Quote from: droogEven if she's possessed, she might still be right.

In theory sure, but I think most religious characters will struggle to take that view once they discover the possession.

I mean, making your mind up is cool and permitted, but it does look a bit stretched if you end up arguing the malefic embodiment of evil kind of has a point.

If I were to play it again, I'd want the supernatural dial set firmly to zero as I think anything else works against the player empowerment that the game is about.

Quote from: BalbinusIf I were to play it again, I'd want the supernatural dial set firmly to zero as I think anything else works against the player empowerment that the game is about.

Only if you let it. That said, I like a low-supernatural setting myself; just not for that reason.

Quote from: droogOnly if you let it. That said, I like a low-supernatural setting myself; just not for that reason.

A demon used supernatural strength to pick up and throttle a PC, seriously, how does that not imply a degree of moral judgement within the game?  It was like the Exorcist, it is really hard to then say that the person is right anyway when it is revealed in game that they are acting as they are because a demon is making them do it.

I appreciate you want to defend the game and all, but seriously, when the party discover that someone is doing what they are because they are possessed by a malefic demon is it really credible that they won't be rather heavily influenced by that?

Quote from: BalbinusA demon used supernatural strength to pick up and throttle a PC, seriously, how does that not imply a degree of moral judgement within the game?  It was like the Exorcist, it is really hard to then say that the person is right anyway when it is revealed in game that they are acting as they are because a demon is making them do it.

I appreciate you want to defend the game and all, but seriously, when the party discover that someone is doing what they are because they are possessed by a malefic demon is it really credible that they won't be rather heavily influenced by that?

I don't see it as 'defending'. I just like to get things straight.

I can't answer your question. It would involve delving into your game and finding out exactly what was going on.

Quote from: droogI don't see it as 'defending'. I just like to get things straight.

I can't answer your question. It would involve delving into your game and finding out exactly what was going on.

Fair enough, besides I feel I've done enough whipping of a game I don't particularly dislike for one thread.

Quote from: BalbinusA demon used supernatural strength to pick up and throttle a PC, seriously, how does that not imply a degree of moral judgement within the game? It was like the Exorcist, it is really hard to then say that the person is right anyway when it is revealed in game that they are acting as they are because a demon is making them do it.

As shown in the end of the movie, even good people can be possessed. So run with that. Demons are evidence of evil, not evidence that so-and-so is a sinnner.

So for example, after exorcising the lesbians, you declare:

"The King of Life has a new proclamation: lesbian marriage is a-ok! For far too long, demons have prayed upon lesbian couples, causing them to grow horns, spit brimstone and shoot burning hot lazer beams at the King of Life's children -- not because lesbians are evil but because we withheld our marriage blessings from them and thereby exposed them to the predation of the evil one against which there is no hope, no rescue and no salvation save the sweet-sweet blessings of the King of Life. Henceforth all lesbian couples shall be accorded every blessing, every right, and every honor, so say we Dogs, so says the King of Life!!"

(See the double exclamation points? One of em's cause you're a Dog. One of em's cause you fought a demon. Relax, you earned them!)

In the next exciting adventure, many elders reveal that they secretly suspected the same thing all along but a few resist your new revelation. (Obviously, you escalate 'till those ones return to the true path or are killed by a storm of hot lead.)

Quote from: malleus arianorumAs shown in the end of the movie, even good people can be possessed. So run with that. Demons are evidence of evil, not evidence that so-and-so is a sinnner.

Had I thought of that, which I didn't, I would of course have had to persuade the other PCs of it.

That would be a conflict, and as there were more of them I'd have lost, which would have meant my PC being persuaded that they were in fact evil.

Something like that happened, one PC tried to persuade another as to a particular solution, they lost and so it was ruled that they were persuaded that the other PC was correct.  They actually had a backup compromise suggestion, but as the conflict was resolved couldn't use it as their PC was now convinced by the other's argument.

Another bit that didn't work actually was stakes setting.  I remember once conflict was convincing someone to apologise to her husband, mid conflict the NPC escalates and uses demonic strength to throttle the PC.  Ostensibly the stakes were still persuading her to apologise, which felt a bit ludicrous while she demonically throttled someone and we all reached for our guns.

There were several things in the game that just plain didn't work for me or for some others in the group, the demons is just the one that came up in this thread.

But no game is for everyone, do we really need to continue this until those of us who don't like it admit we are in fact incorrect and really it is a great game after all?  If it works for you, that's great, lots of people love Rifts and the fact I am not among them in no way detracts from their fun.

Quote from: BalbinusFair enough, besides I feel I've done enough whipping of a game I don't particularly dislike for one thread.

One of the things that irks me about DitV - it seems like any criticism of it at all always gets turned into "your group didn't play it right" by its supporters.  As if the game was infallible or something.

