[DitV] Dog's Authority

[Rustin]

I've been asked to run a Dog's game in the near future.

With so many different gaming systems in my head (I've been reading and playing lots of new games lately), I gave myself some homework just to prep my brain a bit.   I've tried to nail down the Authority powers in Dogs so I don't accidentally use other gaming mechanics sub-consciously.

Content Authority
What: Town Creation
Who: GM
How: GM imagines it.

What: Relationships
Who: Player (maybe GM)
How: Player assigns relationship dice to any suitable PC or NPC.

Plot Authority
What: Revelation of Information
Who: GM
How: GM describes stuff.

What: Getting Information
Who: Players
How: Player sets information as his character's interest, applies "say yes or role dice" rule.

Situation Authority
What: Frame a Scene
Who: GM and Players
How: Call for scene, introduce characters and environment.

Narrational Authority
What: Say what happens
Who: GM and Players
How: Win stakes, raises and See.


Do I have it right?  Did I miss anything? Where would you place the Player's power to define sin?

[Noclue]

Well, just one little tweak. "Say yes, or roll dice" is advice for the GM. In revealing your information, if its not conflicty, don't make them roll dice. Just give it to them. Give them everything until you run into something you dont want to give them.

For example:

Dog "Can I pick the lock of this door."
GM "Yes, its picked. What's next?"

[Web_Weaver]

Seems to me that the characters are missing from your scheme, as the Character Creation process, and character development through the Fallout process, are a means through which the players impact this game.

Judgement is related to this, as Characters are the vehicle through which players use judgement, and judgement is best handled within conflicts, in order to drive the feedback loop via fallout into character change (making judgement meaningful at the mechanical level).

These concepts would most often fall into Narrational Authority, but also Character Creation and assigning Fallout could have an impact on Content Authority. And, if the players are using Fallout to forge an ongoing story arc for their character, thereby informing future conflicts or towns then this could be seen as a bid to impact Plot Authority.

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Rustin,

Neat exercise!

Let me ramble about something, I think your thread helped me straighten out a few things, rather theoretical. Beware reader, what I'm about to write could be a lot of "smashing in of open doors" to you, as we say in French.

I agree that Situational Authority is totally up for grabs by all the players (including GM) by Ron's definition. If I'm not mistaken, there is no such thing as scene-framing in the text of DitV (not by a long shot anything like what we'd get in My Life with Master).
Vincent alludes that the group should share the task however they see fit. See for example how he explains conflict, "we establish what's at stake, set the stage and figure out who's there" (not an exact quote). Clinton said something similar about The Shadow of Yesterday a while ago, and the way he does it is very similar to how I've played Dogs.
This seems quite neat to me. Of course, Town and Character creation are strictly assigned: the former to the GM, the latter to the players (I think Vincent specifically addresses the reader when writing about those points, instead of saying we).
Funny thing: when characters go to town we get Situation as defined in the Provisional Glossary. Of course, older scenes play their role in the newer ones as well (they have an impact on characters via fallout for example, and they directly affect our understanding of what's been going on). Vincent lays a solid foundation and then loosens up. I reckon that giving this slack is vital to glue the parts together and form enjoyable shared play.

This brings me, along with the other elements that have been discussed in this thread by all, to a blog-entry Vincent wrote some time ago, about what people around here have been calling the Fruitful Void.
All the stuff that has been talked about in this thread can more or less directly be attached to one of those arrows on the diagram, right? (This is actually a real question, I invite everybody to double check me on this one).

This leads me to one of your questions:

Where would you place the Player's power to define sin?

That is sitting in the Void. I'm pretty sure Vincent doesn't say anywhere who's authority it is to define sin when it comes up in play. Participants will express what they believe is sin in their play guided by all those techniques we discussed. Whatever your position on a particular act is, I'll have mine. We all take something personal home from there, and nobody has any final say in there (although it might crop up in later situations again). Fixing such interpretations officially would fill the void and choke the game.


Huh... I think this helped me make sense of a couple of topics. I hope it will be of use to others as well! Thanks for launching the thread Rustin.

By the way, may this be taken as a form of respect to Vincent's superb game-writing.

[lumpley]

Christoph, thank you. That's a nice post.

-Vincent

[Rustin]

Christoph,

The last thing I expected was such a brilliant, "perfect for me," reply.
I never understood "fruitful void." 
Moreover, I didn't grasp that my anxiety about running Dogs and getting the authorities right, actually stemmed from not understanding "fruitful void." Its like you crawled into my brain and found a puzzle piece of understanding missing and went, "Ah, I know what would fit right here."

Your post has given me a level of confidence to run this game that I didn't know I could have or that I even knew was possible. 

Thank You

[Christoph Boeckle]

Thanks guys, your replies made me happy that I could help and that I understood.