Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Wade L, September 18, 2005, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: Wade L on September 27, 2005, 02:56:52 AM Picking traits took a long time - two hours, at least. In particular, A(and, to a degree, R) wasn't comfortable assigning things until he knew "what is average, what is good, what is exceptional" and that type of thing...and even when I explained that traits didn't necessarily translate to character ability, so much as how important they were to the player, it just morphed the quest for understanding into "So how many dice is an important trait? A focal trait? A trivial one?" H kept almost completely silent through most of the character creation process except when asked direct "Whatchya thinking 'bout?" kinda questions, which is how she generally creates characters in my experience.
Quote I arrived almost two hours in, and so was told "Slap a character together real quick, we wanna play!" She quickly tossed down some traits - picking on facet of her character and riffing off that. Much was done almost at random, quick, quick, quick. We spent more time on her accomplishment - "I hope I proved myself as worthy as my brother to be a dog"(she didn't)...but although her character was made in maybe 1/5th of the time as everyone else's, she seemed to have, by far, the most enthusiasm for her character and was the most gung-ho to play.
Quote...A, in particular, felt the need to "ground" the setting, and declared in his mind at least, this was quite firmly in just an alternate version of our Earth, and worked elements of real life locales into his mental image of the setting.
Quote from: Wade L on September 27, 2005, 03:16:07 PMI tried to push some of those scenes into becoming conflicts, but for the most part there wasn't a lot of point - the Dogs wanted to find out what the wives wanted, and the wives wanted to let the Dogs know. I probably shouldn't have tried to push those at all - they resulted in "lame duck" conflicts - but part of my desire at this point was simply to get the players rolling dice.
QuoteAt the same time, Br. William went to talk to Deputy Sheriff Cyrus to see if there are any problems that need cleaning up. So, fighting all of my GM insticts to keep the big plot secret from the players, I force myself to out Br. Cyrus - he comes clean to Br. William about his marriage to the Steward's first wife, professes his love for her, and asks the Dogs to sanctify the marriage, since he isn't quite sure Wilhelmina is qualified to do such a thing. Br. William replies with, essentially "Hrm, interesting. Well, we'll check it out, and if it's a true marriage - and we decide it doesn't violate the Steward's rights - well, then we'll approve it." No conflict here, I either... I was going to declare a "Br. Cyrus wants you to voice approval of the marriage" conflict, but Br. William went ahead and did the next best thing anyways.
Quote...I decided to get more aggressive on this one, launching a conflict "Does Sister Patience name the stillborn baby?" This one went alright -
Quote...I convinced them to launch a conflict "Does she tell us whether or not she loves the Steward?"...their first follow up conflict "Does Sister Jemina tell us what made her believe demons stole the life from her baby?"
QuoteI also read out some sections of the book at the end, sharing not just the mechanics of Dogs, but the GM advice on how Dogs is intended to be played. That may have been a mistake.
QuoteA almost took actual offense at the GM advice to the effect of "Don't have a plot in mind". He was pretty vehment that although it was good to have lots of "player plot", playing without "GM plot" was a sure way to have a really boring game. Good adventures need villians! He also wasn't shy at all about the game would have been better if there had been desperados robbing a train, or a masked bandit or something. Heh...when the original setting was explained to him and how Dogs worked, one of his first remarks was "Yeah, but that's not all we do, right? I mean, the judging thing is nice color, but the actual adventures are stopping train robberies and bringing bandits to justice, right?" He understood when I explained to the contrary, but he still didn't think it was a good way to design a game.
QuoteIn general, I noticed a very odd trend, pretty much the opposite of my standard roleplaying experiences - the female players were far more involved and interested than the males.
