[Dogs] Fire and Hammer, Visions and Faith

[Joel P. Shempert]

Hi! I haven't been around here much lately, but it seemed appropriate to return "home" for this play report. And I certainly do miss me some Forge-style AP.

So! I GMed Dogs in the Vineyard for the first time, finally! It was at Jake Richmond's house for our roughly monthly Indie game gathering. We only made it through initiations, but the results were fun and encouraging.

Our group consisted of Charles, who I've gamed with once before, Glen and Julie, who I haven't, and my fiance Annie, who I've also gamed with once (same occasion as Charles, in fact!).

I was more than a little nervous about selling the game and setting, let alone running the thing. My explanations tend to be a bit rambly and opaque. But it all seemed to go pretty smoothly. Charles had read and GMed Dogs before, so he knew the score straight-up, Annie had looked at my Dogs book and talked with me about the general concept, so she was halfway there, and Glen and Julie were new to the whole thing. I had printouts from the book on the duties of Dogs (which also happens to explain the Sin progression) and the elements of Ceremony, and the rest I conveyed verbally. Julie saw the whole "Injustice leads to Sin with leads to Demons" thing and commented that it'd be hard to get her head aropund that. I tried to explain both the concept that the Demonic thing can be as literal or figurative as we want it to, and also that the spiritual aspect of Dogs is really just geared to remove Judgment rights for your character from anyone but you. Hopefully it came across OK. Since we didn't get to play a town yet it hasn't seen the true acid test.

I spent some considerable time before the game (in fact, I only got two o\hour of sleep the night before!) putting together a "Dogs Soundtrack" spanning three CDs. Lots of Johnny Cash, plus Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer, Slaid Cleaves, Gilian Welsh, and a bit of Bud and Julie Limmer and even Rich Mullins. I had fun with it though it was a lot of work. It paid off too, as everyone thought it was so cool to have a soundtrack, and enjoyed having it for background.

So with a bit of explanation, character creation was a snap. This is what everyone came up with:

Charles played Nathaniel Thorne, a pacifist Dog who grew up with seven sisters, sheltered and loved, whose beliefs haven't been put to the test. His biggest trait is "I believe that everyone can be redeemed 3d10".

Glen played Orpheus Smith, a half-Mountain folk blacksmith, al drama and bellowy boldness. He carries a huge smithing hammer as weapon, and travels with a portabvle forge in a horse-drawn cart. Notable traits: "I can scare Demons away with Fire and Hammer 1d10," and "I misunderstand people 2d4".

Julie played Bethia Carson, overprotected daughter of a schoolteacher, who grew up a bookish but rebellious know-it-all. Her big trait is "Very level-headed and reasonable 3d10".

Annie played Caleb Walker, a visionary and prophet of deep conviction, who had a premonition of a Mountain People attack, and saved his town. The attack left him crippled in one leg, but he's a hero tpo his hometown, and so indicted as a dog.His main trait is "Certainty of Deep Premonitions 2d10".

Nathaniel's initiation accomplishment was: "I hope I convinced another Dog canditate that you can solve problems without violence." Charles asked for it to be a real "blood and thunder" Dog, too. Nathaniel won, easily. First comes the fellow Dog's comments out on the shooting range that shooting scarecrows couldn't prepare you for "killing real sinners," for which Nate handily rebukes him from the Book of Life. The next day, Nate approaches and finds the Dog holding his gun on the shooting instructor, accusing him furiously of disgracing the entire Order by dallying with a female initiate. Nate gets him to back down and even leads him in singing hymns--and when the instructor confesses  the truth that he is unworthy and resigns in disgrace, the fellow candidate looks in awe to Brother Nathaniel that such a victory could be won bloodlessly. His new trait was "I can convince Dogs 1d6".

For Orpheus we had, I forget the wording--something like "I hope I successfully stood up for a persecuted fellow Dog." Anyway the deal was, some initiates are picking on Annie's character, Caleb, griping that a cripple has no place in the Dogs, when Orpheus charges in, slamming his hammer on the ground like, thoom! to announce himself, and calling them off. A couple of them pick a fight and hold Orph down, beating on him. I point out that Caleb is on the scene and can act using the "helping" rules as an improvised object. So I had Annie describe how Caleb would help (through humble yet pointed speech, it turns out), then roll her dice (I figured a Dog is always "excellent") and slide 'em over to Glen, who then described how he would capitalize on Caleb's help, as part of his own raise. Hope I got that right! Anyway he won but took fallout from the physical blows, including a pick from the Experience list--so he ended up raising "I misunderstand people" and "people are uneasy with my looks" (he's now got a boxer's nose) to 3d4 and 2d4 respectively. And his Accomplishment trait arrived through serendipity--a certain Johnny Cash song was playing at the time, so Glen took the hint and put "Won't back down 1d6." We all thought that was pretty cool.

