|
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
dysjunct wrote: In addition to the things Marshall mentions, Dogs speak with divine authority but they are not infallible. They make mistakes, or can let their own biases influence their decisions.
How? Really... the bias part I don't get. Everyone can make mistakes. The GM can feed you a story through the window of some NPC causing players to go off and do all sorts of bad stuff. But the authority invested in the Dogs is absolute, no? They don't have "biases" - their "biases" are the Truth. Anyone that differs from their "biases" is inherently wrong. You can't have an interesting discussion about moral ambiguity with Dogs... it's already all decided.
Quote: There are plenty of modern-day churches who believe that (a) they are the one true church and (b) their representatives have special divine authority. And their societies are not bloodbaths.
The greatest tyrannies in the history of the world were all theocracies, monarchies backed by theocracies, or fascist states that usurped the theocratic role. It's only in a diverse society that you can have a dialogue that isn't tainted by dogmatic absolutism.
Quote: Much of the enjoyment of Dogs comes from the fact that Dogs aren't just supposed to gleefully execute everyone who gives them lip, they are specifically called to serve the community and do what's best for it.
See, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think that it will always resort to violence. I don't understand how the game mechanic of escalating conversations that become fights can work in the setting that is portrayed. There's nothing to argue about to even get to the point where we draw guns.
Quote: But how do you know they're incorrigible?
As soon as I, the character with infinite moral authority, decides I don't want to try anymore. And I have no one and nothing to stay my hand.
Quote: What if you can call them to repentence? Wouldn't that be better than leaving fatherless children, a widow, and a town without a pillar of its community?
Of course. The standard Christian mechanism is that you do this first. When done, then you've satisfied that component of the dogma. Beyond that, there are rules for how particular sins are punished in particular ways. She's been doing witchcraft? Offer her a chance to repent. Fail? Burning. Case closed.
Quote: Furthermore, for all the rigid structure of the Dogs' (the characters') worldview, there is little dogma in play.
Now my mind is totally blown. I can make up anything I want as the hard core of moral authority? I was thinking this was as exciting as a D&D game of paladins in a lawful city state, but now its sounding more and more like a campaign where we just ignore the story and the alignments and just write the treasures down as we read off each room.
Understand that I am terribly fascinated by the game. I don't mean to belittle the game at all. Obviously, lots of other people think it is very cool and have a lot to offer. I'm just baffled by how any part of it that isn't mechanical can work... that is, the game mechanics sound fabulous. But it sounds more apropriate for Tombstone than for the Vineyard.
Quote: And it gets really interesting when Dogs disagree. I had a Dog tell her mother yes, go get a divorce and marry your lover. Another Dog was not down with it AT ALL. Who speaks with divine authority then?
The player playing the character who advocated for divorce did not play their character correctly. It is in my mind like the paladin who says they are going to steal the treasure while their friends aren't looking... I as GM would just state flat out, "You may not do that. It violates your alignment. Do something else." In this case, the GM should have said, "You character would never say that. Say something else." Dogs would not contradict their moral truths just because it was more pleasant to do so.
-
Kevin H.
United States
Crescent City
California
-
cosine wrote: Get them back in the same bed? "What you are doing is adultery and a sin. Stop this instant. Seek repentance. Failure to stop will bring about judgement... now or in heaven. Repeat offenses corrupt your soul and the souls of those around you. We have only one solution for that; removing you from the body of the faithful, one way or another."
Here is how this works in practice, in actual play. Your dog says the above. The first rule in the game is "say yes or roll the dice." The GM doesn't want to say yes, so the NPC says, nope, I don't care, and we get out the dice. Why the NPC disagrees that it's adultery could be anything. Maybe they had a secret divorce/remarriage, maybe the other spouse cheated first so they think it's okay, whatever. Look to real life for the thousands of reasons people have for questionable behavior.
Step one is set the stakes. There are never any ties, so we have to decide what happens if you win, and what happens if he wins. In this case, "If I win, he stops messing around, but if he wins, then I grudgingly admit that there are special circumstances and I'll look the other way just this once."
Then you see who wins. Just because the Dog has a lot of authority in the setting, that doesn't translate to auto-win. Someone might have a better command of the scriptures and be able to out-theologize the Dog. Or just a bigger gun.
