[FitV] First impressions using the Dogs in the Vineyard System
Altaem:
I'll get round to another session report soon.
Quote
Speaking of that, the players seem to basically be playing in a gamist like mode. I mean the stakes are if they take the ship or are captured? They have no issue with murdering the mercs to obtain material goods? They are morally empty (or atleast the conflict "Do we take the merc firefly vs Are we captured?" is)
The players engaged that battle from the moral high ground.
Background information had shown the mercs to be practically robbing the town blind in return for their protection.
Townspeople they'd talked with had described the mercs as being the least of 2 evils; "like reavers but without the killing and eating"
When the mercs turned up to drive them off the wreckage, it was a moral choice to stay and fight for the capability to transport refugees.
The mercs already had their guns out before the conflict started so the PCs dismissed any talking option pretty quickly.
From a player point of view; it was getting late, and we all wanted an action scene to end with.
Noclue:
yeah, but the players are given some pretty easy choices between an obvious right and an obvious wrong. "Do you kill the nasty mercs? or let them kill you?"
"Do you stay and help the refugees or let them die and go get paid?"
As Callan points out, the moral dilemmas that are at the heart of much of Dogs play really aren't there. Things like "Do I force this woman and this man to stay in a loveless marriage?" Or "How far will I go to stop my brothers drinking from fomenting pride and injustice?" And who am I to be deciding these things anyway?
Callan S.:
Hi Altaem,
Quote
The mercs already had their guns out before the conflict started so the PCs dismissed any talking option pretty quickly.
Had the mercs actually fired?
As I understand it, the dice rolls in dogs are about a chance to talk someone out of something - but if you start failing at that, it gets more and more tempting to simply pull a gun and blammo! Will you be tempted or simply let their actions go? It's about whether the PC's escalate to violence for their cause or not.
From my own evaluation of narrativist games, a player really needs a wardrobe of potential characters they could play and to choose one who's attitude fits the question the rule set poses. In the example here, we have PC's who go "Ah, fuck talking, they already have their guns out! *Blammo!*". Dogs in the vineyard is pivoted on characters who will talk first - generally because they are religious and like to preach, but it doesn't have to be that reason. You can see this in Jame's examples - your not about to just walk up and blow away your drunkard brother. Your gunna talk. Your not about to straight off the bat blow away one or both of the unhappy married couple, your gunna talk.
Assuming the mercs hadn't fired, this sets the scene for the PC's to talk, yet get increasingly tempted to shoot. But the players have brought along characters who are inclined to not talk (at least if the other guys have weapons drawn they are inclined not to). This short circuits the system. All of this is just my estimate. Maybe someone or even the author will shoot me down on that estimate of how to use the text.
On a side subject - the higher moral ground!?!? If what differentiated the mercs from reavers was they were without the killing and eating, what differentiates the PC's from reavers?? Only that they didn't eat the mercenaries that they killed!? The PC's are fifty percent closer to reaver than the mercenaries who were the 'badguys'!
I am not critiquing gameplay in saying this, simply saying I think the situation is rife with moral confusion rather than some clear cut moral high ground, from this writers perspective. I don't want to derail the thread on this, if anyone starts to try and defend the PC's actions because they think somehow the players are being said to have done some real world wrong. No they haven't. It's the situation that is compelling and no real life person is wrong for having crafted that fictional situation. I hope that's enough disclaimers!
Abkajud:
I'll just chime in and say two things:
1- it always starts at talking. Escalation should revolve around the players' choice to do so, not the actions of NPCs.
2- Only the players know which characters hold the moral high ground. This is because it's completely unclear (deliberately) whether the PCs are *correct* in their judgments about who's a demon, who's a sinner, etc. When players tag an NPC as a demon, there's an escalation (iirc) - - on the one hand, the NPC gets a LOT stronger. On the other hand, if the demon is defeated, the town loses its metaphysical "sin-fuel". That doesn't mean killing a demon puts things back together again, but it helps sin lose its inertia, if that makes any sense.
Web_Weaver:
Quote from: Abkajud on May 30, 2011, 04:30:14 PM
1- it always starts at talking.
This is a common misunderstanding of the rules. Actually you can start anywhere and any change of arena is an escalation. Which means you can start with guns and escalate to talking.
Jamie
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page