TheRPGSite

Since there's a fair argument going on about Dogs at the moment, I wonder if people can help me with this paradox:

1: The GM in Dogs In the Vineyard is not allowed to make a moral call on the player character's actions. Only the players can make that call.

2: The GM in Dogs In the Vineyard has to come up with some kind of problem which is causing trouble in a town. This problem stems from pride, which leads to injustice, which leads to a multitude of other sins. By defining the problem in this way, the GM is saying to themselves "What that person did is prideful; what this other person did was unjust." In other words, he's making a moral judgement on these people. What they are doing is opening up the community to demonic attack, false worship, and - in the end - hate and murder, and if they are permitted to continue what they are doing the community will be destroyed.

3: Point 1 means that the GM cannot say that the PCs were "wrong" to ignore or condone the behaviour of the people the GM identifies as damaging the community in point 2. I would strongly argue that saying "Okay, you move on and the community falls into rack and ruin because of the actions of these guys who you decided weren't worth the trouble of messing with" is a means of indirectly expressing moral disapproval of the PCs' actions: having a community of the faithful be effectively destroyed or corrupted entirely is a bad thing. (Heck, in town planning the GM has to specifically decide what would happen to the town if the Dogs never arrived to sort out the problem.)

4: Points 1 and 3 imply that if the PCs ignore a problem in a town, it goes away - the very fact that the Dogs were present means that whatever happens afterwards is according to God's will and therefore moral. Point 2 implies that if the PCs ignore a problem in a town then the town's situation gets objectively morally worse. Causing that to happen through inaction - or through your own actions - means that you bear responsibility for the moral situation of of the town getting worse, and responsibility entails moral culpability.

5: Point 4 is a paradox. Either Dogs must address the problem the GM poses - in which case point 1 is bunk - or the GM cannot present to the players the terrible consequences to a town if they fail to solve the problem, because by presenting them with that horrible situation he is effectively saying "Hey, look, this is your fault guys."

EDIT TO ADD: To make it clearer, here is the Dogs paradox in a short version:

"Presenting players with negative consequences arising from their characters' actions can be a challenge to the morality of said actions if the players choose to take it as such, regardless of whether that's the way it was intended: you as the GM are presenting them with a situation which is likely to give them second thoughts as to whether they did the right thing. Dogs In the Vineyard prohibits the GM from making a moral judgement on the player characters' actions, explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, Dogs In the Vineyard does not allow GMs to present negative consequences arising from the PCs' actions: the PCs literally cannot do wrong."

At some point, you have to just say "DitV doesn't look like the game for you."

But this is what VB says on the matter:

QuoteYou play a town. As GM, you do your job: you have your NPCs a) spill their guts and b) pursue their interests. Your players do their jobs: they have their Dogs judge and kick ass. Eventually they have their Dogs dust their hands and ride away.

Great! Done. Whatever the outcome was, in terms of who shot who and who punished whom and who was raised up and who was cast down, that's the outcome, you've done your job and they've done theirs, and now you move on to the next town.

But then here's what will happen, one of these two things.

1) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "y'know, if I make these demons still be there, the players will feel like I've sucker-punched them."

2) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "oh MAN, if I make these demons still be there, the Dogs will feel like the world has sucker-punched them, but the players will feel like AWESOME."

If the former happens, the demons are gone; the Dogs dealt with them. If the latter happens, the demons are still there; the Dogs left them undealt-with.

Dogs is not about problem solving.
It´s a mirror-tool, a self-exploration tool.
It performs well in this regard.
Not everybody cares for that.
Those who do, should play it.
Others should give it a try.

Conundrum solved.

It's definitely not about problem solving, the PCs should discover what is happening right up front, the core of the game is the PCs deciding what to do about it.

As true insight has been gained, let us etch it in stone and deliberately stop any posting, to conserve this moment of progress of human knowledge.

Quote from: droogAt some point, you have to just say "DitV doesn't look like the game for you."

But this is what VB says on the matter:

Baker's quote assumes that, as a GM, you will always be able to predict how the players will take the situation you put in front of them.

At which I laugh, loudly and long.

EDIT TO ADD: Actually, I really enjoy DitV, so long as I excise all the wibble about morality from the rulebook and ignore Vincent Baker's massively irritating prose style. Shooting people for God is pretty awesome so long as you don't think about it too much, and unfortunately - like many Forge games - Dogs strongly encourages you to think about it.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's definitely not about problem solving, the PCs should discover what is happening right up front, the core of the game is the PCs deciding what to do about it.

