Wow, I now realise how little American history I know. There was a war in Utah? SLC I take it stands for Salt Lake City? I feel like a dunce. But then, if I mentioned the Eureka stockade, the Pub with No Beer and Bourke, then perhaps I'll feel a little better.
The only reason I knew what the Quaker-oats guy was is thanks to afrosquad.
After thinking about the players controlling their own morality, and the whole moral/good dichotomy, I'm beginning to see a link to KPFS, but this goes even further, in my reading of it anyway. See, in Puppies, at least there is an accountability to the GM in the form of grief. However, in Dogs (do I see a pattern?) the players seem to be accountable to a 'defined mechanical' system. Is it my understanding that there will be an 'audit' of some sort by the GM occasionally? Because your language leads me to think that the GM is not allowed to have a God hand-puppet at all.
I'd also like some clarification on, "Also, the PCs are answerable to God, not to the law; bringing a murderer to justice isn't their goal, but helping the community recover from the murder and the murderer's actions."
The whole distinction between God and US law is a great game tool. The PCs source their authority from God, not the state, and hence their actions will differ to those of a sheriff (shoot the guy, as morganminstrel suggested). But gameplaywise, there would be this unsteady tension between solving the problem and counselling recovery for the township.
Now my ignorance of Mormonism flows thick here. Do Mormons believe that humans can mete out justice on God's behalf? Because I would go to Romans 12 and say "'It is mine to avenge; I will repay' says the Lord". Which is of course a quote from Deuteronomy, but I prefer NT quotes :)
Where am I going with all this? I guess I see your apostle marshalls being somewhat toothless tigers (or Dogs). Because I don't have your list of commandments that your PCs will have to follow to remain 'moral', and I don't know quite what the state laws were like at the time, then I'm a bit stuck, but let me use biblical backing and modern law to illustrate my point.
There are some people committing adultery. Not against modern western law (not in Australia anyway). But detestable to God. Your PC comes on the scene. He pulls his non-sixgun, shoots the offending male, lets the female go. Now he doesn't have authority to do that. He has sinned against God, so he asks for forgiveness. And God gives it, fine. But the state of Utah does not. It drags his ass to court, because the courthouse has the best pole for hangings.
Are the PCs to be like superheroes - if the wrongdoer is breaking the (state) law, he binds them up with his lasso and takes them to the sheriff so justice is done? If it's not a state law, then the church has authority up to kicking the person out of the church.
I guess I'm trying to find the fun here. You may get to put clues together and solve a mystery. You may get to bop the occasional demon or sorcerer on the head with a bar stool. Occasionally the need to shout "Yeehaw!" may arise. But if the main job of the PCs is to provide counselling and recovery for a church... show me the fun.
Not trying to drag down, honestly asking the question. Or at least making the point. I'm sure the fun is there, I just don't understand the powers available to the PCs (except in absolving themselves from sin).
Now my ignorance of Mormonism flows thick here. Do Mormons believe that humans can mete out justice on God's behalf? Because I would go to Romans 12 and say "'It is mine to avenge; I will repay' says the Lord". Which is of course a quote from Deuteronomy, but I prefer NT quotes :)
In pre-statehood Utah (especially early on in Brigham Young's time), members of the Church were charged to defend the church and community By Any Means Necessary (for lack of a better phrase). Yes, I was only joking somewhat when I said that the obvious and semi-historical reaction to Lumpley's "alcohol-drinking, sinning tax collector" would be to shoot him--and then hide the body and say he "just walked into the wilderness; injuns musta got him." Briefly, the Mountains Meadow Massacre was an event where a Mormom militia (with, at first, Indian allies) set upon a settler band passing through Utah on their way Westward. After about a 3 day engagement, they killed almost all of the settlers. Although the Prophet and co. maintained deniability, the stage had been set for it by Mormon anti-gentile propaganda and one of Brigham's right-hand men was among the leader of the militia. So violence (against evil) is very much a component of early Utah/Deseret history. That's why I compared them to the Puritans a bit...