In general, I think you're seeing the Dogs as kind of like roving popes. While they speak for the church, they are not tyrants nor do they have absolute power to declare by fiat who lives and dies. The populace of their community are not religious atomatons.
As an analogy, look to the actual Mormon history that the game draws from. Many past Mormon prophets said things that are now disavowed by modern believers. The explanation is that sometimes a man speaks for the (infallible) Lord but sometimes he speaks for his (imperfect) self. "A prophet is not always a prophet," I believe the saying goes.
cosine wrote: But the authority invested in the Dogs is absolute, no? They don't have "biases" - their "biases" are the Truth. Anyone that differs from their "biases" is inherently wrong. You can't have an interesting discussion about moral ambiguity with Dogs... it's already all decided.
No, it is not decided. In order to actual convince anyone that you speak with divine authority and not your own predilictions, you have to win a conflict. This is true of NPCs or other dogs. If you are unable to convince by words, you can try to convince by force.
Quote: Quote: And it gets really interesting when Dogs disagree. I had a Dog tell her mother yes, go get a divorce and marry your lover. Another Dog was not down with it AT ALL. Who speaks with divine authority then? The player playing the character who advocated for divorce did not play their character correctly. It is in my mind like the paladin who says they are going to steal the treasure while their friends aren't looking... I as GM would just state flat out, "You may not do that. It violates your alignment. Do something else." In this case, the GM should have said, "You character would never say that. Say something else." Dogs would not contradict their moral truths just because it was more pleasant to do so.
Well, I was the GM and I followed the rules. The rules say "Say yes, or roll the dice." At that point the only people in the room was her mother, and the other Dogs. Her mother wasn't going to protest, and the other Dogs declined. So it happened. Were there repurcussions for the entire town as a result? Yes. Were they awesome and fun? Yes.
It is not the GM's job to enforce morality -- exploring the intersection of dogma and practicality is the point of the game. There's no alignment chart. There's some general guidelines, and then there's the messy ambiguities of the real world that are not always clear-cut and easy to fix.
Ultimately I would encourage you to sit in on a game at a con, or read a bunch of actual play. Or you could head over to the Forge and ask Vincent directly (I don't know if he hangs out in these here parts much) if you want it from the horse's mouth. But it seems like there's some kind of disconnect between how you think the setting is, and the actual way it's played out at my table on many different occasions with many different groups.
-
Marshall Miller
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
-
Another source of conflict is inconsistent doctrine. I imagine that in other real world religions, there are conflicts between what central church leaders and their enforcers preach and what your local lay minister preachers. If you're an illiterate (and I'm not saying all the towns are this way) farmer's teenage son, who are you going to believe - the minister that anointed your little sister or this punk who's only a couple years older than you who's packing heat and yelling at your pa?
There are lots of areas where things could go pear shaped. I would argue this point more, but I have no more  . I guess I'll have to escalate to  .
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
dysjunct wrote: Well, I was the GM and I followed the rules. The rules say "Say yes, or roll the dice."
So if the player says "I fly off into the sky like Superman!" you have to say yes or roll dice to tell them they can't do that?
See, in the classic D&D example I gave, there were rules to deal with the paladin's fall from grace. Harsh rules. Loss of powers, loss of status, such and so. So, as a GM, I often felt it was fair play by me to warn a player that their character was treading off into areas they were not allowed by the game rules and background to go. No murder, no stealing for you, Mr. Paladin... but if you are really sure you want to do that, you can pay the following consequences and we can keep playing.
Here, there's no consequences. No mechanical ones, anyway. If the Dog character decides that it's cool to just abandon their beliefs and advocate for something that is clearly not acceptable to the background of the game, how do you handle that? "Say yes or roll." isn't really a defense here - that means there are no rules. There are no positions that need defending. All moralities are made up on the spot to be whatever is most convenient or fun for the people playing at the time. There's no challenge to play within a boundary... Lawful Good when it suits me, Chaotic Evil when it doesn't...
And I guess that seems to run exactly the opposite of what it seems to suggest on the cover of the system.
Do you get what I say when I am saying this works great in Tombstone but not in the Vineyard? I can really see this being a great system for a place filled with moral ambiguity, where people can actually hash out differences with compromises and interpretations. The setting of the Vineyard, to me, seems to automatically destroy any chance for people to have a rational discussion or a reasonable disagreement about moral issues.
