*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 28, 2022, 08:45:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 74 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Thanks for a great game.  (Read 2946 times)
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« on: January 29, 2006, 12:05:59 AM »

Hi Vincent,

Just read DitV tonight. (I'll be playing it for the first time tomorrow.)

I was startled and inspired by this passage in particular:

"ó As GM, you should always follow your groupís  lead. A big part of your job in the first couple of sessions  is to figure out, mostly by observation, your groupís  standards for legit Raises and Sees, invoking traits, valid  stakes, using ceremony, the supernatural, and so on. However, the thing to observe in play isnít what the  groupís doing, but instead whoís dissatisfied with what the groupís doing. The player who frowns and uses  withdrawing body language in response to someone  elseís Raise, or whoís like ďthatís weakĒ when someone  reaches for dice ó thatís the player whose lead to follow.  Everyoneís Raises etc. should come to meet the most  critical playerís standards. As GM, itís your special  responsibility to pay attention, figure out what those  standards are, and to press the group to live up to them."

Well, that's fucking ballsy in the context of this hobby's culture.

But that's the point of where we're all going with this stuff, isn't it? You've helped map a road to a different culture. (Along with so many others, of course.)

This is why you've had to lay down the clean and bold ground rules for your blog that are so contrary to the we-all-need-to-get-along-no-complaining-expect-as-little-as-possible-to-not-rock-the-boat attitude that is part of so much of the hobby. You're working in a whole new context not just of mechanics or what not -- but expectations of play, experience and presence of the players at the table.

Kudos, dude.

Also: Love the style of the writing. Clean, and always clear in instruction and inent. ("In every town the characters visit, thereís something  wrong, and their job is to figure out what it is and put it  right. Sometimes whatís wrong is just a minor thing with  the potential to become much, much worse; sometimes itís  worse already.") You're always leading the players and GM to the purpose of the game, which is to lead to those conflicts. Great stuff.

And the choice of fonts and the layout. All of it, sweet.

Congratulations.

Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2006, 07:21:15 AM »

I know there's a strong rule at the Forge about "me too" posts but I'm going to risk Ron's wrath and second this motion.

I'd like to add to your observations that Dogs is also an incredibly adaptable game, as we have seen, a game that can be drifted to cover any number of interesting and powerful situations.  He gives us some suggestions at the end of the book, but that's really only the beginning.

I'm hoping that our Dogs group, after finishing the first round of five or six Towns, can go on to do more, in other cultures.  I have several really big Firefly fans in the group, and several more who are rapidly becoming fans.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2006, 08:52:32 AM »

Well, this in Vincent's Forum. I'm sure it's Vincent's call whether or not we can keep stroking his cock.

But I want to really emphasis how radical that quote from my first post was. Yes, yes, Dogs is a great game with lots of possibilities....

But Vincent said that the most dissatisfied person at the table should set the agenda for the GM.

I mean, that's crazy. That's a) admitting that someone might be dissatisfied and not be a problem for it; and b) that the standard to play by is not some marshmellowy as-long-as-we-don't-expect-too-much all will be fine attitude, but expecting MORE from the game.

By using the least satisfied player at the table as a measure, you're basically asking the GM to use an indivual's expectation of something more from the game to raise the standard of the game for everyone.

Compare this to the standard assumptions of the gaming culture: we all have our place at the table, and as long as we all do our small job and dont' step on each other's toes, all is well.

Vincent says, when someone says, "that's weak," in regard to someone's playing, that's a good thing! That statement becomes a judgement worth listening too, not something that needs to be "Shhhhed" down for fear of causing someone to fear the club of BadWrongFun.

And it's in the text. It's in the rules. It is a rule. The GM is to run the game according to this standard. That's new. Not that many people around here aren't already playing that way. But leaving aside cool mechanics that encourage high-thematic stakes play and such, THAT statement is really the innovation in the game.

I know, I know, this attitude is exploding all over the blogs right now. But damn -- right there as a rule. That's cool.

Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2006, 11:14:00 AM »

How about when someone says, "That's going too far."

"I'm scared."

"That's gross."

"What a freak."

People don't disengage just because they expect MORE.  People also disengage/act up/whatever because they expect LESS, because they're uncomfortable, because they're scared or even (gasp) challenged.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2006, 11:49:51 AM »

Hmmmm...

I get there feeling there's something going on here that I don't know about.

But I'll only say that in the passage from the rules I'm quoting are these words:

"Everyoneís Raises etc. should come to meet the most  critical playerís standards. As GM, itís your special  responsibility to pay attention, figure out what those  standards are, and to press the group to live up to them."

So, while you have a valid point, it's not the point I'm talking about. Nor, clearly, the point Vincent was talking about.

Is there something going on here I don't know about?

Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2006, 08:21:02 AM »

Thanks, Christopher!

That particular passage is new to the illo'ed ed, as it happens. In the original text I say "follow the group's lead to establish standards" but I realized in discussions here that people were reading that to mean that they should go along with whoever's talking, not that they should, y'know, establish standards. In fact I think I lifted that passage directly from a post here ... yep, here's the thread: [DitV] King's Perch.

Anyway, thanks.

Wish I could leave it at that, but yes, there's something else going on here too between me and Fred.

Fred, you're off-topic, and you're axe-grinding. Stop it.

-Vincent
Logged
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2006, 02:40:05 PM »

Okey-Dokey. Thanks!
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!