Hello All,

    I was speaking with John Harper and Philaros last night about a number of topics.  One of them was about whether DitV was basically Narrativist or Gamist.  I said that it obviously had strong Gamist elements because of how the dice worked and the fact that there was character advancement (another topic I have been wrestling with in terms of indie RPGs.) 

  John said to me, "Vincent has come out and said that the focus of Dogs is on how the character has changed.  The towns disappear.  There is no plot.  There is only the characters and the choices they made.  It is about starting with a 3d6 in "Do your best" and ending up with 4d10 in "I won't quit.".  Every fallout, every reflection really only changes the character, it doesn't really make him more powerful.

My response:  "Well if that is the case, then Vincent should not beat around the bush and put in the rules:  After you make you character, make a copy of him.  Take that copy and put it away somewhere.  Do not look at that copy until the game is totally over or your PC dies.  Compare where he started and where he ended.  How does that make you feel?"

If that is the purpose of the game then don't hide it in metaphor and expect us to "get it."  Leave that to the philosophy professors and the Zen meditation masters.  If you are trying to make a point then make it and let the chips fall where they may.  But that is just my opinion.

-- Brandon

I'd say that's a part of Dogs.

I wouldn't say it is THE POINT of Dogs.

Though, some of that is in the book. Just look at the Reflection and Between Town rules. They rule.

Hey Brandon.

What's your question for me?

I have answers, but rather than brain-dump on you, maybe you can narrow it down.

-Vincent

I'm not totally understanding why you feel Dogs is gamist.

Surely every system can be taken advantage of and performed with Gamist tendencies, but the feel of the setting and implications in the rules concerning their involvement as well as the role of the GM certainly lends the whole package towards Narativist gaming; at least as I see it.

More specifically, am I the only one seeing Dog's commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself.

Agony, those aren't even gamist tendencies. Gamism doesn't live at that scale.

But I really want to hear back from Brandon. Bad enough if I brain dump on him, let's not everyone brain dump on him too.

-Vincent

/aside

Charles, you might want to check out this thread.

- Frank

Also, this post of Ron Edwards's might be relevant: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18177.msg192280#msg192280.

Hey Vincent,

Sorry about my absence.  I forgot to mark this thread as notify and then forgot about it for (long) while.  That being said ...

Vincent:  I wouldn't say that I had a question per say.  It was more of reaction to my conversation with John.  Well I guess if there was a questions it would be this:

What is the "true goal" of DitV?

Is it, as John contends, a way to demonstrate how a character will grow and change over the course of "life" (gaming sessions)?
OR
Is it an Indie RPG that is trying out an interesting rules structure/dice mechanic?

I some additional thoughts on this, but I will hold those based on your response.

--Brandon

I didn't quite say what Brandon says I did. For the record, I agree with Brand. But, I think Brandon's question is interesting, anyway. :-)