The sheriff of Tombstone can try to talk the robbers into giving up. He can offer things. Or accept things. The law of men must be flexible and the values of one don't have to trump another. But when it is religious law, doctrine, there's no compromise. The Dog cannot do what the Marshall can do and remain true to the background as written... or at least that's the way it seems to me.
-
Dan Maruschak
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
cosine wrote: See, in the classic D&D example I gave, there were rules to deal with the paladin's fall from grace. Harsh rules. Loss of powers, loss of status, such and so. So, as a GM, I often felt it was fair play by me to warn a player that their character was treading off into areas they were not allowed by the game rules and background to go. No murder, no stealing for you, Mr. Paladin... but if you are really sure you want to do that, you can pay the following consequences and we can keep playing.
Here, there's no consequences. No mechanical ones, anyway.
Playing the game requires a certain amount of buy-in to play in a particular way, and I'm guessing that it's not a great fit for the way you normally play. I can tell you that the doctrine isn't always as cut-and-dried as you seem to think it is. Exploring that question is part of the point of playing the game. The important part of playing is to engage with the NPCs as people rather than as logic puzzles or thought experiments. Saying the Dogs have authority over doctrinal interpretation doesn't mean that everyone magically agrees with the Dogs about how to interpret doctrine -- what are you willing to do to get people to respect that authority? Saying that Dogs have authority over doctrinal interpretation doesn't make the real-world problems of the towns any less messy -- you can't make anger, jealousy, hatred, resentment, etc. disappear just by declaring something sinful or not. The Dogs are charged with stewardship over the community of the faithful, and if you play them purely as doctrinal enforcers you'll probably end doing a poor job of carrying out that stewardship.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
Dan Maruschak wrote: The Dogs are charged with stewardship over the community of the faithful, and if you play them purely as doctrinal enforcers you'll probably end doing a poor job of carrying out that stewardship.
That's a funny thing to me. I would do a bad job from the perspective of an open minded person concerned with goodness and fairness. I would do a perfectly acceptable job from the perspective of an enforcer of orthodoxy.
That's the interesting thing. The players have to buy into a particular morality to play the game correctly. You have to have a humanist bent personally for you the player to create in game situations that are interesting to play. Because if you just accept an orthodox interpretation, there's no question about how to handle things.
When someone engages in adultery, the humanist can say "well, for thus and such, that's understandable..." but the guardian of orthodoxy says "stoning. case closed. next."
-
Dan Maruschak
United States
Eugene
Oregon
-
cosine wrote: That's a funny thing to me. I would do a bad job from the perspective of an open minded person concerned with goodness and fairness. I would do a perfectly acceptable job from the perspective of an enforcer of orthodoxy.
That's the interesting thing. The players have to buy into a particular morality to play the game correctly. You have to have a humanist bent personally for you the player to create in game situations that are interesting to play. Because if you just accept an orthodox interpretation, there's no question about how to handle things.
If you didn't have "accept" in there, I might agree with you. DITV doesn't tell you that's how the religion works. If that's what you bring to the game as a player, yeah, you probably won't engage with the game in a fun way.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
Dan Maruschak wrote: DITV doesn't tell you that's how the religion works. If that's what you bring to the game as a player, yeah, you probably won't engage with the game in a fun way.
Sorry to beat the dead horse here...
But that's the trick. If you aren't given an orthodoxy to enforce, you what... make one up? How fun is that? I'm never forced to do anything. I can just say "I choose not to uphold the values of the Church because I arbitrarily and personally decide that the dogma does not apply now." That's just not how any religion works. There's gotta be an accepted Truth. It can't be "whatever I want, whenever I want it." - well, Satanism is like that, but hey. 
Either there is an orthodoxy and the players can't just choose to violate it and remain in character or there isn't one and there isn't any reason to escalate a conflict. Unless! Unless you the player decides arbitrarily by some other moral standard that you should or want to... so it comes not from the characters, but from the players.
If you (the player) believe that cheating on your spouse does not deserve the death penalty, you (the player) can imagine a situation where people (the characters) who would believe that it does deserve the death penalty would compromise their (the characters) values and not enforce those values... but any "real" situation with such people (the characters) would most certainly have them do exactly that.
