Topic: Returning to a town
Started by: agony
Started on: 1/24/2006
Board: lumpley games
On 1/24/2006 at 7:42pm, agony wrote:
Returning to a town
Read this in another thread:
Cool Alex. One thing I've heard here is that if Dogs return to a town, any new Sin can't be the consequences of the Dogs' actions: the way in which you solve the problems of the town is doctrine.
Is this true. If so i'm a tad bit dissapointed as I saw playing the ramifications of the Dogs decisions and hitting them with every repercussion of their moral choices (including those that say...take awhile to fester) would only reinforce the contemplative nature of their decisions.
However, I can see how this would not allow the GM to dictate what is wrong and what is right as he could verifiably punish the Dogs by having their moral choices negatively impact the faithful, which of course is wrong.
Just wanted to clear this up.
On 1/24/2006 at 7:44pm, Vaxalon wrote:
Re: Returning to a town
It can be a hard thing for a GM to take, to give the power to the PC's to say, "This is what will make things all right." ... and not be able to second-guess them.
Now if the players start saying, "You know, I think we might have fouled up back there in Repentance Crossing. Hey mister GM, could you write up a new town, based on the idea that perhaps we weren't as perfect as we thought we were?" then you've got license to second-guess them.
On 1/24/2006 at 7:56pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
Well, I think it just means that if Br. Joseph's prideful ways lead to a whole chain of "something's wrong" you can't just have any part of that the Dogs patched up crop up again. Now, it should totally be cool for Sr. Constance to say, "Hey, the last time the Dogs were here, they did X, and I deserve to be able to do X even more," leading to a whole new chain of "something's wrong." And if the Dogs missed something on the chain....well, then, that can pop up all over again. This is just my "I'm pretty sure that's how it works" thinking here, I'm not referencing any sections of the book, since I don't have it on me at the moment.
On 1/24/2006 at 7:59pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
The rule is, when you write up the revisited town, the pride can't be the Dogs'. That's all the rule is. Everything else is totally okay.
Not okay:
Pride: The Dogs did wrong.
Totally okay:
Pride: Sister Martha thinks that the Dogs did wrong.
Totally okay:
Pride: Sister Martha thinks that knowing how to read makes her cooler than Sister Patience.
Injustice: Because the Dogs burned down the library, Sister Patience can't improve her reading.
Totally okay:
Pride: Sister Martha thinks that she's the best.
Injustice: She's bullying Brother Isaac, whom the Dogs installed as steward, and who just can't hack it.
Totally okay:
Pride: Brother Isaac, whom the Dogs installed as steward, thinks that being steward means he should eat better than anybody else.
Totally okay:
Sister Joyous, whom the Dogs forgave and who promised to serve God evermore, thinks that the Dogs' forgiveness and her promise mean that she can do whatever she wants.
Yes, even these last two are totally, totally, totally okay.
-Vincent
On 1/24/2006 at 8:37pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
lumpley wrote:
Totally okay:
Sister Joyous, whom the Dogs forgave and who promised to serve God evermore, thinks that the Dogs' forgiveness and her promise mean that she can do whatever she wants.
But not Sr. Joyous deciding that the God doesn't exist, right? If the players won a conflict to make her believe evermore, that can't change between games, right?
On 1/24/2006 at 8:41pm, Alex Fradera wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
Whoops, my bad.
I have difficulty parsing option 3: if pride manifests as injustice, doesn't that tell the players that the Dogs' actions (injustice) stem from Pride?
[cross-posted with Andrew.]
On 1/24/2006 at 10:42pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
Alex wrote:
I have difficulty parsing option 3: if pride manifests as injustice, doesn't that tell the players that the Dogs' actions (injustice) stem from Pride?
Yeah, that's fair, you're right. So the injustice has to be something like: Sister Patience can't improve her reading (because the Dogs burned down the library), so Sister Martha punches and spits on her.
Andrew wrote:lumpley wrote:
Totally okay:
Sister Joyous, whom the Dogs forgave and who promised to serve God evermore, thinks that the Dogs' forgiveness and her promise mean that she can do whatever she wants.
But not Sr. Joyous deciding that the God doesn't exist, right? If the players won a conflict to make her believe evermore, that can't change between games, right?
Well... That's not specified by the game rules. My personal opinion is that if you're doing it to play gotcha with your players, you're a crappy Dogs GM, but if you're doing it knowing that your players are going to think it's the awesomest yet, you're doing great.
-Vincent
On 1/25/2006 at 2:43am, agony wrote:
RE: Re: Returning to a town
Thank you, your last sentence Vincent and the examples nailed it plain and clear for me.