Quote from: WarthurI think Dogs would be a lot happier, in many ways, if it didn't have the problem of trying to be an RPG.

I think we're wandering off the reservation here. The whole "trying to be an rpg" discussion is something I try to avoid.

QuoteI 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.

If this is the case one would have a problem with nearly every rpg since all rpgs (esp with regards to settings, make moral statements). I think that some rpgs are more overt in their moral statements than others. I think that for most gamers ignoring them is pretty easy. When it comes to influence - gamers own morality has a greater influence than anything in a game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIf this is the case one would have a problem with nearly every rpg since all rpgs (esp with regards to settings, make moral statements).

Really?

Check out the core rules for Classic Traveller. Or En Garde. Or Maelstrom. Or Cyberpunk. Or FUDGE. Or A|State. Or Donjon. Or True20. Or (IIRC) The Shadow of Yesterday. There's plenty of games out there which make no moral statements at all.

Quote from: WarthurReally?

Check out the core rules for Classic Traveller. Or En Garde. Or Maelstrom. Or Cyberpunk. Or FUDGE. Or A|State. Or Donjon. Or True20. Or (IIRC) The Shadow of Yesterday. There's plenty of games out there which make no moral statements at all.

Which is a moral statement.

-clash

Wrong thread!

Quote from: BalbinusOh, the reason I dislike the game is nothing to do with the moral stuff by the way, I just think it's a hellishly clunky and tedious dice mechanic.

Simple as that really.

In spite of the fact I'm a raving fanboy for the game, I've come to agree with you on this point.

Quote from: BalbinusThe point is getting overemphasised by virtue of being debated if that makes sense, you can after all set the supernatural dial at zero in which case the demon issue goes away.

There is another choice, that is to set the supernatural dial to "ambiguous".  In other words, keep the possession rules as written, from the point of view of the GM, but play down the obvious supernatural effects to the players.

In other words, don't say, "Sister Abigail has red glowing eyes and is chanting in a prehuman language."  Instead, say "You notice all the milk has curdled after Sister Abigail was in the kitchen."

Should Sister Abigail die because milk curdled?

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimShould Sister Abigail die because milk curdled?

 Could they play it for comedy ?

 Kind of a "Frau Blucher" thing from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.
 The milk ALWAYS curdles when Sister Abigail has been in a room. Its just Her.  She's just that homely or unattractive.


- Ed C.

Quote from: WarthurReally?

Check out the core rules for Classic Traveller. Or En Garde. Or Maelstrom. Or Cyberpunk. Or FUDGE. Or A|State. Or Donjon. Or True20. Or (IIRC) The Shadow of Yesterday. There's plenty of games out there which make no moral statements at all.

(Well right thread actually Clash) Which is a moral statement. Looking at some of the games you mentioned, I can't help but note if it was indeed difficult to divorce oneself from it's moral statements, folks would have a hard time playing these games. True20 for instance came about (partly) from the hostile reception to the moral issues that drenched the Blue Rose setting. Cyberpunk's style over substance and juvenile drug cautionary advice has a strong whiff of morality about it....to say nothin' of the genre itself.

It's been years since I read Classic Traveller and FUDGE and I've only had a brief glance at A/State, Donjon and haven't even read Maelstrom...so I would have to read them before I comment on them

But you fail to mention a host of other games...WW, Shadowrun, UA, OtE, Amber, Nobillis, WFRP, CoC, Conspiracy X, Delta Green, ....and of course settings...Midnight, Forgotten Realms, Jorune, Kalamar, Eberron....

Folks play all these games regardless of their moral statements if any, because disregarding said statements is perhaps one of the easiest things to do in rpgs,way more easier than fiddling with the rules.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KoltarCould they play it for comedy ?

 Kind of a "Frau Blucher" thing from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.
 The milk ALWAYS curdles when Sister Abigail has been in a room. Its just Her.  She's just that homely or unattractive.


- Ed C.

I always liked Frau Blucher....

Quote from: BalbinusWhen I played Dogs it wasn't that different either to most other rpgs, except that whenever anything interesting happened we stopped the game to play some dice bidding mini game that took ages and that held no interest for me whatsoever.

Yeah it worked like that the first couple sessions I played of it until we grokked the rules. Then it suddenly became the best RPG evar! Super immersive awesomely fun gaming. Things break down when you have more than four participants in a conflict though.

Fallout finally made XP fun for me. Instead of a skinner-esque video game mechanic, your actions lead to actual character development.

