This is horribly n00bish. I apologise if this sort of thing has already been done to death long ago :)

I'm running two games using Dogs, both set in the Firefly TV universe. It's my first time running the system, and most people's first time playing with it. We're all struggling with new concepts, sometimes in a fun way, sometimes not.

One thing that's provoked discussion in both groups is the nature of Traits: what's appropriate, how to understand and define them, how they should work. The rulebook instructions on how to make Traits are clear and simple enough, but like many clear and simple things, they're highly conversible in their ramifications.

I thought I'd present my thoughts on the subject here, where wiser heads can tell me what a fool I am :-)

Ideally what I want to end up with (eventually) is some simple way of highlighting to new players (particularly those experienced with more traditional RPG systems) what is essentially unique about Traits in DitV.

So:

In a traditional game, a skill represents a more or less narrowly and arbitrarily defined area of ability. Skill level directly maps, in simulationist fashion, the character's level of expertise, and their likelihood of success.

Traits in Dogs are different. First, they're conceptually much broader than skills: a Trait represents something definitive about a character, something that makes them iconic within their own story, and that you would include in any description of them. Blondie in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is a wicked gunslinger, and that's definitely a Trait - you wouldn't omit that if you were telling somebody about him. But his steely squinty glare, or the way he smokes his cigarillos, or the fact that ultimately he's the "Good" in the story - those are every bit as important, and they could all be Traits too. Dramatically, they could all be narrated as part of his success in a conflict. When Blondie spits out his cigar and glares at someone, it's a significant act, and in Dogs that kind of thing is mechanically quantifiable.

The other difference is that the die rating of a Trait has nothing to do with the character's level of expertise. Instead, it represents how significant that aspect of the character is in the story; how much the player wants to emphasize that Trait.

You can decide your character is the fastest gun in the 'Verse: that's a narrative decision; if the group is okay with it, then they are. If you want your character to be often settling things with their gun, if shooting things is hugely important about this character, then you'd assign more and bigger dice to that Trait.

If, on the other hand, you decided that being Fastest Gun was incidental to the character, not such an important thing about them, something that didn't tend to be significant in their story, you'd assign fewer/smaller dice to that Trait.

In both cases, your character would still be the Fastest Gun.

The reverse is also possible. Your character could be a bumbling incompetent with a gun, who never hits anything anytime, and you could assign big dice to that Trait. It would mean that the character's incompetence was somehow decisive in resolving conflicts for them! I'm sure many examples from stories could be conjured.

(I'm trying to decide what kind of dice Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven" has in his gunslinging skill. I'm thinking lots of d4's. d4 Traits tend to cause complications for characters - they make Fallout (negative consequences, but also experience) more likely. Lots of d4s seems to fit the Unforgiven character...)

In spite of their being open to a broad range of narrative definitions, I think Traits in Dogs are actually just as "crunchy" as skills in the most relentlessly gamey systems. Everything you do with a Trait is measured through the medium of the dice; there's no handwaving or fudging.

Actually, I think Traits in Dogs are in some ways -more- crunchy, more clearly defined (in rules terms) than skills in other games. There's often a lot of dispute about what can be achieved with a given skill, particularly if it's some kind of fantastic ability. Just what can I do with my "Telepathy" or "Electrodirection" or "Mad Science!"? The answer is negotiated - over and over again - with the GM, and keeping "limits" on abilities while still letting the player have fun is something that has given most GMs headaches at one time or another.

In Dogs, this whole process is circumvented by the rules: All conflicts have to be resolved by the dice; every Trait is rated in a specific number and type of dice; players can narrate whatever they want as part of using their Traits, but cannot narrate the end of the conflict until the dice say it's over.

A character can have whatever Trait the player desires, and the GM never has to worry about what they can do with it: its effectiveness is strictly defined by its dice. 2d6 of Omnipotent is still 2d6; as a player you have the fun of narrating your character doing Omnipotent things, but in mechanical terms it's no more effective than any other 2d6 Trait.

Among the things I like about this is that it allows the Superman-Batman teamup. How do you challenge Superman in a scenario that's fair to Batman? How can Batman contribute (or even survive) in a scenario that's challenging to Superman? By separating the description of abilities from the mechanical rating of Traits*, this scenario becomes possible. With all of Superman's superpowers, his player still can't narrate the resolution of a conflict until the dice allow, and as a character Superman's dice aren't worth any more than Batman's. Playing Superman then becomes a narrative challenge for the player rather than a headache for the GM: it's the player's task to narrate Superthings in a way that's appropriate.

It seems well-suited for settings with lots of weird powers that have no easy real-world explanations**. I particularly like that the GM need assume no responsibility for understanding, explaining, or controlling a character's weird powers. They can let the player describe whatever they want, and just say "Great! Now roll the dice."

I'm interested in people's thoughts.

Is it a faux pas to reply to my own post?

