Susano-wo
2010-06-15, 08:17 PM
I hope this does not turn into a massive flame war, but I felt I had to do this game some justice.
In a previous thread about indie games it was described as basically evolve or die, in response to another poster's complaint that it was too deadly. The second poster essentially, it seemed, claimed that in dogs, the GM must escalate events to the point where you must either change your beliefs or die.
I really don't think either of these are accurate, though I do have to admit I have only played one session, and observed some play reports, etc.
But just from the book itself, the deadliness of Dogs is really not necessarily that high. The only way you can die is if you escalate to the third tier of conflict, which the game warns you you should only do if its "worth it" (obviously, that's a player determination). Basically the game sets things up with verbal conflict, which can escalate to physical conflict (basically fist-fighting), which then can escalate to weapon conflict. Only during weapon conflict can anyone die.
So its basically a matter of be careful how quickly you escalate to upper levels of violence, because that's when serious "fallout" (penalties from a conflict)happens.
The game is about making tough moral decisions, as Dogs are roving Judges, with more or less absolute authority from the church. The GM advice that the poster referred to in the last thread is about making sure that you test your character's beliefs. It has nothing to do with dieing or not dieing.
SO though Dogs might not be for everyone, Its a game that is designed to be about touch moral choices, and who's deadliness is largely dependent on player actions.
Really, it stands above a lot of indie games in my esteem, in that I see the emotional and narrative content that is adjudicated by the rules as being naturally flowing from a scene, rather than feeling arbitrary or forced.
In a previous thread about indie games it was described as basically evolve or die, in response to another poster's complaint that it was too deadly. The second poster essentially, it seemed, claimed that in dogs, the GM must escalate events to the point where you must either change your beliefs or die.
I really don't think either of these are accurate, though I do have to admit I have only played one session, and observed some play reports, etc.
But just from the book itself, the deadliness of Dogs is really not necessarily that high. The only way you can die is if you escalate to the third tier of conflict, which the game warns you you should only do if its "worth it" (obviously, that's a player determination). Basically the game sets things up with verbal conflict, which can escalate to physical conflict (basically fist-fighting), which then can escalate to weapon conflict. Only during weapon conflict can anyone die.
So its basically a matter of be careful how quickly you escalate to upper levels of violence, because that's when serious "fallout" (penalties from a conflict)happens.
The game is about making tough moral decisions, as Dogs are roving Judges, with more or less absolute authority from the church. The GM advice that the poster referred to in the last thread is about making sure that you test your character's beliefs. It has nothing to do with dieing or not dieing.
SO though Dogs might not be for everyone, Its a game that is designed to be about touch moral choices, and who's deadliness is largely dependent on player actions.
Really, it stands above a lot of indie games in my esteem, in that I see the emotional and narrative content that is adjudicated by the rules as being naturally flowing from a scene, rather than feeling arbitrary or forced.