Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by khelek, May 18, 2007, 04:39:31 PM
Quote from: khelek on May 18, 2007, 04:39:31 PMI love running Dogs, it brings out the worse in characters... So as we packed up one player came ot me and told me it was a terrible game! (This is the same player who wanted to choose Niches for each character) He said: " I had lots of fun, but the system is terrible! who ever has the most traits will win." I told him that seemed true in most games, but that the question is not how are you going to win, but how far are you willing to go to win. We talked for a while, but he remained unconvinced that the game was suppose to work this way. That choosing when to give and when to escalate was a main element of Dog's game play. did I explain it badly? was it a clash of expectations? any thoughts?Jason
Quote from: Adam Dray on May 21, 2007, 05:01:19 PM It sounds like Billy didn't consider that playing a sociopath was making any kind of statement at all. Basically, as you said, it was a sort of a clash of expectations. Everyone else was playing one game; Billy was playing another.
Quote from: Adam Dray on May 21, 2007, 09:02:21 PMEven if he wasn't playing a sociopath, most of what I said still applies. Billy was probably playing an entirely different game than you. =)
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on May 22, 2007, 08:57:07 AMThere is something that strikes me about this discussion, though. You know, if Billy was really playing a totally different game than the rest, how did it come together that everyone around the table had fun together? Mel, Jason, did you feel that Billys contributions to the game were worthwhile to you? If so, why? And do you think Billy appreciated your contributions? If so, why?