Really? The best Dogs game I ever played in required a fair bit of detective work before we got to the root of what was happening. And the town creation system seems to back me up on this: sure, it's obvious that hate and murder is happening, but is it really that easy to see where the black root of pride that caused all this has sprung from?

Quote from: WarthurReally? The best Dogs game I ever played in required a fair bit of detective work before we got to the root of what was happening. And the town creation system seems to back me up on this: sure, it's obvious that hate and murder is happening, but is it really that easy to see where the black root of pride that caused all this has sprung from?

The book has explicit advice saying you should lay the conflict out quickly and should not make the players work to find out what's going on, he then talks about how this is counterintuitive to how games are normally run but talks about why it's important in Dogs to do it this way.

So I'm not saying you were playing it wrong, wait, actually I am saying you were playing it wrong :D .  The Dogs are supposed to be basically handed what is going on on a plate, the game is in deciding what to do about it, the book is very explicit on this.

Quote from: BalbinusThe book has explicit advice saying you should lay the conflict out quickly and should not make the players work to find out what's going on, he then talks about how this is counterintuitive to how games are normally run but talks about why it's important in Dogs to do it this way.

So I'm not saying you were playing it wrong, wait, actually I am saying you were playing it wrong :D .  The Dogs are supposed to be basically handed what is going on on a plate, the game is in deciding what to do about it, the book is very explicit on this.

And this is why I don't play or run Dogs as-written. :D

Quote from: SettembriniDogs is not about problem solving.
It´s a mirror-tool, a self-exploration tool.

 What ?  A self-exploration tool?  Most people have their own hands.
Again this sounds like the RPGs as Therapy bunch of BS.

 think a nice game of TRAVELLER (Any version) or D&D sounds more interesting.

- E.W.C.

(Your [Favorite Game] is masterbatory.)
(My [Favorite Game] is real gaming.)

Just cut and paste that, and you're good to go. ^_^

From what I've read, from a philosophical point, Walthur is right. There is a paradox where Dogs is concerned, and it's a topic that I don't think is addressed well by someone saying, "Well, don't play it then."

Droog, guy, I'm sure you're tired of people knocking Dogs unfairly by now. Or something. But let's look at the face of it; the game, while not actually self-contradictory, suffers from being both non-intuitive and while it seems to possess the answers to commonly asked questions, it doesn't always resolve the difference between play and what the game is 'supposed' to do.

The important thing to remember, though, is that unlike a philosophy paper, a game doesn't have to be airtight. It just has to provide a good play experience. I don't personally think there's anything to Dogs that couldn't be done in most other systems, but then again, that's why I don't play it. The answer is, essentially, there is no answer to this paradox. There's a hole in the game that no amount of justification can really cover up. The only plug is DM fiat; the game is either run according to one paradigm or another, but not both at the same time.

The game encourages the players to weigh in and make a decision, and whatever they choose is the right one. I think if the DM had unlimited towns lined up, the issue of 'what happens if the PCs decide there's no problem here' would come up. This problem, in actual play, will boil down to the DM saying, "Guys, this is the adventure today. If you choose to blow through Whateverville, we're going to have to play Magic the Gathering instead of role-playing."

In the end, that's the solution to your paradox.

Quote from: Thanatos02Droog, guy, I'm sure you're tired of people knocking Dogs unfairly by now. Or something.

Well, it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't think the seeming paradox is real.

I like my masturbatory gaming to be a bit more sophisticated than:

"Here´s a moral dillemma, what´s your take on this?"


When it comes to wankery, some people have high standards.
Some can go with just the aura of sophistication, some need the real stuff.

Quote from: droogWell, it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't think the seeming paradox is real.

Warthur's paradox makes sense if you're not playing the game, but are, rather comparing stated goals versus possible outcomes. If you view the game's mission statement logically, then it becomes an issue. In play, it's different, because it follows differently.

Like, there are some assumptions.
1 - You'd like to play something.
2 - In order to play, something has to happen, or be made to happen by players.
3 - The assumed beginning is that the PCs are heading into a town where they are going to do something.

Now, generally, this means the DM has to set something up for the player's characters to interact with, so you've got the dilemma. Except the dilemma about 'is there something wrong?' goes away in play, because you've already made the assumption, complicit with players, that you accept something's gone wrong in the town.

If there's nothing wrong, then the players get to settle the peace, and explain why there's no problem after all. Some townspeople might disagree.

