Topic: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Started by: Jason Newquist
Started on: 2/14/2005
Board: lumpley games
On 2/14/2005 at 2:02am, Jason Newquist wrote:
[Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Well. I've been reading the Forge for a couple years now, on and off you know, and don't think I've ever bothered to post. Until now. Was over in Actual Play, and saw a couple DitV threads, and was like, what's this? A few raised eyebrows later, I was Googling, then clicking on BUY PDF.
Read it cover to cover, and I'm amazed. Now, props to Ron Edwards and all Vincent's influences. I own Sorcerer and several supplements, and enjoyed reading them, mostly. But not like this. This I got, immediately. This seems written to play. Reads wonderfully, and you can really see the game world. Excellent work.
So I've read through the archives of this forum -- but not the Actual Play yet, that's next. Until then, I thought I'd ask a couple questions. Nothing niggling, or anything. Just a couple "has anyone done this" type questions.
(1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them? Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that? I can see these problems cropping up in all kinds of player groups, given enough play time. It sounds like it could be incredibly destrctive (physically and socially, and in other ways, too), unless great restraint is employed. Has this ever happened in anyone's play?
(2) I'm particularly interested in this game for my online group. We play live in a chat room (MUSH rather than IRC, but it could be either) from time to time. My initial concern is tracking the dice pools. Which have been used, which are left, etc. Has anyone else attempted playing online? How'd that go?
Thanks,
Jason
On 2/14/2005 at 3:01am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Hi Jason,
I'd suggest that conflict among the Dogs would be absolutely non-destructive to play. Even if they ended up screwing one another (literally, I'm talking about sex), killing one another, blackmailing one another, or anything else you could name.
You see, there's absolutely nothing about that outcome or range of outcomes that would imply that the players are in any way in conflict or disagreement.
Same goes for Sorcerer, Dust Devils, The Riddle of Steel, or many other games with powerful relationship/passion mechanics.
Best,
Ron
On 2/14/2005 at 4:14am, Paka wrote:
Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote:
(1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them? Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that?
Hells yeah, it happened in two games I ran, one was just last night.
Once it was at a table with gamers who've known each other for a long time and I should've made them do a conflict with dice and all. I didn't and more fool me. They were arguing over how to execute a man in the town square while he kneeled there before them. It was the middle of the night and the square was otherwise deserted.
The soon to be dead fella asked, "If Dogs are the living will of the King of Life, what does it mean when two Dogs argue?"
One of the Dogs responded, "Think of it as God thinking out loud."
Last night two Dogs got into an argument. One had tried to knife a Desert Territory soldier in a Temple DURING services with the entire town's congregation present. They got into a public argument. I made 'em roll for it and it went really well. The argument ended with the Dog who attempted to knife the soldier proving his point and the Dog who was demanding peace in the Temple realized he was correct in his knife-wielding.
Good stuff and the game backs it up well with social and verbal conflicts being just as dramatic as good ole fashioned good fights. The only other game I can think of that comes close is Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits.
On 2/14/2005 at 4:17am, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote: (1) Has anyone addressed in play what happens when your Dogs are so set against each other about something that Conflict breaks out between them? Like, who's right about what to do to solve the town's problem, or if one or the other isn't really Faithful, or something like that? I can see these problems cropping up in all kinds of player groups, given enough play time. It sounds like it could be incredibly destrctive (physically and socially, and in other ways, too), unless great restraint is employed. Has this ever happened in anyone's play?
It's totally fine. In the last game I played, the only violence that happened was between protagonists. It's the most interesting type of conflict sometimes because of the differing moral and religious views of the protags.
I can't comment on the online play, but others here have done it.
On 2/14/2005 at 7:48am, Jason Newquist wrote:
RE: Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Encouraging reports. Followup question, then. Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a PCs has taken a Relationship with another PC? Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?
On 2/14/2005 at 7:50am, Paka wrote:
RE: Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote: Encouraging reports. Followup question, then. Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a characters have taken a Relationship with another character? Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?
My first group took many relationships with one another so they could more effectively back each other up in combat. I am sure they would not hesitate to take a few d4's for one another if something went poorly.