Bethia's conflict was "I hope I retained my independence througout initiation." So I set up a power struggle with her strict and imperious Doctrine teacher as she tried to show him up and challenge his interpretations. He tried shunting her off into private tutoring so she couldn't "spread" to the other students, but she turned on the pressure in "solitary," and still snuck around behind i\his back toturing other students and gathering a following. So as I ran low on dice the teacher became desperate and took her out of private tutoring to put her on the spot before the whole class and trap and humiliate her. But (of course!) it backfired and she turned the tables on him with a series of logical traps that left him broken and discredited. (I noted that a lot of teachers were getting their careers ruined this Initiation.) Bethia's new trait: "Strong willed won't take crap 1d6".

I had a hard time with Caleb's Accomplishment, mostly because the two hours of sleep were starting to take their toll, and we were trying a "time trick" with the narration that my addled brain wasn't grasping. After a false start, things went fine. The conflict was "I hope I passed my initiation fair and square." The idea being, not that Caleb would out n/ out cheat, but that an instructor might take a liking to him and go soft on him. So each set of raise/see was a different initiation task and how Caleb did at it. First a hunting exercise where someone else happens to scare game in his diorection--which Caleb takes, being purehearted but a realist. Then a timed horseback shooting test (Caleb mounts a horse slowly with the bum leg) which he aced even with the delay mounting. And finally a big survival test, where everyone goes out into the wilderness for three days with a setr load of supplies, and must fend for themselves. This last See, which won the conflict, was beautiful--Caleb goes out without the supplies, and returns on the third day all wilderness wild-man with a skinned-carcass cloak and stuff. I think he took fallout and increased "Holds Grudges" to 2d4 from all the crap Caleb took, and I believe Annie picked "No patience for unbelievers 1d6" for the accomplishment trait.

While it's too bad we didn't get farther (I think I was about the last one in the room to realize: no, it's 11:00 and we won't be doing a town tonight), everyone had a blast and enjoyed the game very much. Glenn was especially jazzed avbout the mechanics and "gaming the system" to learn just what the rules could do. He delighted in every new facet of the dice mechanic and its strategies, and vocally analyzes the tactical nuances of a player's options on a given raise or see (this might be annoying if it keeps up past the "learning period," but it was fine for now.). He happily ate up his fallout traits with a big spoon. Everyone else was more laidback, but having fun nonetheless. The learning curve was not steep at all and we all felt pretty confident with the games rules by the time we were done.

A few issues that came up in play:

Initiation conflicts. They're cool and all, but I was a bit disappointed that we didn't get to do a town; especially since I didn't have much leverage with the set pile of dice to put the screws on the PCs. Even when I rolled really well, the players could easily narrate in enough traits to outpace me. Though some sweated a little, they ALL won their accomplishments. And I noticed a psycholigical effect, though thankfully it didn't kill fun: people kept referring to Initiation as "not-play," as in: "We haven't even started playing yet." And I'm thinking, whaddya call this?" It's an odd attitude, where "Chargen" is a separate, compartmentalized thing from "actual play," even in this case where chargen involves playing through an honest-to-God conflict.

A more serious issue I encountered, though: Initiation separates players. Orpeus' assist from Caleb notwithstanding, each initiation conflict involves only one player, which means in practice that you've got a lot of sitting around waiting, instead of everyone all jumping into play together. I can understand Initiation's importance, but this aspect of it rankled--by the time we got around to Annie's turn, folks were tired and unfocused, and often having their own conversations (about the game, granted) instead of listening and grooving on Caleb's initiation. Which was a bit sucky for me.

I also noticed that people's trait wordings were a little wierd. Part of this is preference; I personally strongly prefer the "I shot a polecat blindfolded" style over "Good shot." And I have to really restrain myself and bite my tongue from charging in and teling a player how to "do it right," because there they are doing all this PC stuff and getting to do traits and I just have to GM and watch and they're missing that cool naming thing! Aarrgh! But beyond that I'm noticing a sort of unwieldyness in some chars ' traits that I think might actually be a gameplay problem. Julie's are the most glaring: "Good shot--was a huge part of her rebellion 2d6" and "Strong willed won't take crap 1D6" for instance. It seems to me that traits should each basically say one thing, and that these try to say a couple. I dunno, will this tweak with the game or am I just being picky?

All in all, we had tons of fun and all hope to do it again. We're planning on playing our first town at the next Go Play Portland in a month. This was Annie's second roleplaying game ever (the first was 1001 nights) and she said that while she liked the first one, she liked this one more (sorry, Meg!). Cool! I can't wait to get down to some hardcore judgin'.

