[DitV] GM determined Sin
oliof:
My humble opinrion:
The game text does not discuss the existence of the King of Life in the game world. The Faith postulates the King of Life, and within the context of that faith, the dogs exist, and gives them a mission and the authority to fulfill it. Do they have the ability to succeed? That question is part of the core this game is built upon.
The Dogs are agents of the Faith, and the faithful believe their judgement brings salvation. The thing is, that a lot of town people have their own idea of the kind of salvation they get from the dogs, and if that does not line up with what the dogs do, faith can well be shattered and questioning of the dogs' authority might become part of the game.
The rules of the faith look like hard, clear guidelines. During play, you will realize that they don't work out that way when reality provides a suboptimal framework. What this does say about religion in general is up to every single person playing that game.
So, we have three core beliefs: In the Faith's authority, and in extension to the Dogs' authority (for certain stuff); the towns people's beliefs; the Dogs' beliefs. The provable existence of the King of Life is not part of these three core beliefs. There might be a King of Life, or there might not – but that doesn't change people's beliefs.
lumpley:
I'm with Harald 100%.
-Vincent
lachek:
Guys, this has been a fantastic eye-opener - probably the third or fourth I've had since I convinced myself I could competently "run Dogs". Vincent, that's both praise and critique. As many others, I find the text extremely welcoming and friendly, perhaps misleadingly so. The underlying concepts which - I can only presume - are meant to be discovered through play rather than inferred through reading the text, are pretty damn high-brow and far-reaching in their simplicity, like most well-designed philosophical statements. The gap between the accessible text and the inaccessible statement is relatively large, which I think is confusing to some people. On the other hand, the potential effect of discovering the statement would be rather cheapened by having it spelled out for you. Maybe it's one of those "easy to learn, hard to master" kind of games.
In addition to the many excellent replies in this thread, the recent interview with Clyde L. Rhoer on the Theory From the Closet podcast was also very helpful and helped me tie the last remaining threads together. Vincent, you're dead-on with the comment about people naturally gravitating towards making rules for these completely illogical supernatural things that should be governed only by the needs of the fiction. Maybe I'm just one of those "stupid fans" you speak of. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page