In the group I ran with this weekend, one of them put her saved relationship dice into a relationship with the members of her posse too.
Absolutely.
On 2/14/2005 at 8:45am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
I have yet, to be honest, to take a relationship with any group members. But then, I've not taken any relationships at all except for one taken as fallout during the last session.
Inter-PC conflicts, on the other hand, I've had a little experience with. Lemme make this clear.. It was fun. I can see how it could be problematic in a group that isn't used to that sort of thing, but in a system where it's quite possible for either side of a conflict to decide whether or not to take fallout, there's not nearly as much stress in it. Just make it clear that inter-PC conflicts are just part of the fun, and you shouldn't have any problems.
On 2/14/2005 at 10:12am, Negilent wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
The PVP conflict in my first Dogs Game saw both use their relationships against each other. They all seem to prefer the relationship To my Fellow Dogs to the I am a Dog trait.
One Dog, aka the gunslinger, was struggeling with guilt after killing an inocent kid. When the other two dogs were about to waltz in and force the kids mother to confess to her sins he tried to stop them.
It began as a heart and aquity discussion. They all called on their relationships. Escalated to physical when the gunslinger ran out of "talking dice". The other dogs brushed by him, leaving him with a ton of tempting gun dice just begging to be used. He gave and entered the house.
These relationships get dragged in as often as they can.
On 2/14/2005 at 4:10pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote: Encouraging reports. Followup question, then. Since Relationships are ways of stating what your conflicts are about (p. 97), has anyone had a case where a PCs has taken a Relationship with another PC? Or, yikes, two PCs with each other?
One of my favorites, paraphrased from a character of mine: 'I prevented Bro. Anthony from learning to read - 2d4'
Inter-character relationships are an excellent, excellent aspect of the system. In fact, mechanically speaking, it's a huge benefit because it helps you in conflicts like 'Can you convince Sr. Hagar she should be ashamed of herself?' with 'Sr. Hagar is a selfish bitch - 6d4' and 'Can I save Bro. Cyrus' life?' with 'Bro. Cyrus and I are married by the King of Life - 4d6'
I just convinced myself to secretly marry another PC next time the opportunity presents itself.
N.B. Intercharacter relationships are the crux of the Mountain Witch system. I'm really happy that designers are adding mechanics to the social system of inter-character story. It's something that's freakishly missing from earlier games.
On 2/14/2005 at 6:47pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
I think it's important to remember, that players often aren't used to losing control of their characters when they lose a TALKING conflict.
WHen I run Dogs, I might have to say to my players, "In this conflict, everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over. If you want to continue the conflict, it becomes physical, a shoving match, a fistfight."
That's not something most players have any experience with.
On 2/14/2005 at 8:29pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Yeah, Fred! That, what you just said.
"Everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over," I'm going to remember that.
-Vincent
On 2/14/2005 at 8:45pm, Jason Newquist wrote:
RE: Re: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Paka wrote: The soon to be dead fella asked, "If Dogs are the living will of the King of Life, what does it mean when two Dogs argue?"
One of the Dogs responded, "Think of it as God thinking out loud."
This is precisely the situation I had in mind, incidentally. Sure, there are implications to the players about PVP conflicts, but depending on the circumstances, there might also be interesting game world consequences, especially if the Stakes involve a question of Doctrine. Might makes right.
Reminiscent of Certamen in Ars Magica.
On 2/14/2005 at 8:49pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
lumpley wrote: Yeah, Fred! That, what you just said.
"Everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over," I'm going to remember that.
-Vincent
Cool. I know I'm getting to understand a game when I can elaborate something better than the creator did.
:)
On 2/15/2005 at 8:40am, beingfrank wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Vaxalon wrote: I think it's important to remember, that players often aren't used to losing control of their characters when they lose a TALKING conflict.
WHen I run Dogs, I might have to say to my players, "In this conflict, everything has been said that CAN be said; both of your characters realize that the time for words is over. If you want to continue the conflict, it becomes physical, a shoving match, a fistfight."
That's not something most players have any experience with.