You can say that the rules don't include an orthodoxy, that you invent one as you play, but that's still an orthodoxy. You can't treat adultery different one time from another... or this isn't a religious setting anymore.
That's what I mean when I say this works great in a morally ambiguous climate! I'd love a shot at playing this game in a different setting, one where moral ambiguity would play a big part, with a set of characters that could have a range of opinions and values... it's just that the given setting doesn't sound like it works with the mechanic as presented.
To get all wargamey - it's just not simulationist enough.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
Imagine this situation...
Louis Blain is a corrupt cop. His wife, Sara, suspects he's on the take and just can't accept that. Their marriage, as a result, is on the rocks. Louis has been taking bribes from Tanaka, a crime boss, and is expected to stay bought and follow through on his illegal commitments.
Louis is in an interesting situation for a role playing mechanic as described in this thread. Louis could be your character. He has difficult decisions to make. There are NPCS (a wife and a crime boss) with whom Louis can have conflicts as arguments escalate. It is not predetermined by any outside orthodoxy that Louis must decide the outcome one way or another... the player playing Louis could choose either side in the story.
When I said "gimme an example" I was looking for one like this. I'm having hard time imagining one in the stated setting... but not in an alternative setting.
-
-
cosine wrote: So if the player says "I fly off into the sky like Superman!" you have to say yes or roll dice to tell them they can't do that?
I'd have that player successfully hurling himself off a bell tower. It can be a yes... but or a yes with consequences.
Edit: But do you really play with people like that?
-
Kevin H.
United States
Crescent City
California
-
Eric,
As I read through your replies here I'm honestly having trouble figuring out the source of your concern, especially since you haven't actually played the game but are going off into the theoretical weeds about things I have never seen happen in the many different session reports I've read, and (more importantly, to me) the many different fun, tense, and exciting game sessions I've played. I suspect that your views of religion might be ideosyncratic and causing some kind of hitch in your view of the game, but I don't know you well enough to say. Is your concern that there is some disconnect between the setting and the mechanics? Or that the game produces play that is not fun or thematic? Or something else entirely? Maybe you can state it clearly and concisely to help me out here. What are you looking for out of this discussion?
Regardless:
Quote: You can't treat adultery different one time from another... or this isn't a religious setting anymore.
I am not sure why you think this. In the game, adultery is always treated differently each time, because each particular instance of it is different in reality. The correct/loving/moral/compassionate response of an authority figure to:
- two childless people publically and blatantly living together, unmarried, vs.,
- a woman having an affair with a wealthy man to provide food for her children, and her husband is intemperate and violent and may well cause her harm if he finds out, vs.,
- three people who aren't under the authority of the Dog, but living in the community in a polyandrous relationship, with a few kids and another on the way,
... will be and should be different. Demanding that a "religious" person respond the EXACT same way to everything is demanding that the game not be about religion, but about a caricature of religion.
EDIT: Eric, this thread here (link) and the other threads linked in the second-to-last post might answer a lot of your questions about the morality both implicit and explicit of the game. Or it might make you more confused/ambiguous/etc. I think maybe, just maybe the root of your disconnect might be the difference between what the characters (PC/NPC) believe about the setting vs. the setting as given in the rules.
-
Seth Ben-Ezra
United States
Peoria
Illinois
-
cosine wrote: Imagine this situation...
Louis Blain is a corrupt cop. His wife, Sara, suspects he's on the take and just can't accept that. Their marriage, as a result, is on the rocks. Louis has been taking bribes from Tanaka, a crime boss, and is expected to stay bought and follow through on his illegal commitments.
Louis is in an interesting situation for a role playing mechanic as described in this thread. Louis could be your character. He has difficult decisions to make. There are NPCS (a wife and a crime boss) with whom Louis can have conflicts as arguments escalate. It is not predetermined by any outside orthodoxy that Louis must decide the outcome one way or another... the player playing Louis could choose either side in the story.
When I said "gimme an example" I was looking for one like this. I'm having hard time imagining one in the stated setting... but not in an alternative setting.
First, the fact that you're citing an Android character is awesome! I love that game and don't get to play nearly as much as I'd like. In fact, I'm about due for some cybernoir boardgaming goodness to hit the table.
But it also makes me happy, because it means that you and I have some common ground to discuss DitV.
