Interview with Vincent and me

[Callan S.]

The dogs in the vineyard thing surprised me, where the GM is supposed to play it as if there was no god in that game world. From actual play accounts, it seems like the dogs call the shots and god is this bit part kinda non important guy that players don't really talk about. But I thought he was just de-emphasised a great deal, not absent. The 'changing faith' bit at the end is interesting, because while the dogs might be made to kneel and repent their actions, if it goes the other way the faith acts as if what the dogs did is how its always been. The faith either resists the change, or acts as if there was no change at all. I think I've gotten the dogs mechanics before, but the interview kinda showed that extra angle.

[Nev the Deranged]

Yeah, that took me off-guard, too; since when Dogs plays in my head, it's got the supernatural dial up a few notches. Who was it who did the badass animation? That was just about perfect for what was in my head. Now, I understand the power of the game with the supernatural dial turned to "off", and I'd be happy to play that way, but how does a GM "pretend God doesn't exist" in a game with the dial at 11, frinstance? Supernatural stuff happens, but God has nothing to do with it? I suppose this can be done- if by "God" you mean "higher morality that casts/implies/can-be-appealed-to-for final judgement of any kind", and I think that's more what Vincent was trying to say. Unless of course, I'm wrong.

D>

[Ron Edwards]

[Nev the Deranged]

Right. Now that I think back on it, I don't think that all the demonic auras and exorcisms and craziness that was in my head ever really had anything to do with "God"... because God (or god) has never really been a part of any of my gaming.

Which does not mean that the Dogs doing such things can't be invoking the King of Life and His Authority and whatever other Capital Letter Stuff you want, but it's the dice that say whether or not that "matters" in the sense of having mechanical impact. Calling on the King's Power is great color- but it doesn't get you dice (unless of course you have "Calling on the King's Power" as a trait).

So, yeah. But hearing Vincent say it out loud was still kind of a shock.

I really want to hear part 2 of this interview... heh.

D.

[Ron Edwards]

Dave,

What questions would you like to see asked in that second interview?

Best, Ron

[Nev the Deranged]

Hm. Well, I'd have to listen to it again with a notepad in front of me to pull out specific questions (I do my webcast listening on the road). But there was a lot of frustratedly inarticulate grunting from Vincent, particularly toward the end. That tells me (and maybe I'm making too much of it) that the answers he was having trouble coming up with would be really goddamn interesting if you guys had the time to hash them out. Now, maybe this is stuff that he's already talked a lot about at Anyway (which I read sporadically), and Knife Fight (which I was only peripherally aware of before this interview), and maybe even here on the Forge; but my forum/blog reading time is limited (I seriously don't know how you guys do it). Frankly, the advent of webcasting has been an immeasurable boon to me for keeping up on things, since I spend most of the day driving around or with my mp3 player in my ear, and far less of it with a book or magazine or computer in front of me.

I did listen to Clyde's first interview with you several times, and I may very well listen to this one a few times as well. If I think of a specific question the next time through, I will jot it down (I always carry a small notebook with me for just such purpose).

Thanks!

D.

[lumpley]

That's about as close as I've come to successfully talking about it. I haven't written about it anywhere, just occasionally expressed my bafflement down in the lumpley games forum here.

-Vincent

[Callan S.]

I was also listening at the end and thinking "Wait, the progress bar is nearly at the end - they aren't gunna cover this in time! Aww!"

If you can't describe it, perhaps a recording of a dogs actual play, or snippets of actual play? There's probably some practicality that gets in the way of that, but while writing this it sounds good

[Noclue]

Dog: "I call upon the King of Life! 2d8!"
GM: "Fine, he comes! 10d10!"

I'd like to hear more discussion about right and wrong, and why players seem to get so hung up about whether or not their characters are right.

[Christoph Boeckle]

If I may: I would love to know what G, N and S does inside both of your heads. What it feels like, if you know what I mean. Or is that only when we drink tequila?

[lumpley]

Was it walking back from, or to, that interview, Ron, that you told me that thing about you playing gamist?

When I play gamist, which I have only a couple of times, it gives me the same "hey! so THAT's how these rules work! Fun!" that games usually do. It doesn't bring out the competitor in me (the internet does THAT). It makes me happy.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoph,

I'm not really sure how to answer. The vast majority of my reviews and actual play accounts are dedicated to doing just that.

Gamism: Beast Hunters, The Great Ork Gods, Tunnels & Trolls, Drowning & Falling
Simulationism: Fvlminata, Dread (first version), Godlike, Dead of Night
Narrativism: D&D 3.0/3.5 (our drifted version), The Pool (see the Dragons & Jasmine account), Hero Wars, Sorcerer, Trollbabe ... geez, I dunno, lots of them.

I'll try to address your question in terms of what I like.

When I play Gamist, I love winning and at the very least, trying to win. Depending on the game, this can involve teamwork and sometimes sacrifice for another, or it can involve brutal competition up to and including interfering trash-talk. I really like those times when no one can lock down the results of a given exchange of game actions, and risk plays as big a role as preparation and commitment. I also think that the loss-moments are crucial; we have to know, after all, that winning means you really won, and even in games in which winning isn't well-defined, loss always is, whether small and in-the-moment, or overall. So Gamist play is especially sweet when that brutal reality is made manifest, even if it's me who (curses! fuck! piss!) loses at that time.

When I play Simulationist, I love the moments when we suddenly notice that "we did it right" without trying, because the rules and our shared understanding of the content all worked together, as well as the moments when the sensations of the characters are felt keenly. Not necessarily that I feel those sensations myself, but I feel that they feel them. I'm never actually scared while playing Dead of Night, but I feel much as if I were, as with seeing a really fucking scary/fun movie or reading that kind of book. It's like the very best of fan-gathering moments, as at a convention when a beloved creator or star really connects with the audience at a talk and vice versa.

When I play Narrativist, I love the way that a story, or conflict within it, punches home in unexpected ways, without anyone pre-meditating or analyzing. The best is often tagged later, when someone says "I never planned that [my character] would ever do such a thing, but I had to." There's also kind of a group shudder that borders on the musical or the sexual, when such moments are building during play. That can include fear, love, loyalty, disgust, glee, or rage ... and it's often quite genuine. It's not like seeing a movie or reading a book at all; it's like (or is) creating them - the passion of the driven author + the invoked passion of the audience who will leave the theater or put down the book and go do something.

Looking over those paragraphs, I am reminded that I dedicated a small amount in each agenda-specific essay to these same things.

Best, Ron

[Christoph Boeckle]

I was extremely unclear, I had in mind you were collecting possible questions for a possible future interview and thought this could make a good conversation, but this was addressed to Dave.
Thanks for these clear restatements anyway. Now that you say it, of course you've both already written about the topic, for some reason it was just not on my conscious radar. Now the pieces start falling together.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoph,

What was addressed to Dave? I don't quite follow you.

Best, Ron

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Ron,

What was addressed to Dave were "what questions [he] would like to see asked in that second interview." I followed that without specifying that I was doing so, hence what I perceive as a lack of clarity on my part.