(Hope I didn't offend anyone here--not my intention. Most religions have periods like this.)
Is it my understanding that there will be an 'audit' of some sort by the GM occasionally? Because your language leads me to think that the GM is not allowed to have a God hand-puppet at all.
Not allowed at all, ever, under any circumstances. No audit. I think that maybe the GM and the other players can suggest to you how you might play a particular situation, but it's only up to you.
That's a terrific post, Fizban. Don't apologize.
So let's say that PCs have three stats: Devotion, Experience, and Wisdom, plus a combat effectiveness number and a social effectiveness number. I'm just makin' this up.
1) If your conscience is clear, you can add your Devotion to your combat effectiveness vs. the wicked.
2) If you're tempted to sin but resist, add 1 to your Wisdom. Say to your fellow players "I'm tempted to ___ but I don't, I'm taking 1 Wisdom." You can only do this if your Wisdom is less than your Devotion: Wisdom >= Devotion means that you sin or you don't, there's no meaningful Temptation.
2) If you sin, add 1 to your Experience. 1 point per sin. Say to your fellow players "I've sinned, I'm taking 1 Experience," but you don't have to name the sin.
3) If your conscience isn't clear, that is, if you've sinned but not repented, you can add your Experience to your combat effectiveness vs. anybody, and to your social effectiveness vs. the faithful.
4) If you repent, you're forgiven. Add 1 to your Wisdom and your conscience is clear. Now, you do have to name the sin to your fellow players, and you have to play out the process of your repentance, how you make amends, your penance.
5) Any time you want, you can declare that the Holy Spirit has come upon you and filled your heart. Subtract 2 from your Wisdom and add 1 to your Devotion.
6) Whether your conscience is clear or not, you can make social effectiveness rolls plus Devotion to perform the supernatural acts of your office: healing the sick, baptising converts, solemnizing marriages, casting out demons, prophesying, whatever. The mantle of your office is (within the range of the dice) greater than your own strength or weakness.
So now, is it better, gamewise, if you never sin? Maybe. Is it better if you sin lots and repent lots? Could be. Sin lots and never repent? Give it a shot. It depends on what you want for your character.
(This example is not how it's gonna be, it's just to show you sort of what I mean. Balancing the process - innocence, temptation, sin, repentance, each with game-mechanical consequences, is maybe the biggest challenge I'm facing in designing the game. The game system needs to equally but differently reward every course of conscience. I hope that when I actually apply myself I'm able to come up with something a little more sophisticated.)
Another player in the game might say "dude, you just totally gunned that guy down in cold blood, are you gonna announce that you've sinned and take 1 Experience or what?" and you might answer "nope. Mysterious ways, friend, mysterious ways." The implication here is that, whatever the laws, God told you to kill the guy.
This is possible in Mormonism, especially in the early Mormonism we're talking about. Commandments are for people to whom God isn't talking. God's immediate will supercedes every other consideration.
The other player might respond with "I say, 'that's nonsense,' and go straight to the Marshall. I'm sinning [by not recognizing God's will when I see it], so that's 1 Experience for me." OR, the other player might respond with "I'm tempted to go along with you - so I'm taking 1 Wisdom - but it's God's will that I go straight to the Marshall. That's what I do."
Why did God tell you to gun the guy down and then tell your companion to turn you over to the law? Because He knows His business.
Notice that God's character, the pattern over time of God's will, can't be set by any one player. Instead it'll emerge from play to reflect the moral sense of the play group. Stepping back, you'll be able to reflect upon what you and your friends have to say about God, by looking at the personality of God in your game.
Quote: Notice that God's character, the pattern over time of God's will, can't be set by any one player. Instead it'll emerge from play to reflect the moral sense of the play group. Stepping back, you'll be able to reflect upon what you and your friends have to say about God, by looking at the personality of God in your game.