To wit, DitV looks like a western. But, really, it's more of a noir investigative game dressed up as a western. And the Dogs are the investigators.
So, think about The Big Sleep or L.A. Confidential (which might be a better example, given the multiple main characters). Or, for that matter, think about Android. Those sort of tangled situations, rife with corruption, lies, and dirty secrets, are exactly what DitV is about.
And the religious angle doesn't make the tangled mess simply go away. Rather, it intensifies it, because sometimes religion is simply a good reason to hide the truth.
So, here's an example of a town I made up for playing Dogs. I'm working from memory here, because it's been a while. (Thus, no names, because I don't remember them.) But it went something like this.
Here is Couple A. They cannot conceive children, which is something of a disgrace in this society. Next door is Couple B. So, the two couples hatch a plan: Man B will have sex with Woman A until Woman A conceives. Then Couple A will raise the child as their own.
IIRC, after this deal went through, things went kinda sideways. Woman B gets jealous of Woman A, because she slept with her husband (Man B). This produces further problems...which I don't really remember anymore. (Sorry.) But that was all the backstory, simmering in the town as the Dogs showed up.
Don't underestimate the power and danger of such a situation. This town claimed the life of one of the Dogs. Took a shotgun blast to the chest from one of the people who was afraid that this little situation would be found out.
Now, add to this a simple fact. The Dogs are all in their late teens or early twenties. They are simply unequipped to deal with the complexities of the situation. They have their dogma in one hand, which seems so simple and straightforward in the classroom, and now...well, this. How do you apply the principles of this religion to the messy reality of life?
What do you do? Okay, so do you drag all four people into the street and shame them? Execute them? What about the baby? After all, Woman A is pregnant, right?
And then, after the town is resolved by the Dogs' actions, the GM should nod to himself and then make the next town to test the Dogs' emergent principles. "So, you let the woman go because she was pregnant, huh? Well, what if she is pregnant and she murders three people?" And build the town appropriately.
Vincent is formerly a Mormon and currently an atheist. I am a conservative Presbyterian Christian. I happen to think that Dogs is one of the best games out there for addressing complicated moral issues, especially in the context of religion. But the game didn't click for me until I realized that it's actually a game of religious noir with western tropes.
Hope this was helpful!
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
GreatWolf wrote: What do you do?
Easy. Nothing. Genesis 16: 1 - 16.
See, this is what I am getting at. I think our misunderstanding in this thread is that I am putting too much Christianity into the situation. Most religious traditions have strong lessons on how to handle various situations in life. There is a right and a wrong and you are to do the right and not the wrong. When you say "Dogs are Christians", I'm just projecting on to them basic fundamentalist Christian values and I expect them to have to uphold those. It is inappropriate of a player to choose to uphold anything else - that violates the background as I understand it.
To me, it seems Dogs have a highly structured morality imposed on them as characters by the background. Others say, "no, that's not true". I respond then it's a bit disappointing to have no structure to play - just do whatever I want whenever I want whatever is expedient. That's not a challenge for the player.
Again. I think this game sounds great. I'd love to give it a shot. I just can't see using it with the background as described... lots of other backgrounds, sure.
-
J
United States
San Diego
California
-
Moved to the Dogs in the Vineyard General forum
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
dysjunct wrote: - two childless people publically and blatantly living together, unmarried
There is no problem. Move on.
Quote: a woman having an affair with a wealthy man to provide food for her children, and her husband is intemperate and violent and may well cause her harm if he finds out...
According to standard fundamentalist Christian doctrine, there is no justification to divorce and certainly not adultery when one spouse is the subject of abuse from the other. The abuse is sinful, but that sin is not grounds for divorce or adultery. People are supposed to seek charity from the Church, also, and not engage in prostitution.
Quote: three people who aren't under the authority of the Dog, but living in the community in a polyandrous relationship, with a few kids and another on the way,
The community of the Church is not a place, but a fellowship of people. You cannot "live in the community" if you are not a member. You can live in the same household and not be "in the community". People who have not accepted the faith are to be evangelized and nothing more; when and if they convert, they'll accept Christian values and cease their sinful ways.
See... all easily resolved.
Quote: I think maybe, just maybe the root of your disconnect might be the difference between what the characters (PC/NPC) believe about the setting vs. the setting as given in the rules.
