Maw: Be careful there, some folks don't consider the Mormons christian exactly.  You could even argue that its not unlike calling Christian Jewish, after all they worship the same God and believe in the same prophets... it's just that the Christians have this one extra book....

So too the Mormons...


Of course, now every Mormon in the region is going to be beating on my door offering to correct my 'mistaken beliefs'...:what:

Quote from: SpikeMaw: Be careful there, some folks don't consider the Mormons christian exactly.  You could even argue that its not unlike calling Christian Jewish, after all they worship the same God and believe in the same prophets... it's just that the Christians have this one extra book....

So too the Mormons...

Well, having missed out on all of that stuff, I lack certain perspectives (but gain others!)

I love Penn Jillette to death, but I have the same feeling about him. He's all like "I don't beleive in god, I beleive in SCIENCE!"

And I don't understand why you can't have both.

This is me, still not being a Christian, too.

My favorite Christian theologist I guess is this guy I met on Livejournal, Seraphim Sigrist. He's an actual Eastern orthodox Bishop. He's interesting as hell*, totally not a cynic or full of himself, and seems to mostly talk about stuff like Arthurian legends, adventure novels and cartoons.


* did I just say that?

Quote from: John MorrowExactly my reaction from reading actual play threads.  And it leads me to wonder exactly what sort of games people were playing before DitV.  Perhaps they really were only having 20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours?  In fact, if anything, the examples I've read are less gripping, passionate, and intense than what I've seen in some of the games I've played in and run.

I find that a great deal of indie RPG ad copy is like that -- very passionate, but ultimately very self-indulgent. I just don't see the "Never Been Done, Better Than All Others, Super Fantastic!" that many indie games pride themsevles on (there are exceptions, mind you, but such games are just that -- exceptions, not the rule).

I don't know, there's plenty of Christians I don't mind being lumped in with.  It's a word, it means whatever you want it to today.

Quote from: SpikeMaw: Be careful there, some folks don't consider the Mormons christian exactly.  You could even argue that its not unlike calling Christian Jewish, after all they worship the same God and believe in the same prophets... it's just that the Christians have this one extra book....

So too the Mormons...


Of course, now every Mormon in the region is going to be beating on my door offering to correct my 'mistaken beliefs'...:what:

Many Mormons are very fond of calling themselves Christians when proseltizing.  It makes for a more familiar package when it comes to the sales pitch when you silently ignore, or at least softball the wierder aspects that distance it quite a bit from anything most people would recognize as Christianity.

Many Christians are not very fond of Mormons calling themselves Christians as a result of this.

I'm inclined to be one of them.  They aren't the same thing.

I'm not offended by it, any more than I'd be offended by any other piece of innacurate piece of information.  Perhaps angered by it if it's being used in the fashion mentioned in the first paragraph.

Interesting review.  I agree that DitV is not the revolutionary ultimate game some people make it out to be.  That said, I think the mechanics are noticeably different from the average RPG, and do make you think about strategy a bit.  Whether that's a good thing is a matter of taste, of how much you like to pay attention to game mechanics.

I have zero interest in the setting, but a couple of years ago, a friend of mine used the DitV system to run a short noir campaign where we investigated the murder of the Black Dahlia.  We had a very good time -- primarily because the GM did a great job, but the system was interesting.  What I did like was that we barely rolled at all, saving dice mechanics for the important conflicts (in the traditional sense of the word), and that it was a light little system that was easy to learn and stayed tucked out of the way when role-playing and player interactions were more important.

I'd use it again, just like I'd used the equally overhyped but still useful Wushu, for club games and convention games where you don't want to spend three hours making characters and explaining the system.

The review is ok but misses the point a few times.

The reasons DitV sucks ass are better explained by jgants, in the second post of this very thread.

I was first exposed to Vincent Baker by reading Otherkind a few years ago. At first I was rather impressed and optimistic as far as the game mechanic was concerned but in play, the thing crumbled rather quickly. DitV is much the same.

I think the guy is on to something with interesting and promising concepts but he'll have to work on some things to get it right. The mechanics are way too intrusive and the handling time is overkill.

I think the idea of what is DitV is what gets it a lot of praise.

I spent several sessions playing DiTV and have since bought a copy of the game.

I think the setting is great and spent a bit of time looking up historical expansions for the GM and players.

I think having a conflict resolution method rather than a task resolution method was excellent, even if it took a pretty dramatic change of perspective.

I didn't like the mechanics however.

Still, two out of three ain't bad.

Consonant Dude, do you recall precisely how Otherkind sucked for you?