Of course, my thought on that is that if the game is so hard to play the "right" way, then it's just as much of an "incoherent" mess as the traditional games it is supposedly better than.

Quote from: jgantsOne of the things that irks me about DitV - it seems like any criticism of it at all always gets turned into "your group didn't play it right" by its supporters.  As if the game was infallible or something.

Of course, my thought on that is that if the game is so hard to play the "right" way, then it's just as much of an "incoherent" mess as the traditional games it is supposedly better than.

I think incoherent does not mean what you think it does, which is a basic problem.

-clash

No, I think jgants is on the money. If you read properly between the lines and make the right interpolations, DitV and Sorcerer (etc.) are coherent fun. If you do the same with many a "mainstream" game, you're "not really playing the same game anymore", but a "drifted version".

Quote from: WarthurI have several problems, but the one we're addressing right now is that the game a) denies the GM the right to make a moral call on the players' actions, and requires the GM to let the players make their own decisions, and b) gives the GM absolute freedom to present the problem facing the Dogs to the players in any way he likes, so if you really want to you can "frame the question" such that a particular outcome is nigh-inevitable. These are contradictory.

(Bolding mine) Sure there is always the possibility of the GM framing the question so that a particular outcome is inevitable but there is also the possibility that the GM frames the question (as is my experience) in such a way that the players remain the sole arbiters of morality in the game. So the contradiction is debatable in so far as actual game play is concerned.

QuoteI think it is extraordinarily difficult to absolutely exclude the influence of the moral statements in the rulebook in play, simply because everyone is aware of them at some level. It would be like trying to play a sanitised version of FATAL: sure, the buttfucking ogres have been removed, but everyone knows that they used to be there.

I think it's extremely easy to exclude the influence of the moral statements in books. I'm sure gamers do it all the time. The one thing most folks are comfortable doing is throwing stuff out of games they disagree with. FATAL is of course an extreme example, the middle ground affords a much more realistic perspective.

Reading through jgant's post it does seem as though I'm in the "your group isn't playin' it right camp" which is not my intention, I guess I should quit now. I've already posted more about this game than Jorune and this troubles me.

Regards,
David R

Actually, I meant it as something of a pun.

I was calling DitV incoherent in the general dictionary meaning of the word, while comparing it to the more specific "incoherence" definition used by the Forge.

At the same time, I am serious that I question the solidity of a game design that requires you not only read/follow the book 100%, but also pretty much have to read all kinds of Internet forum posts from the author and others, in order for the game to really "work".

QuoteAt the same time, I am serious that I question the solidity of a game design that requires you not only read/follow the book 100%, but also pretty much have to read all kinds of Internet forum posts from the author and others, in order for the game to really "work".

That´s not really an issue, cause it´s a conspicious consumer´s product. Nobody "stumbles" over it.
It´s an informed decision to go and play DitV.

It´s a bit like head music, without the surrounding discussions, it´s just some girlie men with a soft voice and unimaginative guitar play.

Quote from: jgantsActually, I meant it as something of a pun.

I was calling DitV incoherent in the general dictionary meaning of the word, while comparing it to the more specific "incoherence" definition used by the Forge.

At the same time, I am serious that I question the solidity of a game design that requires you not only read/follow the book 100%, but also pretty much have to read all kinds of Internet forum posts from the author and others, in order for the game to really "work".

I was just reversing the process...

Quote from: David R(Bolding mine) Sure there is always the possibility of the GM framing the question so that a particular outcome is inevitable but there is also the possibility that the GM frames the question (as is my experience) in such a way that the players remain the sole arbiters of morality in the game. So the contradiction is debatable in so far as actual game play is concerned.

Yes, but Dogs makes such a big deal of the GM not having a particular solution in mind when he's designing the scenario that it really should attempt to limit his powers in that regard. That it doesn't even try to is telling.

I think Dogs would be a lot happier, in many ways, if it didn't have the problem of trying to be an RPG. It wants to limit the power of the GM, but can't without crippling the RPG elements. Abandon the idea that each person is controlling their own character, divvy up the GM's roles equally to all the players, and keep the dice mechanic, and you have... something which no longer even slightly resembles an RPG, but which I suspect meets the stated goals of the game much more closely.

QuoteI think it's extremely easy to exclude the influence of the moral statements in books. I'm sure gamers do it all the time. The one thing most folks are comfortable doing is throwing stuff out of games they disagree with. FATAL is of course an extreme example, the middle ground affords a much more realistic perspective.

I disagree, I think it's really difficult because you never know how you would have behaved if you were never aware that the book made those moral statements. You end up either going further than you otherwise would have and make a big deal out of contradicting the book - in which case it is still having an influence on your behaviour - or you let it influence you and go along with it.