People are often accused of passing judgment on games without having actually read or played them. So I'm giving people a chance to record their current status in that regard.

I also suspect that some people form opinions of games based on playing them without having actually read them. In other words their opinion could well be a product of a particular interpretation transmitted when the game was taught to them verbally.

I'm posting this thread in the main RPG forum for maximum visibility but I don't object to it being moved.

I've set the answers to the poll as public. Don't vote if you don't want people to know what you've been doing. But I think it's reasonable to expect that non-voters will be assumed not to have any experience with the game.

EDIT: Ah, fuck. I thought I set the poll to public but it's not showing that way. I would still encourage people to assume it'll be public, and I hereby request that the admins set it that way if it isn't already.

I have read and played the game and I enjoyed it.

I've read the game thoroughly and played it. (I thought it was okay at first, then pretty much hated it.)

Havent read or played the game but more down to an inability to find a copy than any other reason.

I have not read or played DitV.

I have read DitV, but not played the game personally. I have also read a number of play reports, articles by the author regarding the game, etc.

I have read, played and enjoy ditv.

It plays best if you run it like the A-Team if every member was a D&D-style Palladin.

Not read or played it. Then again, i've never passed judgement on it either.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424972(I thought it was okay at first, then pretty much hated it.)

What led to the transition?

I've read the rules but have never played it.

I've played it a ton and still really like it.

Hopefully someone will come along and move this thread to where it belongs. Putting it in the RPG category just to gain eyeballs isn't very cricket, since Dogs in the Vineyard clearly isn't a roleplaying game.

I have not read or played the game, because I don't care for the genre.

Read and played it. Fundamentally a depressing worldview, like most Forger games.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424970People are often accused of passing judgment on games without having actually read or played them. So I'm giving people a chance to record their current status in that regard.

I own and have read Dogs in the Vineyard.  I considered giving it's cover honorable mention on the covers done right/wrong thread as an indie cover done right, in my opinion.  I thought it was well written and the advice about towns and the idea of creating enforcers enabled to solve problems as they see fit is something that could be applicable to other games.  What I don't have much use for are mechanics trying to get me to create intense interpersonal interaction between PCs and NPC and each other through a metagamy die-roll mechanic when I do that just fine without the mechanics, thanks.  I still can't really viscerally understand why people need to roll and play with dice to play through the scenarios that game sets up when they could just, well, role-play through it in character.  In short, I think it does some things very well but the dice mechanics interfere with the whole reason I play.  It's like those Pop-Up Videos where I just wish the pop-ups would stop popping up so I could watch the video and listen to it without the obnoxious plopping sound.

ADDED: I suppose I should add that I'd be willing to try a game if I had the opportunity at a convention or if someone I know were to volunteer to run it.

Quote from: Cole;424987What led to the transition?

Well, in-depth analysis isn't really the point of this thread. Basically it was partly a response to the subject matter, partly to unrealized promises from the hype. I found the mechanics to be pretty much non-functional, in that they required/invited continual negotiation and checking-in. ("Is it okay if I use these stakes? Is this raise okay with everybody?") And in a game that supposedly emphasizes social conflict and the possibility of non-violent approaches, the dice didn't really interact with the social--you could make a persuasive case and still be stonewalled by a GM whose dice were better, and you could have great dice but be unable to press an advantage without, basically, repeating yourself and going through the motions.

The argument goes that the dice "shape" the roleplaying but as such I found the mechanics pretty incompatible with an in-character point-of-view. There are other "story" games which I think are more straightforward about their paradigm, such as Polaris or My Life with Master, and I think they're more to my taste.