That is, even if the DM begins with the assumption that there's a problem, the PCs might decide differently, but they still need to make sure everyone's on the same page or... trouble.

So, this way, when you sit down to play it, there's no problem. Logically, before you make the assumptions, there can be issues.

GM: "You find a wallet on the dusky streets of Provo. It's stuffed with several $20 bills!"

Player: "Hmm... I turn it in  to the authorities..."

GM: "ok. Well, you find ANOTHER one. And this one has like $500."

Player: "What, like right next to it?"

GM: "It's like a block down."

Player: "Oh. OK, I turn that one in too."

GM: "er.. Ok. You round the corner. There's a huge sack of gold and diamonds! Oh..and an adulteress and her illegitimate infant."

Player: (rubbing hands together) "FINALLY!"

GM: "Ok. So how many times do you shoot the baby?..."

Quote from: Thanatos02Warthur's paradox makes sense if you're not playing the game, but are, rather comparing stated goals versus possible outcomes. If you view the game's mission statement logically, then it becomes an issue. In play, it's different, because it follows differently.

Yeah, pretty much. In pretty much every Dogs game I've participated in we've come down on one side or the other of the paradox, ignored it, and had a blast.

I'm of the opinion, however, that it's a major failing of a rulebook if the mission statement it provides for a game doesn't actually manifest in play.

QuoteLike, there are some assumptions.
1 - You'd like to play something.
2 - In order to play, something has to happen, or be made to happen by players.
3 - The assumed beginning is that the PCs are heading into a town where they are going to do something.

Which is fair enough, but supposing the PCs ignore the problem the GM presents them and decide - for reasons of their own - that the real problem of the town is something else entirely? As GM you effectively have to back them up, but at the same time they've left the people which you as GM have identified as damaging community to keep doing what they are doing.

I think a revised DitV might have some application for the Pazifismustest of the Bundeswehr. Settembrini the Great should acquire the German license.

:D

Nice idea. I fear the Kreiswehrersatzamt is out of any influence for the military. They are a universe unto themselves.

It´s concerning, though, how often the "Go kill some orks, if you don´t get our game"-crowd is relishing baby-executions, as long as it is in this artsy game package.:(

I'm not sure if there's a paradox or not--but I'm not sure that ignoring the problem counts as taking any kind of action to judge it. I also expect that you have to know what the situation actually is in order to judge it so that implies some degree of interaction ('detective work'--which in the game terms means doing anything reasonable to figure out what's happening).

If the Dogs arrived and then went down in a coal-mine to play cards, going "hey, the clue has to come and stumble across us no matter what so this is as good as anything else!" then the GM might well be within rights to fold the game up.

You could do this too if the PCs went in a dungeon and just didn't go past the first room.

So I think that the part that kinda sticks out for there is *ignoring* what's going on. I think the characters have to engage with what's going on and judge it to make it go away.

(But I'm not 100% on this)
-Marco

If the players ignore it, it's because of two reasons:
 1: The players don't want to deal with it.
 2: The players don't recognize it as an issue.

If it's 1, than 2 things are the likely scenerio:
 a: They're purposely ignoring playing in order to dick around.
 b: They twigged to something else, and want to follow up that instead.

This has a solution for each.
 For a: Go play Halo instead.
 For b: As the DM, account the problem as Solved, in that the PCs have decided it's not a live issue. (Dogs decide it'll work itself out.) Deal with this as you would anything else.

 If it's 2, than simply make it more obvious to them, and repeat.

If the Characters don't deal with it, and the Players do something else than:
 1: Treat the issue as if it wern't live. i.e. The Dogs deal with it by saying, "This isn't a big deal. Live with it, and get along nice, Town.". If you feel it'd continue to be contentious, deal with it in-game by having NPCs react to the situation the Dogs left until it resolves itself, or the Dogs deal with it.

 2: Go forward with what the Dogs are interested in. You already know the town dynamic, so you should be able to come up with something fairly easily.

 3: Railroad them. Nobody likes this, but whatever.

EDIT: the paradox is contingent, in this case, in the problem not being resolved because the players are unaware. If they're uninterested, it seems like a paradox, but it isn't. The problem is tacitly solved with an unspoken, "This is beneath our notice. Now, play nice."

Lo and behold!

Thanatos has finally dropped her mask and let out the Swine!

If only Pundit could see you now.