Are you trying purposefully to get player morality involved in this game, or did you actually mean character morality?
This is something I personally try to steer my players away from, that is, playing themselves in my games. I have to spend enough time with them in real life without them taking personal offence when a supervillain rips their character (who is a representation of them) a new spleen hole.
It was my understanding that roleplaying was a form of escapism for most people, and hence your character might have a different set of values to your personal ones. Sure, yours will come out because you are controlling the character, but aren't you trying to play that character?
Perhaps you have a different theory on player/character dualism or something.
Next point, in Mormonism is God allowed to contradict himself? Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, is there no tension between free will and determinism?
The classic example being Judas Iscariot. Although God knew from the beginning of time he would betray Jesus, Judas still made the choice to disobey God. In the case of the PCs, God can be 2,3,4 separate entities, his mercy and grace being arbitrary to the point of whim.
Can your players contradict each other's control of God? In your example of course, God didn't contradict himself. He worked in a wierd and twisted way, but hey. Now in my simple mindedness, I can't think of a situation that easily shows my precept, _if God is allowed to change his mind_ in the way you implied. Is it that the players only control God's will as it applies to them? Because shooting someone dead, you would think, would be controlling God's will for your NPC too.
Now, if all players are agreed that God is sovereign over all creation, how are you as GM going to keep control if the players control God? Or do the players only have control of God's will as it refers to them? I mean, can a Mormon fly if God wants him to fly?
I see what you mean by characters getting big fast (Sin = 1 xp etc). With a CoC-type high attrition rate, it's not a problem.
Are you trying purposefully to get player morality involved in this game, or did you actually mean character morality?
Oh, I definitely meant player morality. But only if you step back, only if you reflect on the game as an audience. Your characters can have totally different values than yours, and you should play them with passion and intensity. It's in retrospect that you can interpret the game in terms of the values of the real people involved.
In general, you'll find that I use the words player and character/PC precisely.
So check it: your character acts according to his or her values, and you decide if it was a sin or not.
There's no reason for you to decide that your character has sinned or not sinned in particular, other than your vision for your character. If you see your character as unwaveringly faithful, or as a person struggling with temptation, or as an amoral monster, you get to make it true.
And that, in turn, is because the game isn't about your character's internal moral struggles. It's about your character's external, practical struggles with responsibility and authority and relationships.
"What happens if you make an amoral monster responsible for the faith of others?" "How does someone struggling with sin bear the struggles of others?" "Will power corrupt even someone who's faithful and pure?" Let's find out. If the GM has oversight, then we don't get to explore the questions, we only get to hear the GM's opinion.
Can your players contradict each other's control of God? In your example of course, God didn't contradict himself. He worked in a wierd and twisted way, but hey. Now in my simple mindedness, I can't think of a situation that easily shows my precept, _if God is allowed to change his mind_ in the way you implied. Is it that the players only control God's will as it applies to them? Because shooting someone dead, you would think, would be controlling God's will for your NPC too.
You, the player, have power to decide the fictional God's will as it pertains to the actions of your fictional character. The GM has no power to decide the fictional God's will as it pertains to anything. In my example, yes, the fact that murdering the poor slob was God's will implies that it was God's will that the poor slob die. But you can't just announce that it's God's will that some poor slob dies, so he dies. If the GM announces that some poor slob dies, God's will in the matter is indeterminate: you can't conclude that God wanted it just because the GM did.
For most of the things that happen in the game world, God's will is and will always be unknown. See how that works?
I'm not especially interested in the GM keeping control of the game, anyway. What I want is to get the players' buy-in, so they don't need controlling. They'll have as much invested in the game going well and keeping its coherency as the GM does. Catch the players' imaginations in a constructive way and you free the GM to do her real work: delivering setting and situations and playing her NPCs to the very hilt.