Not at all. I think it's time for me to just drop out of the discussion at this point. It's too hard to really communicate the very complicated idea I am trying to express through this medium.
Good luck and good gaming.
-
Marshall Miller
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
-
jmilum wrote: Moved to the Dogs in the Vineyard General forum
Its too bad you can't split forums at just the point where they derail.
-
Seth Ben-Ezra
United States
Peoria
Illinois
-
cosine wrote: GreatWolf wrote: What do you do? Easy. Nothing. Genesis 16: 1 - 16.
Okay, here's the follow-up question. How do you deal with Woman B's jealousy, especially as it begins to manifest in increasingly violent ways?
And as far as Hagar's story, what about Genesis 21:8-21? She *is* eventually punted from Abraham's house, right?
Quote:
See, this is what I am getting at. I think our misunderstanding in this thread is that I am putting too much Christianity into the situation. Most religious traditions have strong lessons on how to handle various situations in life. There is a right and a wrong and you are to do the right and not the wrong. When you say "Dogs are Christians", I'm just projecting on to them basic fundamentalist Christian values and I expect them to have to uphold those. It is inappropriate of a player to choose to uphold anything else - that violates the background as I understand it.
Yes, but....
Well, it's like this. Projecting basic fundamentalist Christian values onto the characters works. However, it's the GM's job to set up a really messy situation where the application of said values is not clear to the group. For instance, in response to my scenario, you said that the proper response was to do nothing. What if another Dog disagrees? There's been adultery here, brother Dog. Aren't we supposed to purge the evil among us?
Now what?
"Splitting the party" in DitV works on moral lines. ;-)
And, again, some of the depth of play is found in the iterations of towns. So, you decide that the proper response is simply to walk away. Cool. The game allows that. But then the GM should craft a town that tests the application of the principle that the Dogs are standing on. Essentially, he should pose the question, "At what point *should* you do something?" And, because of the moral sense of the players or their understanding of their characters' moral sense, that will result in some sort of a break-down.
Quote:
To me, it seems Dogs have a highly structured morality imposed on them as characters by the background. Others say, "no, that's not true". I respond then it's a bit disappointing to have no structure to play - just do whatever I want whenever I want whatever is expedient. That's not a challenge for the player.
Oh, I'm not saying that you get to do whatever is expedient. I'm saying that the choices that you make as a Dog have moral weight, and it's the GM's job to design towns that test the moral principles that the Dogs have decided to stand on.
There's also a hidden feature of the game, that the PC might proceed in a moral direction that is repugnant to the player. For example, is it really okay to kill in the name of God? At what point does the player wash his hands of the character and say, "I'm through. I can't take this monster anymore"?
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
-
Brian Leet
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
-
I just can't get my head around the notion that in orthodox religious circles there is a one true answer that is always agreed upon and clear. I've never witnessed any religion where that was the case. If anything orthodox religions tend to produce more, not fewer, religious scholars, leaders and interpreters. And of course they don't all agree, if they did, you wouldn't need more than one major religious teacher in the entire religion. I suspect that if you brought your view of the clarity of right and wrong as a player to the table with another player who had the same level of clarity, but different interpretations of the right action in certain situations, you'd be recreating exactly the nature of the conflicts this game describes.
-
wobbler wobbler
United Kingdom
-
I think it's worth noting that the Faith in DitV isn't exactly like Christianty.
I'm fairly certain that there is a bit in the book that says something like the Prophets & Ancients of the Faith have derived specific doctrines as it applies to the here and now. But the King of Life (i.e. God) is also pragmatic, and allows those He has deemed worthy to judge exceptions to Doctrine in order to preserve the Faith as a whole. This is the job of the Watchdogs (i.e. the PCs)
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
GreatWolf wrote: And, because of the moral sense of the players or their understanding of their characters' moral sense, that will result in some sort of a break-down.
I said I wasn't going to post again, but I just wanted to say that this is the consequential point I was offering - it isn't a simulation; the game is all in how the players (who likely don't, can't, or won't share the views of the characters) will choose to interpret the views of the characters... "This situation won't be fun if we don't disagree, so I choose to have my character disagree, even though he wouldn't, so that the game will work and we'll have fun."
Nothing wrong with that... especially when it makes good gaming.
-
|
|
|
Posted Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:08 pm