I put my thoughts before the players in the face-to-face group, and received this response from one. I have some ideas how I want to answer, but I'm still mulling...

daftnewt wrote:

Traits in Dogs are different. First, they're conceptually much broader than skills: a Trait represents something definitive about a character, something that makes them iconic within their own story, and that you would include in any description of them. Blondie in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is a wicked gunslinger, and that's definitely a Trait - you wouldn't omit that if you were telling somebody about him. But his steely squinty glare, or the way he smokes his cigarillos, or the fact that ultimately he's the "Good" in the story - those are every bit as important, and they could all be Traits too. Dramatically, they could all be narrated as part of his success in a conflict. When Blondie spits out his cigar and glares at someone, it's a significant act, and in Dogs that kind of thing is mechanically quantifiable.

The other difference is that the die rating of a Trait has nothing to do with the character's level of expertise.

You can decide your character is the fastest gun in the 'Verse: that's a narrative decision; if the group is okay with it, then they are.

If you want your character to be often settling things with their gun, if shooting things is hugely important about this character, then you'd assign more and bigger dice to that Trait.

In both cases, your character would still be the Fastest Gun.

(I'm trying to decide what kind of dice Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven" has in his gunslinging skill. I'm thinking lots of d4's. d4 Traits tend to cause complications for characters - they make Fallout (negative consequences, but also experience) more likely. Lots of d4s seems to fit the Unforgiven character...)

In spite of their being open to a broad range of narrative definitions, I think Traits in Dogs are actually just as "crunchy" as skills in the most relentlessly gamey systems. Everything you do with a Trait is measured through the medium of the dice; there's no handwaving or fudging.

Among the things I like about this is that it allows the Superman-Batman teamup. How do you challenge Superman in a scenario that's fair to Batman?

With all of Superman's superpowers, his player still can't narrate the resolution of a conflict until the dice allow, and as a character Superman's dice aren't worth any more than Batman's. Playing Superman then becomes a narrative challenge for the player rather than a headache for the GM: it's the player's task to narrate Superthings in a way that's appropriate.

So, Newt, you're right and your friend's wrong. But, well, so what?

First of all, if he goes ahead and makes his traits according to his theory about how they work - broad traits are better than narrow, high dice mean more expertise - then he'll make a perfectly functional character he'll enjoy playing. Gradually it'll become evident to him that "jack of all trades" isn't doing what he thought it would, and d4s don't mean you'll lose, and so on.

Meanwhile, he won't believe you, and arguing with him won't help. In fact arguing with him will probably have the exact wrong effect - "this game can't possibly make sense the way Newt describes it. I'll play a demo conflict, sure, but to show him that it doesn't make sense," and then he'll make a character he WON'T enjoy playing.

I recommend that you drop it and, when you get a chance, just play the game.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:

I recommend that you drop it and, when you get a chance, just play the game.

Hi daftnewt, I wanted to just second a lot of what you said in the first post.  I have expressed virtually identical reactions on a few particular points:

"Traits in Dogs are in some ways -more- crunchy, more clearly defined (in rules terms) than skills in other games" - absolutely, for my taste, and to put it slightly differently, I feel the game is more "realistic" and more satisfying from a simulationist standpoint than so-called traditionally simulationist-oriented RPGs.  Now, this is an aesthetic thing and I'm not trying to claim that all simluations should or even can see it the same way. But for me, using Traits as embedded in the Conflict system feels much more like it's happening like it should than a traditional trait-based resolution system with a bunch of skills and/or powers.

"it allows the Superman-Batman teamup" - I like to say Black Canary/Superman, just to draw it even more starkly, but, yeah, exactly.  Superman can do more "stuff," what with flying and being nearly-invulnerable and so on, but his ability to win a Conflict is no better (in general) than Black Canary's.  But we can't sell short the narrative impact of what Superman can do in terms of sweeping environmental changes and so on.  It all works, and works great.  This was a big motivator for a friend and I in adapting Dogs in the Vineyard's rules to a more "traditional" action-adventure genre, especially superheroes (we're running 2 superhero games now, one low-powered, one high-powered, and have been for  a few months now, works great so far, in general, especially in terms of these specifics of "simulation" and balancing vastly different characters.

I also like, as I've said elsewhere, but to add on and echo your enthusiastic waxing, that "talking matters," that conflicts work across social and physical spheres seemlessly.  As we adapted our multi-year superhero game (started in 2000, still going, aside from about an 8 month break) to Dogs, a few stark and very satisfying changes manifested.  The social superhero, the one whose powers are partly charisma coupled with mimicry and who has this ebulliant, friendly personality, started acting that way more in conflicts; this got rid of a dynamic we hardly thought about in the traditional superhero RPG we used, where he would be Mr. Friendly/Social except when battles happened, when he'd become brick-slamming monster.  Now he can still resort to that brutal mode, but he tries hard to make peace with people and this works right into the conflicts, he seems much more consistent now while not sacrificing usefulness (try using Persuasion and those types of role in the middle of a trad. RPG hardcore battle....yes, yes, it can be done, but it's not seemless and creates other issues). 