Quote from: MarcoI'm not sure if there's a paradox or not--but I'm not sure that ignoring the problem counts as taking any kind of action to judge it. I also expect that you have to know what the situation actually is in order to judge it so that implies some degree of interaction ('detective work'--which in the game terms means doing anything reasonable to figure out what's happening).

I wasn't making myself clear earlier. When I say "ignore", I don't mean "wilfully avoid becoming aware of what the problem is". I mean "on becoming aware of what the problem is, decide that it's a-OK and move on - or decide that something completely different merits their attention more."

Quote from: Thanatos02For b: As the DM, account the problem as Solved, in that the PCs have decided it's not a live issue. (Dogs decide it'll work itself out.) Deal with this as you would anything else.

Except the town creation process asks you to state what would happen if the Dogs don't come to town, and implicitly encourages you to make this a nasty, horrible future for the town. Either the fact of the Dogs observing the problem and deciding it is not an issue changes the situation so that these negative consequences do not occur - in which case it's going to be remarkably difficult for players to have any real investment in the game if they know there's no way they can screw up - or inaction leads to the negative consequences already determined for if the Dogs don't deal with the problem, in which case inaction is clearly "bad" on the player's part.

Quote from: WarthurI wasn't making myself clear earlier. When I say "ignore", I don't mean "wilfully avoid becoming aware of what the problem is". I mean "on becoming aware of what the problem is, decide that it's a-OK and move on - or decide that something completely different merits their attention more."

Yah, okay--I think if they do that then they've "judged" the event and that clears up whatever the problem was. I.e. I think it's potential sin that creates the problem and whatever the Dogs do in order to deal with it either judges and punishes the sin or resolves it as not-sin.

Now: that's not exactly in the books (I'm pretty sure--don't have one with me). That's my interpertation, if you will. Of course, all the time the guys on the Forge told me that I was misunderstanding and then resolving the "Impossible Thing" with my own, twisted reading of the words so maybe I'm doing the same thing here in reading Dogs as reasonably internally consistent since the danger of sin lies in sin-not-judged.

That'd be ironic :)

-Marco

Warthur:

It seems like 99% of what you post is about DitV. Why are you so fixated on it?   It seems like you like it, but have problems with it. Fine. It's not a big deal for anyone else. Some like it and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some don't care for it, and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some spit when they see the name and try to stomp it into the earth with posts, but the "Paradox" doesn't matter. The only one it seems to matter to is you, and if you just let go of the thing, and play it the way you want to, no-one would care. Let's move on, then. Play the game the way you want. Who cares what the designer wanted? The world is full of games to discuss. Dogs is done. Stick a fork in it.

Thanks!

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniLo and behold!

Thanatos has finally dropped her mask and let out the Swine!

If only Pundit could see you now.

Eh? :raise:

Quote from: WarthurEither the fact of the Dogs observing the problem and deciding it is not an issue changes the situation so that these negative consequences do not occur...

This one seems like the only logical way to run the game, really. The lack of investment because you can't get it wrong seems to be a problem with the game, and it's one of the reasons I don't care much for Dogs in the Vineyard. The paradox you've raised is a real one, akin to a bug in a program which raises its head if you enter input the programmer didn't anticipate.

QuoteThe lack of investment because you can't get it wrong seems to be a problem with the game

You guys don't seem to get that the game is about you and the rest of the table. No, in objective terms you can't get it wrong. But the actions you take are seen and judged by the people you play with. If you don't care about that, a large part of the game will be lost.

Which is why I say that at some point it ought to be clear that this isn't the game for you.

Quote from: droogYou guys don't seem to get that the game is about you and the rest of the table. No, in objective terms you can't get it wrong. But the actions you take are seen and judged by the people you play with. If you don't care about that, a large part of the game will be lost.

Which is why I say that at some point it ought to be clear that this isn't the game for you.

I already said I didn't play the game. Warthur does, though, and enjoys it. So... I dunno. Maybe you're missing something.

QuoteMaybe you're missing something.

I'm not sure what that would be. Warthur will have to work his own problems out, I suspect.

