Heya,

My curiosity about dogs got to be too much. Initially I was going to just watch a game that was about to happen at rpol.net. But it floundered as players dropped out, so I decided that's no good for my curiosity, I'll join.

However, after the GM asked me what I wanted out of the game (I'll cut and paste my reply if you want), I asked him what he wanted and he basically said he just wanted to run the game to see what it's like. And to see if the expectations of the game work with or against his usual GM style.

NOW, from what I've heard, Dogs puts alot more game direction in the players hands, through its rules. And I have no idea about those rules. And I see a GM looking for something from the rules, which would really come from a player using those rules. Soooo, umm, any pointers about what I should be refering too?

Also, there seemed to be some individual PC accomplishment threads set up by the GM. Does dogs recommend doing that with the players seperately?

Callan wrote:
NOW, from what I've heard, Dogs puts alot more game direction in the players hands, through its rules. And I have no idea about those rules. And I see a GM looking for something from the rules, which would really come from a player using those rules. Soooo, umm, any pointers about what I should be refering too?

Also, there seemed to be some individual PC accomplishment threads set up by the GM. Does dogs recommend doing that with the players seperately?

Do I have to pay any resources for setting up a scene?

Say the GM's just described us on the edge of town and suggested a few things, and I then want to describe myself as having entered the town and listening in on a conversation the town leader is having (to add conflict to it, he or someone important could find me and be affronted). How do I set that up?

No.  You don't have to pay resources for that kind of thing.  However, you can't just narrate it and have it happen. Most of these kind of decisions are group consensus based.  A player (including the GM)  can make a suggestion that they are now in town talking to the Town Leader, and if every one agrees then it happens.

Players are also allowed to freely suggest additions to the SIS which might usually be the preserve of the GM.  If you want a scene to contain a certain element/object/NPC then assuming the group finds it agreeable, it's present in the scene.

Hope that's helpful

Drew

I know you can't just narrate something and it happens (lumpley principle and all that). But if the other players and GM are of the "follow the GM's guide" style of play (which has already shown up), what do I have to fall back on rules wise that says "Hey, here's my scene set up contribution, give it serious consideration/don't just look to the GM".

A fairly common play practice is for the GM to lead the players along by the nose, essentially. Assuming this group is like that, without any rules back up, everyone will be too shocked by my trying to lead the game anywhere to even think of giving me cred.

Thanks though, Drew. It gives me a heads up of what I'm getting into and whether I should get into it.

Callan wrote:
I know you can't just narrate something and it happens (lumpley principle and all that). But if the other players and GM are of the "follow the GM's guide" style of play (which has already shown up), what do I have to fall back on rules wise that says "Hey, here's my scene set up contribution, give it serious consideration/don't just look to the GM".

Hi Claire,

I guess I'm being a bit paranoid about where following the GM's signposts will go...

Player: Samuel frowns at the distant homes.
  "You mentioned somethin' 'bout your steward.  Where can we find him?"

GM: The miller's eyes drop as he looks aside sullenly. "Might be in town. Might be over there. Might be up in the hills. I don't know, and I don't much care.

"The man you ought to talk to is Brother Nathan. He's the one who really knows what's goin' on round here. You can find him in town, just ask at the icehouse."

Hi Callan.

If the GM has read the rules he or she should be well aware that they aren't supposed to "lead the players by the nose".  I'm sure it's a temptation to fall back on those ways if your that kind of GM however.

Assuming the GM has read the rules properly and is following them, then perhaps he or she isn't actually trying to "lead" you to Brother Nathan in this example.  One of the guidelines Vincent sets out is essentially "don't try and hide the situation from the players"  Perhaps the GM is just pointing out that Brother Nathan is an NPC of particular interest so you can "cut to the chase" should you desire.

I guess you can only tell if the GM is actually railroading you into Brother Nathan's arms by what happens when you all say "Ok we're off to talk to the outlying farms..." or something.  If the GM ain't happy and tries to push you back "on track" then you've got a problem.  But it is possible that the GM is just being a bit heavy handed in "actively revealing the town" as I think Vincent puts it.  Claire touched on this a little: the game can be pretty simple in structure, maybe the GM is just trying to lay out the options in front of you nice and quick, so you can get to the good stuff. 

To be honest I don't think asking for a conflict about this issue is going to help, unless it's actually an NPC trying to coerce your Dog into seeing Brother Nathan.  If it's just a GM force issue, then you need to perhaps gently remind them that Dogs most definitely isn't supposed to play that way.