We can talk more about escapism and GMs and players and roleplaying theory if you want. Say so and I'll post my opinions in another entry and we'll discuss it there.
I'm not especially interested in the GM keeping control of the game, anyway. What I want is to get the players' buy-in, so they don't need controlling. They'll have as much invested in the game going well and keeping its coherency as the GM does. Catch the players' imaginations in a constructive way and you free the GM to do her real work: delivering setting and situations and playing her NPCs to the very hilt.
In my humble experience, players always see the game in a competitive way. I think it will take a lot of restraint/understanding on the players' parts to know where to draw the line. I have found that game cohesion comes more from a quick-witted GM than because players want the game to be cohesive. But then, perhaps my players (or me!) are to blame for that.
I must say on reflection that I think the game will be very interesting. Do you mind if I make a real world religious observation? If, "in retrospect that you can interpret the game in terms of the values of the real people involved", what will the game look like if 4 athiests play? Will it look the way they think God should exist if God ever was to happen to exist?
I see some people playing it, retrospectively seeing that their own opinion of who God is and what God's will is, (as well as the opinions of the other players), is so totally skewed and out-there that they will instead seek a more stable and sensical view. Which in my opinion, of course, is good.
Players play players. Let the characters play themselves.nikoteslaNovember 7 2003, 00:08:35 UTC
Players might play competitively within a game environment, but that doesn't mean they're competing with the GM. After all, it's trivial for the GM to put the players in a totally intractable situation. It's no challenge, it's no fun. Your GM is giving the players more authorship than you realize.
"OK, so welcome to Greyhawk. You all have your first level half elf thieves. You're in a cave. There's a dragon He eats you. Grobnar, you've got 1 HP left. Do you want to die looting corpses or runnng away?" And then no one lets that guy GM again.
I had a problem a few months ago where a player left my game because he thought I'd done that, tricked him into losing a magic geegaw that he'd really taked a shinin' to. He thought he was competing with me, when, in fact, I was really saying "be careful with that thing you got there! It's important to the story!"
Now, it sounds to me like your players are tactically oriented, as is your GM. That's perfectly cool, and I think will even work in DitV. But the story - blood relatives and all - is so critically important to determination of actions that God's voice will wind up being an aspect of the characters' personality and motivation, which will make the tactical situations thicker. Think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the restraint the heroes had to show because of the social situation involved.
Anyway, how much of a goody-goody do you want to play? Don't you want a little smudge of sin on your character to spice things up a little? After all, it's not like you've got Divine Aura +5; this is a qualitative, heuristic thing. It's your own conversation with God.
Kinda like life.
-J (Divine Aura +1, just like the rest of humanity)
Sintastic repentaciousnessnikoteslaNovember 7 2003, 19:49:11 UTC
I finally read this whole post. Ah, Friday evening. When the video games and reading for fun take over.
I love, Love, LOVE this self-balancing act. Love it. Lovity dovel it. I can see this working into other types of game, as well: Shame vs. Resolve in 16th c. Japan, for instance. Sin vs. Honor in medieval Europe.
The only reason I knew what the Quaker-oats guy was is thanks to afrosquad.
After thinking about the players controlling their own morality, and the whole moral/good dichotomy, I'm beginning to see a link to KPFS, but this goes even further, in my reading of it anyway. See, in Puppies, at least there is an accountability to the GM in the form of grief. However, in Dogs (do I see a pattern?) the players seem to be accountable to a 'defined mechanical' system. Is it my understanding that there will be an 'audit' of some sort by the GM occasionally? Because your language leads me to think that the GM is not allowed to have a God hand-puppet at all.
I'd also like some clarification on, "Also, the PCs are answerable to God, not to the law; bringing a murderer to justice isn't their goal, but helping the community recover from the murder and the murderer's actions."
The whole distinction between God and US law is a great game tool. The PCs source their authority from God, not the state, and hence their actions will differ to those of a sheriff (shoot the guy, as morganminstrel suggested). But gameplaywise, there would be this unsteady tension between solving the problem and counselling recovery for the township.