I've yet to play or read DitV, but Otherkind appeals a lot to me simply because of its theme. I realize that if one wants to play it as more than just a one-shot, which I'd find a waste, one needs to put some work into the setting. But you seem to mean the actual gameplay?

So, I read the review.  

I'm a great big fan of Dogs in the Vineyard. I've had some great experiences with it and would gladly run it over and over again.  Granted, I wouldn't run a long campaign (more than 4 sessions) of it, since its repetitiveness would get really boring.  I'll play it again (hopefully this weekend) with people I know, trust, and are all on board with the premise.

However, my liking of the game I think, gets summed up nicely by Mr. Hemmens:

QuoteYou still have to worry about getting killed if somebody fires a gun at you, and judging by the actual play, you still basically run around investigating stuff and trying to work out how to solve arbitrary problems.

DitV is very much like a normal RPG.  That's why I like it, though.  

Quote from: Pierce InverarityConsonant Dude, do you recall precisely how Otherkind sucked for you?

I've yet to play or read DitV, but Otherkind appeals a lot to me simply because of its theme. I realize that if one wants to play it as more than just a one-shot, which I'd find a waste, one needs to put some work into the setting. But you seem to mean the actual gameplay?

It's been a long, long time. I have to apologize in advance for the lack of details. I've played so many games since then. Two things that stand out:

1-Those dice... they just killed the fun. There were four or five different die types. You intially have to remember what you can do with them. That's actually the easiest part. The hard part is during game play, when you start assigning all that shit. It's clunky, it's slow. Like DitV, it also ruins the enjoyment of players, as it really gets them out of character and focusing on metagaming gimmicks.

2-Payoff for the clunkiness: after three separate sessions, we really came to the conclusion that while the goal of that core mechanic was laudable (I think it's supposed to fuel the imagination and favor interesting results that drive the story forward in unexpected ways) you kind of realize that just about every fucking system does it. Just more discretely. Nobody needs so many fucking dice to tell them all that shit. All the chips fall into place with standard task rolls and you'll know anyway if you are "near your goal" or not.

It's really ambitious. And I think I even have it printed somewhere. It's a creative use of die (well, at least it was back when it was originally released). It made me think a lot about what you can do with dice. But in the end, it just didn't work.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI've yet to play or read DitV, but Otherkind appeals a lot to me simply because of its theme.

Forgot to add: if you enjoyed playing Otherkind, chances are you will really like DitV. I recommend it in that case, even though I think it's a crappy design myself.

Quote from: J ArcaneMany Mormons are very fond of calling themselves Christians when proseltizing.  It makes for a more familiar package when it comes to the sales pitch when you silently ignore, or at least softball the wierder aspects that distance it quite a bit from anything most people would recognize as Christianity.

You really have to define weird when discussing various religions. I mean if you literally believe Jesus raised men from the dead, and later came back to life after dying to save us from our own sins. At what point do you say something is too much of a strech?

And all this out of a book of which no origional manuscripts exist in the various authors own hands, and has been translated and compiled six ways from sunday...

Quote from: J ArcaneMany Christians are not very fond of Mormons calling themselves Christians as a result of this..

 Believe it or not I have met many so-called "christians" who refuse to call members of the Catholic church christians. They refuse to call them anything but "Catholics". It boggles the mind.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm inclined to be one of them. They aren't the same thing.

Maybe not the same as your offshoot of the Catholic church of choice.

 I find Pentacostals rather "wierd" but I would never be so arrogant to say they aren't christian. Jehovah's witnesses, and Seventh day adventists have beliefs that differ from the core Catholic theology, but they have every right to call themselves christian - after all, they do believe Christ died for our sins.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm not offended by it, any more than I'd be offended by any other piece of innacurate piece of information.  Perhaps angered by it if it's being used in the fashion mentioned in the first paragraph.

Inaccurate by who's definition? So if you believe that Christ is the son of God and died for your sins - what else are you supposed to call yourself?

Surely you wouldn't tell the Jehovah's witnesses or Seventh Day adventists they aren't christian?

So as not to derail things on the thread feel free to PM me.

.

Look, there's far more common thread between the various demoninations of Christianity, than there is between those denominations and Mormonism.

They're as seperate a body as Christianity and Islam are, or Judaism and Christianity, despite having some common origins, they seperated by right of new additions to the exist canon, new personalities and leadership, and are, by rights, their own thing.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain silly, and borders on disingenous (or in some cases just plain is, like the LDS's marketing campaigns).  

If you find this to be some grandly controversial statement then really, there's no point in arguing with you, but I am going to think you silly by proxy.  

So tough cookies if you don't like it, it's the way it is.

It's far too late to mention that the Dogs aren't even Mormon, isn't it?