In the course of a few weeks I had more heartfelt, truely moving gaming experiences than I have ever had before or since. And the town creation rules make the game a zero prep equation. If it wasn't for the Mormon hate, I'd be surprised that anyone didn't like this game. Mind you we were playing it troup style so every person had an opportunity to run two sessions, and it worked great in ways no other game has since. And our group is all about troup style gming

As for moral statements, that sword is in the players hands the whole time. The game doesn't make any. Maybe the basic setting assumes some for the King of Life and stuff but the PCs have free rein to interprete everything.

And Redfox, if I ever ran it for you it would so be Jedi in the Vineyard.

Quote from: KoltarCould they play it for comedy ?

 Kind of a "Frau Blucher" thing from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.
 The milk ALWAYS curdles when Sister Abigail has been in a room. Its just Her.  She's just that homely or unattractive.


- Ed C.

DitV is pretty well geared for comedy as it is. When I ran my two session town, I was doing a solid melodrama with several people named Dibble. Derrick Dibble, Donald Dibble, and a crazy hunchback old town elder. I made it a funny western, and it still had loads of character development from the get go.

Quote from: KoltarCould they play it for comedy ?

 Kind of a "Frau Blucher" thing from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.
 The milk ALWAYS curdles when Sister Abigail has been in a room. Its just Her.  She's just that homely or unattractive.

Oh shit!  I forgot about Frau Blucher.  I suppose that would completely undermine the seriousness of the scenario

One more session going down in flames due to Mel Brooks.

Here's the thing, I don't think it is about make big grand moral statements.  Seriously, I think the morality thing in Dogs has been way overblown and needs to be toned down a bit.

The morality is there -- but I think it's there in a lot of games.

Example: I was playing Warhammer 2 w/ a bunch of guys.  This group hadn't heard of the Forge, GNS, or any of that shit, just a normal bunch of dudes playing a game.  We came across a gang of bandits raping a girl in the woods.  They were much tougher than us, that was obvious.  Also, we had no particular sympathy for the girl.  We knew she had stolen from a village and we were seeking to get the money back.

But you know what, we fought the bandits to rescue her -- because there was no way we'd sit by and let a girl be raped.  We won, but paid a heavy price.

It wasn't a grand moral statement, but it was moral.

Mr. Lost,

I've had a similar experience, although I try not to wax so eloquent about it.  Doing so just annoys the Pundit

However, I think there are serious people, with good attitudes, who try Dogs and find the mechanic just breaks their immersion.  I choose to believe they're telling the truth and this is a real problem for them.  Dogs is such a good game otherwise that I wish the mechanic was a bit more traditional so they could play -- and by traditional I mean more at the level of TSOY or HQ

Quote from: Jeffrey StraszheimHere's the thing, I don't think it is about make big grand moral statements.  Seriously, I think the morality thing in Dogs has been way overblown and needs to be toned down a bit.

The morality is there -- but I think it's there in a lot of games.

Example: I was playing Warhammer 2 w/ a bunch of guys.  This group hadn't heard of the Forge, GNS, or any of that shit, just a normal bunch of dudes playing a game.  We came across a gang of bandits raping a girl in the woods.  They were much tougher than us, that was obvious.  Also, we had no particular sympathy for the girl.  We knew she had stolen from a village and we were seeking to get the money back.

But you know what, we fought the bandits to rescue her -- because there was no way we'd sit by and let a girl be raped.  We won, but paid a heavy price.

It wasn't a grand moral statement, but it was moral.

 I think that IS the bigger point. You don't need a game to design morality into its core rules.  With a good group and story that stuff happens naturally.

 I've had similiar moral choices given to my players in both my BANESTORM and TRAVELLER campaigns. It wasn't a "Hey! I'm going to give my players a morality scene!". It was an outgrowh of things that happened in the ongoing story of the campaign.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarI think that IS the bigger point. You don't need a game to design morality into its core rules.  With a good group and story that stuff happens naturally.

Yes!

However, I've tried to do it before and just fucked it up.  Seriously, I've had a lot of shit GM experiences in recent years trying to make stuff like this work.  The genius of Dogs is it shows in such simple, basic steps, how to do it that even a mediocre GM like me is successful.  Really, Dogs changed the way I GM for the better.  I can't imagine running a game now and not, behind the scenes, applying Dogs principles.

This is probably why folks like me responded to Dogs like, "HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS COOL," while others just said, "Yeah, we do that already."