Be very open about the scenes you want to frame.  Lay it out to the other players like "I want us to go and explore the rest of the town before we talk to this guy, let's have a scene where we run into some townfolk in the fields or something"  if the group agrees, the GM has to go with it.

If you want a specific reference for the ruling that players are free to add to the game and the GM just runs the NPCs here's some applicable rules:

DitV p.2

Furthermore, the game calls for a pretty particular division of power between players and GM, one you might not be accustomed to. For instance, it’s never the GM’s job to plan what’ll happen. The GM’s job is to create a town at a moment of crisis (which I’ll tell you how to do in good detail) and from then on, only respond. Play the NPCs up to your elbows but then be willing to let them die.

It’s especially important to note that everyone playing will form a slightly different picture, leading to slightly different details. That’s fine! As GM, it falls to you to draw the other players’ details into the confirmed, consensus “reality” of the game. When a player asks you, “is there a [whatever] here?” you should either say yes outright, or turn the question back to the group: “I dunno, does it make sense to you all that there’d be a [whatever] here?” Similarly, if you think that a detail you’re introducing might be at all surprising or controversial, take it to the group: “I want there to be a [whatever] here. Does that make sense to everybody?”If you’ve GMed many other roleplaying games, you’re probably accustomed to creating a consistent world by adhering strictly to one person’s vision— either your own as GM or else the game designer’s. I don’t intend Dogs to play that way. When you play Dogs, you create a consistent world by actively building one out of the bits and pieces of each player’s own vision.

If you have a solution in mind, the game rules are going to mess you up bad.I hope I’ve made that clear enough. If you’re GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome. It’s best for everybody, I mean especially it’s best for you too, if you just don’t prefer one outcome to another.Your job is to present the situation and then escalate it. The players’ job is to pronounce judgment and follow through. The solution is born of the two in action.

Hey Callan.

In Dogs, the GM decides in advance what's wrong in the town, and what its various NPCs want you to do. The GM's going to be throwing this stuff at you as hard and fast as possible. What the GM doesn't decide in advance is what you should do.

So when the GM has an NPC say something like, "dude, you gotta go talk to this guy and then this guy," take that as the NPC's agenda, not the GM's, and treat it accordingly.

-Vincent

Thanks for the help, everybody! Sadly I've been informed another lurker got in first...or something like that. I guess I'll watch it from the outside. But I'll keep the help here in mind when I watch it, to see how it all goes. Thanks again! :)

As a player in the game, I feel vaguely compelled to defend the GM.  In the quoted scene, Samuel (my character) asked where the steward was, and got an answer.  He never said, we should go running after him.  He actually mentioned some other character we should talk to, but that was purely the character talking.  Immediately after that I decided to go a completely different direction and suggested a bunch of things the other Dogs should do.  The real problem with the game is one of the players disappeared completely, and another player moved in RL, thus being away from his computer for quite a while (without letting us know until afterwards).  That left me and the other player hesitant to post much more without giving a chance to the absent players.  The posting was much more frequent in the one on one accomplishment conflicts, so I figured people might be more comfortable splitting up.  The whole thing seems to be picking up again, so we'll see.  At any rate, the only "signpost" I saw was the GM actively revealing the town, which he's supposed to be doing.

If anyone's interested, I don't think any of the threads are private, so you could probably read all that's happened thusfar (not much) at www.rpol.net.  It's in the "adult" section in case there's mature content, but nothing of the sort has happened yet.

Oh, it's just that's what I would have done back in the old days. The players ask where someone is and as GM I make it vague and none to clear, then say who they should speak to, and his exact location. Path of least resistance does the rest. Perhaps I just saw too much of myself there.

Wouldn't this just be easier if you bought the game? This is all laid out in black and white.

I like a test drive a vehicle before I buy it, rather than buying the vehicle in order to see if I like driving it. Plus the bank transfer from Australia is probably about the same cost as the game, and I don't have a credit card.

Another thing to consider is that in Dogs GMs are encouraged to give NPCs their own agendas.  My interpretation of the passage you quoted is that the guy you were talking to believes that the steward is not the man in charge, and this Brother Narthan is.  Which is a problem for the town that will need to be dealt with.  I would have questioned him further - ask him what's wrong with the steward.  You'll only get his opinion, but it'll help to gather information.
Steve