[Dogs] Buildin' towns and settin' dials.
Noclue:
Quote from: Melinglor on March 08, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
but I worry about "blocking" in the sense of more or less telling the players "nope, wrong answer." But I worry on the other side as well: if I keep mum and just let things play out, will I set up false expectations and disappointment? One thing I absolutely DON'T want to do is foster an atmosphere of "get all the theology right and arrive at correct conclusions" play.
I'm wondering how the intersection of your reccommendation and James' quoted statement of Ron's looks to you:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 08, 2007, 05:43:43 AM
GM-described phenomena are presented in secular terms. However, Dogs' perceptions and responses (and the phrasing of NPCs, i.e., their point of view) often include the supernatural.
So the person starts seizuring and freaking out and saying awful things. The Dogs grab him, and one of them invokes his Name and Three-in-Authority to cast out the demon, as they perceive it.
If the roll succeeds, everyone says, "hooray, the demons are cast out!"
Ron's description seems to describe a situation where the person really is "Possessed" in the Dogs-rules-sense. But it seems to apply to any situation however the Dogs respond to it: don't discuss it, don't talk about what 'really" happened, just play the situation.
I don't think Ron's assuming there's possession in the fiction. I think he's just saying that the Dogs say there's possession. And if the Dogs say so, how is anyone else in town going to say otherwise? Its a bit of irony that the players may have doubts about whether the Dogs were correct.
On another note, I don't think blocking needs to be a problem. You can tell the player that he's free to assume there's a demonic possession going on even if there is not, but you control the demon dice. The other dogs might be seeing they're friend roughing up an old man for no good reason. They don't see no demon. Now you've got a situation that's rife with tension. Are they going to let Brother Rubarb kill this innocent old guy? Are they going to contradict him?
lumpley:
Brand's answers are so good!
I really, strongly recommend that you go all the way to hate and murder next time. Do follow Brand's advice about making every step human, of couse.
Last time I GMed the game, I decided up-front that none of my Stewards would be easy to blame. I did a lot of what Brand says and it worked great. I also gave my Stewards credibility by having them do like the Steward in the book: disagree passionately with the Dogs, recognize their authority but stand on his own.
"Your job is to shoot someone and ride away, we all know that. I'll still live here after you've gone - it falls on me to clean up after you. You better be damn sure you're shooting the right person."
-Vincent
Graham W:
My favourite answer from a Steward, at the moment, would be: "This is my responsibility. If you think I need to die, shoot me. I'm ready."
Graham
Joel P. Shempert:
Brand: Great stuff, thanks!
1) Fucking brilliant. I'm officially doing that for every RPG I start ever forever.
2) That's the trick, isn't it? I thibnk my main concern here is getting a chance to show the human, understandable motivation of the sinners before the Dogs go "Enscorcel ME, will you? Let me ensorcel my brains out the back of your head!"
this though:
Quote from: Brand_Robins on March 08, 2009, 12:28:57 PM
If you just make sure to keep every step up the totem pole of sin human, understandable, something real people could do -- something you or people you like might do if forced up against the wall and left alone in a desert town with 100 other people who are kinda all self-righteous assholes -- then you can sometimes get hate and murder without terrible demon-worshiping villains.
Is damned awesome. I think I'm adopting that into my general Dogs pitch.
3) Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised myself.
4) I have in fact had the "Steward Expository Dinner" scene in both the Dogs towns I've GMed. I think my problem is in portraying some backbone in the Steward, showing how he really has done all he could do given his position and resources, without him coming off as a defensive and responsibility-dodging whiner. I guess the two keys to that are not MAKING him a responsibility-dodging whiner, and in putting his actions in the best light, like you describe. Like, Azariah really WAS holed up in his house with a shotgun not letting the Steward near, but I didn't really bring that ut, so the Steward just looks timid and useless.
5) Lot of good options here. I'd still like to see some commentary from someone on the intersection of that kind of approach and the quote from Ron.
peace,
-Joel
Joel P. Shempert:
James: I know he's not assuming possession "in the fiction" (in fact his whole POINT is about not treating "the fiction" as a little reality that things can be true or false about). That's why I said possession in the rules sense. 'Cuz no matter what happens in the SIS, there are for damned sure times when you use Demonic Influence Dice, and times you don't.
On that note, I do think the point is solid about the Demon Dice being a good gauge of whether there's possession going on, actually, without having to go "hey, time out, he's not really possessed" or anything.
Vincent: I realized something, as I pondered Brand's answer and yours. I think there's been an unconscious assumption at work in the games I've played, that the Steward's job is actually the same as the Dogs' just on a different scale and intensity. That the Steward is working on keeping the town free of sin and corruption and it's only if he fails that the Dogs are needed. Kind of a "if you did your job, we wouldn't need to do ours" sorta vibe. Which is, y'know, almost true: the Steward IS in charge of keeping individual people whole and righteous. But it misses the key point that the Steward can only do so much and is responsible for individuals, not the whole. Y'know, like it says in the book.
Also, I'm curious: when you recommend Hate and Murder for "next time," do you mean next time I play with these folks (which might not happen, but then again might), or next time I run it at all? 'Cause that WILL happen soon when I run it at Gamestorm.
I think Hate and Murder makes me far more nervous than any other step. Even an unrepentant Sorcerer could be pretty humanised, while it seems to me that H&M-level antagonists--being the perpetrators of not "just killin'" but foul murders that are "senseless," "ritualistic" and of "occult significance" are a lot harder to cast sympathetically. When you're killing innocents just to get your way, it better be a damn good "your way." I'm not sure I'm up to crafting a good enough reason for that.
Graham: That is hot.
peace,
-Joel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page