Now my ignorance of Mormonism flows thick here. Do Mormons believe that humans can mete out justice on God's behalf? Because I would go to Romans 12 and say "'It is mine to avenge; I will repay' says the Lord". Which is of course a quote from Deuteronomy, but I prefer NT quotes :)
Where am I going with all this? I guess I see your apostle marshalls being somewhat toothless tigers (or Dogs). Because I don't have your list of commandments that your PCs will have to follow to remain 'moral', and I don't know quite what the state laws were like at the time, then I'm a bit stuck, but let me use biblical backing and modern law to illustrate my point.
There are some people committing adultery. Not against modern western law (not in Australia anyway). But detestable to God. Your PC comes on the scene. He pulls his non-sixgun, shoots the offending male, lets the female go. Now he doesn't have authority to do that. He has sinned against God, so he asks for forgiveness. And God gives it, fine. But the state of Utah does not. It drags his ass to court, because the courthouse has the best pole for hangings.
Are the PCs to be like superheroes - if the wrongdoer is breaking the (state) law, he binds them up with his lasso and takes them to the sheriff so justice is done? If it's not a state law, then the church has authority up to kicking the person out of the church.
I guess I'm trying to find the fun here. You may get to put clues together and solve a mystery. You may get to bop the occasional demon or sorcerer on the head with a bar stool. Occasionally the need to shout "Yeehaw!" may arise. But if the main job of the PCs is to provide counselling and recovery for a church... show me the fun.
Not trying to drag down, honestly asking the question. Or at least making the point. I'm sure the fun is there, I just don't understand the powers available to the PCs (except in absolving themselves from sin).
And apologies for the long post.
Reply
In pre-statehood Utah (especially early on in Brigham Young's time), members of the Church were charged to defend the church and community By Any Means Necessary (for lack of a better phrase). Yes, I was only joking somewhat when I said that the obvious and semi-historical reaction to Lumpley's "alcohol-drinking, sinning tax collector" would be to shoot him--and then hide the body and say he "just walked into the wilderness; injuns musta got him." Briefly, the Mountains Meadow Massacre was an event where a Mormom militia (with, at first, Indian allies) set upon a settler band passing through Utah on their way Westward. After about a 3 day engagement, they killed almost all of the settlers. Although the Prophet and co. maintained deniability, the stage had been set for it by Mormon anti-gentile propaganda and one of Brigham's right-hand men was among the leader of the militia. So violence (against evil) is very much a component of early Utah/Deseret history. That's why I compared them to the Puritans a bit...
(Hope I didn't offend anyone here--not my intention. Most religions have periods like this.)
Reply
Not allowed at all, ever, under any circumstances. No audit. I think that maybe the GM and the other players can suggest to you how you might play a particular situation, but it's only up to you.
That's a terrific post, Fizban. Don't apologize.
So let's say that PCs have three stats: Devotion, Experience, and Wisdom, plus a combat effectiveness number and a social effectiveness number. I'm just makin' this up.
1) If your conscience is clear, you can add your Devotion to your combat effectiveness vs. the wicked.
2) If you're tempted to sin but resist, add 1 to your Wisdom. Say to your fellow players "I'm tempted to ___ but I don't, I'm taking 1 Wisdom." You can only do this if your Wisdom is less than your Devotion: Wisdom >= Devotion means that you sin or you don't, there's no meaningful Temptation.
2) If you sin, add 1 to your Experience. 1 point per sin. Say to your fellow players "I've sinned, I'm taking 1 Experience," but you don't have to name the sin.
3) If your conscience isn't clear, that is, if you've sinned but not repented, you can add your Experience to your combat effectiveness vs. anybody, and to your social effectiveness vs. the faithful.