Warthur (and everyone else),

My personal feelings and thoughts on the matter (bearing in mind that I haven't played yet myself), which is all that I claim these are:

First, the thing with a GM setting up a town with a specific take on what the problem is and the players all deciding "no, it's this instead". . .? No different from any other roleplaying experience out there. How many times have yo set up something like, "OK, there's these forces in conflict, and Person A is a right bastard, while Person B is deserving of sympathy," only to have the players decide instantly on contact with the scenario, "Wow, Person B is a real bitch, we're all throwing in with Person A"? It happens time and again in my experience. The thing with Dogs is that you're expressly not supposed to jump up and down and go "No, you cads, B is the good guy and A is a rat, what kind of Lawful Good characters are you, you're not playing it right!" You're explicitly supposed to let the players make up their own mind about the situation, even if you've decided beforehand, "Abigail is Prideful and causing injustice between the Steward and his wife." And the PCs siding with Abigail doesn't mean her Pride doesn't exist, it just means that even if she was Prideful in her aqctions, the PCs see her plight as justification for her actions. Maybe the Steward and Wife have it coming in their eyes. Or maybe it's a sad, "nobody's fault, really" situation to them. I mean, if you told a real-life story of a messy love triangle to 10 people, you'd probably get at least five reactions, right? Even though the situation with all its actions and reasons for them is still the same? it's no different in Dogs; in fact it's the point of Dogs.

Of course the choices of the players should have real consequences, and even if they pick the "right" answer those choices might not be pleasant. Remember that Vincent has a nice little acid test for whether negative fallout from a town is kosher: (from Droog's VB quote in this thread: 1) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "y'know, if I make these demons still be there, the players will feel like I've sucker-punched them."

2) As GM, you'll imagine them returning to this town, and you'll think about whether there might still be demons left, and you'll be like, "oh MAN, if I make these demons still be there, the Dogs will feel like the world has sucker-punched them, but the players will feel like AWESOME."

So as long as it doesn't feel like dirty pool, you should feel free for their choices to turn out badly--in fact, if they choose to exonerate a Heretic whose plight they side with, and the town's welfare be hanged, then they're inviting these negative consequences. It's a way for all concerned to say "yeah, the town's gone to shit thanks to our actions, but it was worth it to do the right thing."

Second, and kind of related to the first, the thing about Sin is that it causes harm regardless of the motives of the Sinner. From the Vincent quote in the other thread: Sin is when, in response to some unremedied injustice, you do something destructive to your community. "Sin," that is, socially destructive behavior, destabilizes your community. All the lines of love, friendship and blood that hold your community together come under stress, because now someone's acting against them instead of along them.

See, by acting in defiance of social taboos, you create friction in your community. I should know, I've done it just by growing my hair long in a Baptist family. So just imagine what effect my brother had by renouncing Christianity and marrying his semi-Muslim girlfriend in a Wiccan ceremony. in both cases we put great strain on our family and community relationships. We may well (and usually do) feel like the strain is unfair, that of the other side would just relax and let live, all our lives would be easier. But the fact is, regardless of whose 'fault" it is, we bear the responsibility for our respective parts in straining the family bond. In both our cases, we decided that straining those bonds was worth it, to be who we are in our hearts.

Same thing happens in Dogs. People follow their hearts (the Faithful might be inclined to say "selfish desires") even though it means uprooting all the peace and stability around them. You know in Fiddler on the Roof, where Tevye's oldest daughter wants to marry a poor man for love, and he, with difficulty, gives in? And then his next daughter wants to marry a radical dreamer for love, and Tevye again gives in? And his next daughter wants to marry a Gentile for love, and Tevye just. . .can't? Not even by the end of the movie? That's the kind of strain we're talking about. The tradition-breakers might be more ignoble than that on occasion, but in general what makes the choice hard for the Dogs is that people will suffer, maybe even die, if the tradition-breakers continue, but the plight of the breakers is often sympathetic and resonant. So what do you do?

Third, the Supernatural obstacle is easily solvable in my opinion. Even with the Supernatural dial set higher than "none' or "ambiguous," there's nothing that says real, honest-to-God demonic activity is a direct judgment on the actions of the Heretics. Again, from Vincent: That's sin, what're the demons? They're just plain bad luck. They're the stresses on a community that come about through nobody's action, nobody's fault, just the hazards of trying to make a life in the real world. The well goes dry, the flood rises, locusts swarm, somebody falls off a horse or tries to clean a loaded gun. Shit happens, that's all.

Even non-metaphorical demons could be viewed as nothing more than opportunists, swooping in where division and strife flare up to wedge the rift open wider and pour salt on the wounds (and mix metaphors, apparently). Their presence isn't a sign that the Heretic is in fact evil or wrong, just that in going their own way the Heretic has to set her face against tradition, indeed against friends, family and community, and so is sucseptible to her very real indignation nursing (demonically, perhaps) into a vicious grudge.