This is exactly why I want to run Dogs with the people I play with, and why at least one of them doesn't want to.
One player is very used to winning every Just Talking conflict sie gets into in real life. When I started explaining some of the things in Dogs to them I got a number of responses:
- But if I come up with a better argument while Just Talking, why shouldn't I win regardless of what the dice say? Anything else is wrong and unfun.
- People who are not good with words will hate the game because they won't be able to think of ways to See and Raise.
- Any game where the players get to decide what God says to the PCs is riding for a fall.
This is where I started bashing my head against the table. Frankly, I think my mistake was talking about it, instead of just running it. My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'
On 2/15/2005 at 2:40pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
beingfrank wrote: My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'
I think that's how I'm going to do it. I'm just going to sit down with the rules, have them start making characters, and dive right in.
By then they will be familiar with conflict resolution instead of task resolution, from playing Primetime Adventures.
On 2/15/2005 at 7:40pm, Jason Newquist wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
A smattering of thoughts.
beingfrank wrote: - People who are not good with words will hate the game because they won't be able to think of ways to See and Raise.
Do you think DitV is for virtuoso players? It seems to me a lot more open and newbie friendly, though I can't quite put my finger on why.
Anyway, this reminds me of something Vincent said in Adventures in Improvised System...
lumpley wrote: "Nah. What I'm really not happy with is the Certamen. Cause of A) the pressure to come up with cool magicky attacks under pressure."
The pressure of being put on the spot -- that is, of struggling to keep up with the pace while being as creative as possible -- seems present in DitV, yeah. But it doesn't seem to be on the same order as what Certamen seems to demand of you in ArM. OTOH, it happens a lot more often because this is the primary mechanic.
DitV asks you to come up something as small as a one liner, and you are given cues from your in-play Talents, Belongings, and Relationships. Also, you know what the stakes are, and you know what your guy wants out of the conflict. Just pick one to emphasise, maybe? As opposed to: Certamen, where you have a couple magical Arts, and are encouraged to come up with budget-busting special effects which are a direct and appropriate response to the attack just presented.
At the very worst, your group could agree that "Oh yeah? Nuh-uh!" is a valid response in the heat of the moment. Anything to remove un-fun pressure from being on the spot seems like a good remedy to me.
I'm sure there must be threads on the Forge which address performance pressure and anxiety, and ways to mitigate them in the various Creative Agendas, but I don't have them at hand.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 8232
On 2/15/2005 at 7:59pm, Jinx wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
beingfrank wrote:
This is where I started bashing my head against the table. Frankly, I think my mistake was talking about it, instead of just running it. My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'
BL> Yeah, it's a problem. My advice is to just invite the people who aren't going to be bitchy about it, let them have a great time and make everyone else envious. That worked for me with Riddle of Steel ;-)
yrs--
--Ben
On 2/15/2005 at 8:00pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
That was actually me, at Dave's house.
yrs--
--Ben
On 2/15/2005 at 8:08pm, Jason Newquist wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
It also occurs to me that playing live online (which I've done lots and lots of) really helps mitigate the On the Spot feeling quite a bit.
(1) You're behind a screen and keyboard. One is aware that there are others listening, and that the game is being logged verbatim, but that's quite different than having a table of faces watching to see what you do next, RIGHT NOW.
(2) You have more time to reply. For online live games, you have tens of seconds to think of a response, which feels like eternities more time than FTF, where time is measured in heartbeats.
-Jason
On 2/15/2005 at 8:21pm, Brand_Robins wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
beingfrank wrote: - But if I come up with a better argument while Just Talking, why shouldn't I win regardless of what the dice say? Anything else is wrong and unfun.
The snarky part of me wants to ask this player if he's ever seen an online argument. Better and winning become meaningless real fast... but you just know if you could punch the other guy in the face everything would be solved. ;)
Of course, I also love the double-standard of "if I'm really clever I should win" and "this game is bad because it expects you to be clever."
Frankly, I think my mistake was talking about it, instead of just running it. My solution will be to say 'pizza at my place, bring your dice, I'm running a game, don't think about it, just enjoy it for an evening and you can bitch about it later.'