4) If you repent, you're forgiven. Add 1 to your Wisdom and your conscience is clear. Now, you do have to name the sin to your fellow players, and you have to play out the process of your repentance, how you make amends, your penance.
5) Any time you want, you can declare that the Holy Spirit has come upon you and filled your heart. Subtract 2 from your Wisdom and add 1 to your Devotion.
6) Whether your conscience is clear or not, you can make social effectiveness rolls plus Devotion to perform the supernatural acts of your office: healing the sick, baptising converts, solemnizing marriages, casting out demons, prophesying, whatever. The mantle of your office is (within the range of the dice) greater than your own strength or weakness.
So now, is it better, gamewise, if you never sin? Maybe. Is it better if you sin lots and repent lots? Could be. Sin lots and never repent? Give it a shot. It depends on what you want for your character.
(This example is not how it's gonna be, it's just to show you sort of what I mean. Balancing the process - innocence, temptation, sin, repentance, each with game-mechanical consequences, is maybe the biggest challenge I'm facing in designing the game. The game system needs to equally but differently reward every course of conscience. I hope that when I actually apply myself I'm able to come up with something a little more sophisticated.)
Another player in the game might say "dude, you just totally gunned that guy down in cold blood, are you gonna announce that you've sinned and take 1 Experience or what?" and you might answer "nope. Mysterious ways, friend, mysterious ways." The implication here is that, whatever the laws, God told you to kill the guy.
This is possible in Mormonism, especially in the early Mormonism we're talking about. Commandments are for people to whom God isn't talking. God's immediate will supercedes every other consideration.
The other player might respond with "I say, 'that's nonsense,' and go straight to the Marshall. I'm sinning [by not recognizing God's will when I see it], so that's 1 Experience for me." OR, the other player might respond with "I'm tempted to go along with you - so I'm taking 1 Wisdom - but it's God's will that I go straight to the Marshall. That's what I do."
Why did God tell you to gun the guy down and then tell your companion to turn you over to the law? Because He knows His business.
Notice that God's character, the pattern over time of God's will, can't be set by any one player. Instead it'll emerge from play to reflect the moral sense of the play group. Stepping back, you'll be able to reflect upon what you and your friends have to say about God, by looking at the personality of God in your game.
-Vincent
Reply
Are you trying purposefully to get player morality involved in this game, or did you actually mean character morality?
This is something I personally try to steer my players away from, that is, playing themselves in my games. I have to spend enough time with them in real life without them taking personal offence when a supervillain rips their character (who is a representation of them) a new spleen hole.
It was my understanding that roleplaying was a form of escapism for most people, and hence your character might have a different set of values to your personal ones. Sure, yours will come out because you are controlling the character, but aren't you trying to play that character?
Perhaps you have a different theory on player/character dualism or something.
Next point, in Mormonism is God allowed to contradict himself? Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, is there no tension between free will and determinism?
The classic example being Judas Iscariot. Although God knew from the beginning of time he would betray Jesus, Judas still made the choice to disobey God. In the case of the PCs, God can be 2,3,4 separate entities, his mercy and grace being arbitrary to the point of whim.
Can your players contradict each other's control of God? In your example of course, God didn't contradict himself. He worked in a wierd and twisted way, but hey. Now in my simple mindedness, I can't think of a situation that easily shows my precept, _if God is allowed to change his mind_ in the way you implied. Is it that the players only control God's will as it applies to them? Because shooting someone dead, you would think, would be controlling God's will for your NPC too.
Now, if all players are agreed that God is sovereign over all creation, how are you as GM going to keep control if the players control God? Or do the players only have control of God's will as it refers to them? I mean, can a Mormon fly if God wants him to fly?
I see what you mean by characters getting big fast (Sin = 1 xp etc). With a CoC-type high attrition rate, it's not a problem.
Only trying to help,
Fiz
Reply
Oh, I definitely meant player morality. But only if you step back, only if you reflect on the game as an audience. Your characters can have totally different values than yours, and you should play them with passion and intensity. It's in retrospect that you can interpret the game in terms of the values of the real people involved.