As far as the moral implications of encountering a demon-possessed person, consider this: you've confronted a Heretic in a town, and she's demonically possessed--eyes red, spits obsceneties, claws at your throat, the whole deal. Do you shoot her dead, exorcise her then condemn her ways, or exorcise her then pardon her Heresy? Those are all very real and different choices, and allow you to address the rightness or wrongness of her position however you as a player see fit. I see a parallel between the Possessed-but-right Heretic and the more mundane way that noble causes get corrupted. I can easily envision a scene with a just-exorcised heretic: "Oh, how did it all go so wrong? I never meant for it to go this far; I just wanted a world where I could live in peace with she whom I love. But it grew to such a hateful thing; there was scarce' nothing I would not do to have my way--oh, King of Life, forgive me!" Just one example of how that sort of thing could go.

Once again, let me stress that this is all the non-playt4ested impressions of one man. Hope they're lucid and helpful.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: flyingmiceWarthur:

It seems like 99% of what you post is about DitV.

Read my posting history before you make assertions like this. 99% of what I've posted for the past couple of days is about Dogs. Beyond that, that ain't the case at all.

I'm ducking out of the conversations anyway because the signal/noise ratio is horrible.

QuoteWhy are you so fixated on it?

I'm not. I play a whole bunch of other games, and I think about them. When I come to a conclusion about it that I think is worth discussing, I post it here, because this is one of the few web forums where you can have a decent discussion about it: other forums tend to be either too in love with it to criticise it objectively, or blissfully unaware of it.

QuoteIt seems like you like it, but have problems with it. Fine. It's not a big deal for anyone else.

GAMES aren't a big deal for me. They're a hobby. They're not as important as my family or my friends or my health or my fiancee. Just because something isn't important doesn't mean you can't have fun debating it.

QuoteSome like it and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some don't care for it, and the "Paradox" doesn't matter. Some spit when they see the name and try to stomp it into the earth with posts, but the "Paradox" doesn't matter. The only one it seems to matter to is you, and if you just let go of the thing, and play it the way you want to, no-one would care. Let's move on, then. Play the game the way you want. Who cares what the designer wanted?

Who cares about analysing games as they are written? Who gives a damn about game design? Why are we talking about games in the first place?

I'll let you in on a little clue: I don't believe actual play discussions are as useful as people make them out to be. You can't give someone a perfect, accurate, and all-encompassing overview of what happened in one of your game sessions because you're only one participant. From where I am coming from, discussing games as they are written is the only sensible way to discuss them online, because everyone can at least look at the same book and discuss what's written there.

QuoteThe world is full of games to discuss. Dogs is done. Stick a fork in it.

Sick of me discussing Dogs? You saw the thread title. You presumably saw that I created the thread. If you really dislike my take on Dogs that much then there's no reason for you to blunder into the thread unless you're totally devoted to reading every thread that crops up on theRPGsite.

Who the fuck are you to say "Conversation's over! It's impossible for anyone to say anything useful about this anymore, so let's all not talk about it!"?

Quote from: WarthurRead my posting history before you make assertions like this. 99% of what I've posted for the past couple of days is about Dogs. Beyond that, that ain't the case at all.

You are correct, I meant to say "lately." My bad.

Quote from: WarthurWho the fuck are you to say "Conversation's over! It's impossible for anyone to say anything useful about this anymore, so let's all not talk about it!"?

I'm no-one - just another gamer giving my personal opinion, thus no more or less valid tha any other personal opinion. Whatever turns you on, OK? If my post came off as confrontational or angry, it wasn't meant that way. I was probably tired when I wrote it. I'm old, and get cranky if I haven't had my nap. Please accept my apologies! We've had a dearth of threads that are interesting to me personally, otherwise I wouldn't have been reading these Dogs threads. I'll bow out of both now. I really don't have anything more constructive to say on either topic.

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniLo and behold!

Thanatos has finally dropped her mask and let out the Swine!

If only Pundit could see you now.

Does Nisarg even know who he is?

QuoteDoes Nisarg even know who he is?

More than most of us, more than most of us.

QuoteWe've had a dearth of threads that are interesting to me personally, otherwise I wouldn't have been reading these Dogs threads.

The time-honoured solution to such a problem is to start new threads.

Quote from: SettembriniMore than most of us, more than most of us.

That's... ominous, I suppose.

Well, Warthur, did my post illuminate anything for you? If not, I guess I'm done.

Peace,
-Joel