Peace,
-Joel

PS I really hope I can talk Charles, say, into GMing sometime, 'cause I also want to PLAY!

[JC]

A few issues that came up in play:

Initiation conflicts. They're cool and all, but I was a bit disappointed that we didn't get to do a town; especially since I didn't have much leverage with the set pile of dice to put the screws on the PCs. Even when I rolled really well, the players could easily narrate in enough traits to outpace me. Though some sweated a little, they ALL won their accomplishments. And I noticed a psycholigical effect, though thankfully it didn't kill fun: people kept referring to Initiation as "not-play," as in: "We haven't even started playing yet." And I'm thinking, whaddya call this?" It's an odd attitude, where "Chargen" is a separate, compartmentalized thing from "actual play," even in this case where chargen involves playing through an honest-to-God conflict.

A more serious issue I encountered, though: Initiation separates players. Orpeus' assist from Caleb notwithstanding, each initiation conflict involves only one player, which means in practice that you've got a lot of sitting around waiting, instead of everyone all jumping into play together. I can understand Initiation's importance, but this aspect of it rankled--by the time we got around to Annie's turn, folks were tired and unfocused, and often having their own conversations (about the game, granted) instead of listening and grooving on Caleb's initiation. Which was a bit sucky for me.

I also noticed that people's trait wordings were a little wierd. Part of this is preference; I personally strongly prefer the "I shot a polecat blindfolded" style over "Good shot." And I have to really restrain myself and bite my tongue from charging in and teling a player how to "do it right," because there they are doing all this PC stuff and getting to do traits and I just have to GM and watch and they're missing that cool naming thing! Aarrgh! But beyond that I'm noticing a sort of unwieldyness in some chars ' traits that I think might actually be a gameplay problem. Julie's are the most glaring: "Good shot--was a huge part of her rebellion 2d6" and "Strong willed won't take crap 1D6" for instance. It seems to me that traits should each basically say one thing, and that these try to say a couple. I dunno, will this tweak with the game or am I just being picky?

this might not be all that helpful, but I just wanted to say that the only time I played (and GMed) DITV, I had the same kind of trouble

I think I'll keep initiations very brief next time around

also: my (admittedly very limited) experience tells me you shouldn't be too worried about the traits thing

the idea is for the Dogs to bring their traits into play

these are what players use to make statements about their characters

and the more statements they can make, the more they impact the story

which, I believe, is what the whole game is about (but please correct me if I'm mistaken)

[Joel P. Shempert]

Hi, JC!

Yeah, as I hinted the traits thing is probably mostly a control-issue for me, with a healthy dose of jealosy over actually getting to "play" as opposed to GM. But I do still wonder about how broad the trait descriptions should be.

About initiation speed, it's funny, the Initiation conflicts kept getting longer and longer as we went around the table. . .I think partly it was a learning curve thing on the conflicts regarding resource management: since the GMs dice in Initiation is a fixed, finite resource, I blew out really quick on the first one, but as we proceeded I learned to use my resources better and draw things out. By the time I got to Annie I was gettin' the idea and could really aply to the pressure for a robust back' n' forth.

Another issue that just jumped out at me, in relation to my GM-learning curve: in the first conflict, I think I maybe went too easy on Charles, lending his raise more weight than it should have had. At the time it made sense, but when I tried to relate the incident to someone else, "He got the guy to back down by telling him to and singing some hymns" seemed wierd and far-fetched to the listener, and left me scratchin' my head as well. At the time (of my conversation) it seemed to be a quirk of the "say anything and attach it to dice" method of the mechanics; the idea that you can say "I recite Haiku" and attack it to hefty dice, and if they guy Takes the Blow of Gives then it worked. But the more I think about it, I think it was maybe just an invalid raise (emphasis on "maybe," my memory of what Bro. Nathaniel actually said is pretty hazy). When we play next I'll have to emphasize to the group that a raise must be "something your opponent can't ignore."

Peace,
-Joel

[Noclue]

I thin using hymns to pull a Dog back from a ledge sounds fine to me.

I'm not sure how his raise in a conflict with the violent Dog was able to cause the instructor to confess. That part seems like the focus moved from the two participants in the  conflict. I guess the instructor could have been brought in as a prop by one of them?

[Joel P. Shempert]

Well, the violent Dog was an NPC; I brought him in expressly for the initiation conflict. He and the instructor were both my "props." So when Nathaniel won the conflict, my narration of how he "convinced a fellow initiate that problems could be solved without violence" was that the instructor convinced and resigned. The problem of a faithless instructor was "solved" by his removal without a shot fired, hence the NPC initiate came to believe that problems could be solved without violence.

Made sense to me, anyway.

Peace,
-Joel

[Noclue]

Works for me too.

-James