Another character, the brilliant schemer, can use the mechanics to set up awesome and fun See/Raise rhythms.  My favorite is when a semi-godly opponent (these are very high-powered supers) demanded to speak to the President, so this PC, Laughton, put the president on the phone, and invited the godly being to proceed, opening his PDA/cell phone and calling up the President.  The godly bad guy moves through Laughton's phone, jeopardizing the President or possibly allowing the being to manipulate him.  On the next Raise, though, Laughton uses the PDA to capture the being!  Where the being resides to this day...

Also, Lending a Die makes for really cool teamwork.

So, yeah, I agree.  :)

daftnewt wrote:
but if i was building Clint would i write down "squints a lot, 1d6"? uh-uh -- waste of 'points', if you ask me. better to write down "jack of all trades, 1d6", since i can use that in anything.

Noclue wrote: This is me trying to imagine a conflict where Clint wouldn't be able to roll in his squinting d6.

Darn, I gotta try me some of that 'Calling Bullshit' tactic.

The first game I played one of the Dogs took (roughly, can't remember exactly) Traits like 3d10 'I Am A Dog', 4D8 'Lucky', and 3D6 'Dirty Trick'. He was basically loaded for bear and could bring ALL of those Trait dice to bear in EVERY conflict. The fact that you roll (most) of your dice out in the open mean that from the outset of every conflict I just knew that I was going to lose: upon reflection that's no bad thing, but it was my first game and I had this totally temporal feeling of being gyped.

One of the other players afterwards gave me some advice along the lines of 'you should try to split the Dogs up', which (IMO) is a bit rubbish. I 'may' want to split the Dogs up for a better story or something but I don't want to be almost 'forced' to split them up so that I stand a chance of 'winning' in the mechanical sense conflicts. I think I just played the game wrong though :)

Thanks for the tip: I must remember to 'Call Bullshit' :) (I'm not being sarcastic, that's darned good advice.)

Peturabo wrote: He was basically loaded for bear and could bring ALL of those Trait dice to bear in EVERY conflict.

phargle wrote: ...I've made clear to my players that they should judge for themselves whether someone is making a weak raise.

David wrote:

Noclue wrote: This is me trying to imagine a conflict where Clint wouldn't be able to roll in his squinting d6.

The opposition is too far away to see the difference between "steely-eyed, intimidating squint" and "looking at me."
What's at stake is poorly served by intimidation tactics (ex: seduction or dealing with a superior or calming down someone who's terrified).
The opposition is emotionless or blind.

Took me a minute or two, but those are situations in which I'd call bullshit on invoking "Clint Squint: d6."

Noclue wrote: Well, sometimes clint just squints to bring out his inner Eastwood. Its not always about the effect on the other guy.

Hi!
  I think the point your friend is missing is this:
  The game is about what is on the character sheets. That is absolutely the point of a well-crafted game like this. When the game tells you, make up a trait, assign whatever value to it you think is appropriate and put it on your sheet. That means that the game is about everyone of those traits
  For instance, the GM and the players will be extremely remiss not to include needlepoint in the description of at least one scene per town if one of the players puts needlepoint 2d8 on their character sheet.
  Not only that, but its so easy for a Dog to say, "Well, even in needlepoint, sometimes you have to sever a tangled thread..." and pull out their gun. Or a "Stitch in time saves nine" as a way of convincing townspeople to take the more difficult path, etc...
  But seriously, there is no wrong way to make a character. If he has fun "gaming" the system, let him. What can it hurt?

David wrote:

Noclue wrote: Well, sometimes clint just squints to bring out his inner Eastwood. Its not always about the effect on the other guy.

... *blink* ...

OK, that's ANOTHER example of when I'd call, "Bullshit!" "Inner Eastwood?" Clint would punch someone for saying something like that (well, Chuck Norris would).
;)

Noclue wrote:

daftnewt wrote:
but if i was building Clint would i write down "squints a lot, 1d6"? uh-uh -- waste of 'points', if you ask me. better to write down "jack of all trades, 1d6", since i can use that in anything.

This is me trying to imagine a conflict where Clint wouldn't be able to roll in his squinting d6.

I hear ya on the See-Raise thing. We've recently come to realize that we (or I at least) load WAY too much into Sees. I have decided that this is a good thing (*pats self on back because self is so damned creative and fired up*) but I have to try to save my statements and dole them out slower.

I think this comes about from using dialog a lot to invoke Traits (rather than, say, using visuals or internal monologues or whatever), and so I end up rambling on a bit to grab up dice and roll them... then I realize, "Damn, I don't really have a good Raise now, I shot my wad on the Invokes and See."

So now I'm going to make a point in our next session of going a bit more granular: letting my Invokes generate dice, then pushing forward a See on the weight of the Invokes alone (piggybacking, so to speak) so that I can then make my zigging Raise (which was formerly the trailing end of a ranting See).