Quote from: Wade L on September 28, 2005, 02:48:01 PM Anyway...any post play analysis help(especially with Dogs system questions) is welcomed. I want to understand what was happening in this game, and how much of it is related to how I may have been mangling Dogs. Especially since I've got a completely different group of three players(including one former LDS member) who also want to try Dogs, and I'd like to give them a more authentic Dogs experience if possible. Also...any analysis of what my group is looking for or might enjoy would also be useful. I'm not going "Nar is the roxxor, death to sim!", so I'll make it clear that conversion to narrativist games isn't my goal. I just want to introduce these people to NEW games - sim, nar, or gamist. They seem the most interested in narrativist games as a concept, though, even if understanding of that concept is lacking. The cheque for PTA is in the mail, so that's what we might try out next...several of these players LARP in Edmonton on occassion with one of the players in "The Belt" PTA series mentioned on this forum, so they've read about PTA on Dave's blog and think it sounds cool, so convincing them to try it won't be hard... But if anyone is thinking "Oh, oh, your group should try *this* game..." feel free to shout it out. Recommendations on how I might make a PTA game with them successful would also be welcome, but might be off-topic(I leave that to you to judge). Thanks for the help, guys!
QuoteMeanwhile, Br. William and Sr. Janey are back at the Steward's place, Br. Cyrus in tow. They sit them in a room and say "Working this out is your job, not ours - find a way to resolve your differences". We agree since they really don't want to settle things reasonably that a conflict needs to be launched...originally it was "What's at stake is: Do they resolve things peacefully?
QuoteI launch a conflict "Does Br. Emmanuel push Sr. Edie out the second story window?"
Quote from: Blankshield on September 28, 2005, 03:51:26 PMBlink blink. Wow, hi! Cool, more indie gamers around E-town! Do I know you? :) PM me, and we'll talk. I'm in Sherwood Park, and am the guy who's abusing PTA to produce The Belt.
Quote from: Blankshield on September 28, 2005, 03:51:26 PMI think you did pretty good; at least as well as some of my stumbling first attempts at new games. The big thing that I would note is that you should stay as far away from conflicts between NPC's as possible. Conflicts should always focus on the Dogs. (examples clipped)
Quote from: Blankshield on September 28, 2005, 03:51:26 PMFor the Dogs coming into the middle of a conflict, that's not allowed. If they want to come in, somebody needs to give the current stakes. Then a followup can be launched and the new folks can kick into that one. Although as I noted above, this wouldn't have come up if the conflicts were centered around the Dogs.Does that help?
Quote from: lumpley on September 28, 2005, 04:20:14 PMActually, I really like "what's at stake is, do the two NPCs work things out peacefully?" Your raises can be all like, "Br. Cyrus jumps up out of his seat and dives across the table for the steward's throat!" and "the steward says 'screw this' and shoots Br. Cyrus in the face."
Quote from: lumpley on September 28, 2005, 04:20:14 PMFunny that they just flat-out rejected any and all supernatural. Why did they, do you think?
Quote from: lumpley on September 28, 2005, 04:20:14 PMNever, ever, ever let anybody into a conflict who's not really in it from the beginning. It's poison, as you learned. Also, if ever somebody doesn't have a raise, they can't pass or hang back, they're OUT.
Quote from: lumpley on September 28, 2005, 04:20:14 PMThere's a certain kind of conventional-RGP cause-and-effect thinking that your players are just going to have to get over if they want to play Dogs. But I'm not so sure that they do, are you? From what you've written, at least some of them have seemed pretty intent on playing some other game instead.
QuoteSo, although I have no problems with fumbling through the game in private, and no problems with people go "Man, that Wade runs a really shitty game...", I don't want to be responsible for people going, "Man, that Vincent writes a really shitty game!" *That*, I'd feel bad about.
Quote from: Wade L on September 30, 2005, 06:11:10 AMI think because they thought that overt supernatural elements would be "twinky" or "not real roleplaying". Magic is for D&D, right, not a serious roleplaying game, right? Yet, still, they play Shadowrun and Vampire. Still, even in those games the supernatural either tends to be completely obscured and unaccessible to the players - ie: It's a GM plot hammer - in which case it can be scary and mysterious...but if it's in the hands of the players, it's usually a sign that we're not doing "real roleplaying" any more, and have instead entered the "game" phase.