a phenomenon that I'm sure I've encountered in other games but it's very pronounced in this Dogs game.  I call it the Narrative Wall.

Examples From Last Nights Game:

The Dogs had just finished up a conflict concerning isolating two townspeople.  This was difficult because it was the two townspeople's wedding day.  My raises were things like, "a flood of children run in and start demanding attention from the couple, etc."  The Dogs succeeded.

The players then wanted to launch into a follow up conflict about killing the couple because they were followers of a Sorcerer.  I was all set initially to have this be a big stuggle with demon posession effects, etc.  But then I hit that narrative wall.  And before dice even hit the table I said, "Okay, I give."  And what would have been a fight turned into a Tarantino-esq execution scene.  The players loved it.

Later they confront the sorcerer himself.  Earlier this sorcerer had royally kicked their ass with powers and demonics and what not.  But by this time they had stripped him of social recognition from the townspeople and killed all his followers.  I refrained from bringing in posession or demonic influence because I again hit that narrative wall.  In this conflict I wanted him just to be a man with gun.

This narrative wall is clearly a self imposed aesthetic restraint that if I were to cross it, it would seem like I was somehow cheating the fiction.  The rules of the game allow me and in some cases encourage me to go over the wall but it would be like a version of "bad sportsmanship" for Story Now play.

Some critics of games like Dogs or PtA often levey arguments along the lines of, "Well why wouldn't the players just do... X" where X is some horrible violation of the agreed upon aesthetic for the fiction.  I once explained Dogs in the Vineyard to a co-worker who replied, "When would you not escalate to gunfighting?"  I told him about the time my wife's character encountered her demon possessed sister and said she was unwilling to shoot her sister.  To which my co-worker responed, "Obviously, she has no idea how to play a real religious zealot."

I have to wonder at people who seem to lack a narrative wall.  I wonder if it's a context thing.  That is in a competative environment good sportsmanship woud be second nature but in narrative environment aesthetic standards are just not interesting/obvious to them.  Or if such a thing hints at a deeper disfunction.

Jesse

[Bankuei]

Hi Jesse,

"Why wouldn't you do X?" in narrativist games can almost always be answered, "Because I don't want to say that (thematically) with my character".   Or perhaps, the other question that never is considered is, "Why would you do X?" 

It's so fascinating to me how many people don't consider that there might be complications from waving guns around or shooting at the people you're supposed to protect.  Or the assumption that Dogs = 2 dimensional fanatics (I also find similar behavior in how people play D&D paladins or samurai in rpgs in general...)  Usually when people make that assumption, they don't realize that there is space to make statements with your character- they're on some bizarre caricature autopilot and it produces some of the weirdest play ever.

Chris

[Callan S.]

Hi Jesse,

Are you sure your talking about hitting a narrative wall, or defining a narrative wall (while hitting it is incidental)? Like with your example of the player who's PC wouldn't shoot her sister. Is that hitting the wall and not going past it, or is it more about the statement of 'HERE, right here, is where the wall is for this PC'

I'm not sure your co-worker lacks the ability to have a narrative wall. What I hypothesize is, is that he hasn't contemplated deciding exactly where the wall should go. Like he'd portray someone elses idea of a zealot. He hasn't really contemplated defining it for himself.

[Claudia Cangini]

[...]
This narrative wall is clearly a self imposed aesthetic restraint that if I were to cross it, it would seem like I was somehow cheating the fiction.  The rules of the game allow me and in some cases encourage me to go over the wall but it would be like a version of "bad sportsmanship" for Story Now play.

Some critics of games like Dogs or PtA often levey arguments along the lines of, "Well why wouldn't the players just do... X" where X is some horrible violation of the agreed upon aesthetic for the fiction. 

[...]

I have to wonder at people who seem to lack a narrative wall.  I wonder if it's a context thing.  That is in a competative environment good sportsmanship woud be second nature but in narrative environment aesthetic standards are just not interesting/obvious to them.  Or if such a thing hints at a deeper disfunction.

Jesse

Playing DitV I got the feeling that players coming from a background of "traditional" games (and I put myself in this number) have a sort of imprinting to "win" instead of "play".
What I mean the first instinct in every situation is to find a way for your characters to be succesfull exploiting what chances the system gives you. The aesthetic value of the story, tone and characters development come like a second thougt after "finding a way to win".

Actually in a game that gives so much rewards in terms of creation of an engaging story this approach quickly proves not to be the most amusing (to have your character "fail" in DitV can be much more fulfilling, sometimes).

But I can understand how this approach became usual for people coming from games where the measure of your success was the overcoming of obstacles.