I think that's the best way to deal with it.
On 2/15/2005 at 8:33pm, timfire wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Brand_Robins wrote: The snarky part of me wants to ask this player if he's ever seen an online argument. Better and winning become meaningless real fast... but you just know if you could punch the other guy in the face everything would be solved. ;)
So True. ;)
But as a data point, in the demo I played with Vincent and nikola, Nikola was playing a chauvanistic Dog, and I wanted him to feel shame for some comments he made. So me and another Dog confronted him about it. Well, as you would expect, the conflict was escalated more than once, and nikola pulled a gun on us. It furiated me that another Dog would do such a thing, so I of course pulled mine as well (and with full intent of using them I might add). The only thing that stopped us was that the third Dog Raised with his highest dice, forcing both of us to back down (or me at least, I forget if nikola gave in at that point or later).
On 2/15/2005 at 9:42pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote: A smattering of thoughts.
beingfrank wrote: - People who are not good with words will hate the game because they won't be able to think of ways to See and Raise.
Do you think DitV is for virtuoso players? It seems to me a lot more open and newbie friendly, though I can't quite put my finger on why.
While there is a certain amount of pressure, my group is living proof that you don't have to be a "virtuoso" to do kickass things with Dogs. As I've mentioned, we've got a player who's a bit of a wallflower. He's typically very uncertain about what to do, and often chooses not to act, or to act totally on a whim without considering the character. Dogs.. Doesn't allow that. In the beginning, we had to kibitz a lot, but after all of our kibitzing, he managed to find the dramatically coolest thing to say on his own, and he's coming out more and more as we continue playing.
Basically, it's a bit of a hump, but once you're over it, it's smooth sailing.
Also, Claire mentioned that a "virtuoso" won't like Dogs because they want to win on the merits of their own persuasion.. Thing is, that is absolutely not a problem in play. At any time that there's a talking conflict between the players, you can win out over the other if your argument is enough to convince them. The other Dog can give at any time if they're convinced your way is better.
Trust me on this. I've done it a few times already.. and then, once I'd won the point, I convinced the other player to keep playing the dice to argue their point until the very last, even if they ended up giving up short of running out of dice because their dice were stronger than mine. It lends a fun bit of tension to the game.
On 2/17/2005 at 5:45am, beingfrank wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Jason Newquist wrote: A smattering of thoughts.
beingfrank wrote: - People who are not good with words will hate the game because they won't be able to think of ways to See and Raise.
Do you think DitV is for virtuoso players? It seems to me a lot more open and newbie friendly, though I can't quite put my finger on why.
I don't personally, but my gaming experience has all been with highly articulate people. The people I play with used to play with people they reckon would be deeply unhappy with being asked to match up their actions with mechanical considerations. They felt that these people would have trouble thinking up something that could be a Turn the Blow, or a Block or whatever. That they could describe what they wanted to do, but getting that to fit specific circumstances defined by mechanics would be too intimidating, and would disadvantage them compared to more creative players. And being thus disadvantaged, they'd not enjoy the game.
At least, that's my understanding of their argument. I'm not convinced myself, but I do not know they people they were thinking of, and I have only played with a small number of people.
On 2/17/2005 at 2:45pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
Mechanically speaking, Dogs is definitely not for everyone. The "just talking" conflict mechanic is a big leap from how it's done in most games.
On 2/17/2005 at 3:44pm, Negilent wrote:
RE: [Dogs] Has it happened yet?
I'd say that the DitV mechanic works for controlling conversations even for erudite players.
I've had some of the stumbling and complaining from my players as I've tried to implement Luke Crane's Duel of Wits in our ongoing Burning Wheel campaign. The same players have not lifted an eyebrow when we are playing Ditv and they have to follow the dice in the discussion.
So I have to disagree with the notion that you have to be virtuoso to play
DitV.
Hell, even our local munchkin gamer (who allways tries to cover his back) shone when he ralised that mecanically there was little way to protec oneself from the story, and when he realised that the story was generated by the players, and not by me following a script, well the look in his eyes was religous.