The book presents the only kind of improper accomplishments that a player can come up with as ones that invalidate the whole "dogness" (or survival) of the character. Is that really the case? I'm thinking of three different classes of accomplishments that throw a wrench into things and I'm wondering what you do with players who come up with one of these:

a) accomplishments that are "impossible" - "I hope my character learns to fly"

b) accomplishments that "violate genre" or abhor the Faith - "I hope my character seduces an instructor"

c) accomplishments that involve other PCs - "I hope that PC X falls in love with me"

I see right off that it's pretty easy to just say that a and b aren't problems and the c has to have full buy-in from Player X, but is it really that simple? Do I, as GM, allow a character to learn to fly and assume that this is them saying "hey, I want really overt supernatural powers and stuff?" Half of me is thinking that it wouldn't hurt anything and the other half is horrified. Will the game work if the players are specifically playing characters that aren't really Faithful? Does this come back to the responsibility of the players to generate good dogs?

In addition to any answers or suggestions on this, have any of you dealt with players who really strongly wanted an accomplishment that you didn't like?

Chris

I'm not the expert, but I would say most of those concerns do in fact go back to violating survival and the integrity of being a Dog. I mean, trying to seduce an instructor? ...Bad. (falling in love w/ and instructor & not knowing what to do? well.... maybe).

Impossible accomplishments could be fun. Learning to fly could mean he somehow gets catapulted off a cliff, survives the loooong fall, and then has the need to somehow make sense of it (was it a miracle that he survived? If so, whats it mean?). Superman-type flight is kinda against genre is a big way, so maybe genre-breaking could have some weight, but if yer breaking genre with a character, you're also not having that character be a very good Dog, I'd imagine.

And as far as other PCs... the big question is what does the other player think. Let them figure it out. Maybe it'd give both a lot to play off of. If the two players can't agree, then, well, clearly it can't work, unless different points of view are somehow possible ("She fell in love with me that day..." "...no, I didn't." "yes, you did", etc.).

Hiya Chris,

I'd be a bit put out by those situations too, but Dogs has it under control. I don't have my copy in front of me to give you page numbers and paragraphs, but here's the gist of how Dogs handles such situations.

As a GM:
You really can't veto anything. Remember the rule of "Say 'yes' or roll the dice." If a player says that his character leaps over the town in a single bound in order to catch up with a fleeing NPC, then, as the GM, you've got no authority to say No. As a GM, you can pull out the dice.

As a Player:
I don't remember which page it's from, but each and every player has the right to object to narration that they don't like in Dogs. I think this is more implied than spelled out, but, once a player objects to narration, it all needs to be worked out by the group. If you, as a fellow player, think that a Dog learning to fly sucks & violates the flavor of the game, then you've got a right to say so. But, if the rest of the group thinks it's kewl & groovy, then you'll probably have to suck it up & deal with flying Dogs. I imagine that, in any game group where you've all played together for a while, if you're willing to object to some narration, there's probably someone else in the group that's willing to object too. If not... well, that makes you the crazy one. :)

Hope that helps.

-Eric

p.s. If my group decided that flying Dogs were kewl, then I'd so be throwing Super Sayan Sorcerors at them!

I had a player who took "Lustful d4" as a Trait. His initiatory conflict was "Do I control my impulses?". So the character was struggling with non-Dog-like behavior, which was fun. I'd suggest offering to turn the conflict around if a player chose "Do I seduce my instructor?" and make it "Can I *not* seduce my instructor?" That worked for us, anyway. We put the character in a situation where his beautiful scripture instructor kept raising the stakes with unintentionally provocative behavior. The player really squirmed and it was a hard-fought and satisfying fight.

As for a character who wants to fly, I second turning it around, as the only way I can see a character flying in this game would be under the influence of demons.

"Suuuuure you can fly, and should. Why shouldn't you, just because the King of Life didn't see fit to give you wings? Just come over to our side, and all the miracles of the world will be yours..."

Not an auspicious debut for a new Dog, I'd say!

It's even easier at Accomplishment time than otherwise, since then you're already in active negotiation. Harder would be if everybody's sitting there making up Traits and Relationships and this player writes "I can fly 2d10" on his or her character sheet. What if it doesn't come up until two and a half sessions later?

"It's your responsibility to create a character suited to service and within the genre of the game," from the character creation recap, is all I can figure to say on the subject.

-Vincent

Spooky, say 'yes' or roll dice. Don't diminish the player's idea.

Look, if you're going to have some sort of high-magic thing going on, why the hell can't people fly? It doesn't make sense if you're playing The Outlaw Josey Wales, but it works fine if you're playing with Wild Wild West.

If there's something that's gonna get in everyone's face, talk about it first so everyone shares expectations.