In general, you'll find that I use the words player and character/PC precisely.
So check it: your character acts according to his or her values, and you decide if it was a sin or not.
There's no reason for you to decide that your character has sinned or not sinned in particular, other than your vision for your character. If you see your character as unwaveringly faithful, or as a person struggling with temptation, or as an amoral monster, you get to make it true.
And that, in turn, is because the game isn't about your character's internal moral struggles. It's about your character's external, practical struggles with responsibility and authority and relationships.
"What happens if you make an amoral monster responsible for the faith of others?" "How does someone struggling with sin bear the struggles of others?" "Will power corrupt even someone who's faithful and pure?" Let's find out. If the GM has oversight, then we don't get to explore the questions, we only get to hear the GM's opinion.
Can your players contradict each other's control of God? In your example of course, God didn't contradict himself. He worked in a wierd and twisted way, but hey. Now in my simple mindedness, I can't think of a situation that easily shows my precept, _if God is allowed to change his mind_ in the way you implied. Is it that the players only control God's will as it applies to them? Because shooting someone dead, you would think, would be controlling God's will for your NPC too.
You, the player, have power to decide the fictional God's will as it pertains to the actions of your fictional character. The GM has no power to decide the fictional God's will as it pertains to anything. In my example, yes, the fact that murdering the poor slob was God's will implies that it was God's will that the poor slob die. But you can't just announce that it's God's will that some poor slob dies, so he dies. If the GM announces that some poor slob dies, God's will in the matter is indeterminate: you can't conclude that God wanted it just because the GM did.
For most of the things that happen in the game world, God's will is and will always be unknown. See how that works?
I'm not especially interested in the GM keeping control of the game, anyway. What I want is to get the players' buy-in, so they don't need controlling. They'll have as much invested in the game going well and keeping its coherency as the GM does. Catch the players' imaginations in a constructive way and you free the GM to do her real work: delivering setting and situations and playing her NPCs to the very hilt.
We can talk more about escapism and GMs and players and roleplaying theory if you want. Say so and I'll post my opinions in another entry and we'll discuss it there.
-Vincent
Reply
So chalk one up for a new entry. :-)
Reply
In my humble experience, players always see the game in a competitive way. I think it will take a lot of restraint/understanding on the players' parts to know where to draw the line. I have found that game cohesion comes more from a quick-witted GM than because players want the game to be cohesive. But then, perhaps my players (or me!) are to blame for that.
I must say on reflection that I think the game will be very interesting. Do you mind if I make a real world religious observation? If, "in retrospect that you can interpret the game in terms of the values of the real people involved", what will the game look like if 4 athiests play? Will it look the way they think God should exist if God ever was to happen to exist?
I see some people playing it, retrospectively seeing that their own opinion of who God is and what God's will is, (as well as the opinions of the other players), is so totally skewed and out-there that they will instead seek a more stable and sensical view. Which in my opinion, of course, is good.
Reply
"OK, so welcome to Greyhawk. You all have your first level half elf thieves. You're in a cave. There's a dragon He eats you. Grobnar, you've got 1 HP left. Do you want to die looting corpses or runnng away?" And then no one lets that guy GM again.
I had a problem a few months ago where a player left my game because he thought I'd done that, tricked him into losing a magic geegaw that he'd really taked a shinin' to. He thought he was competing with me, when, in fact, I was really saying "be careful with that thing you got there! It's important to the story!"
Now, it sounds to me like your players are tactically oriented, as is your GM. That's perfectly cool, and I think will even work in DitV. But the story - blood relatives and all - is so critically important to determination of actions that God's voice will wind up being an aspect of the characters' personality and motivation, which will make the tactical situations thicker. Think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the restraint the heroes had to show because of the social situation involved.
Anyway, how much of a goody-goody do you want to play? Don't you want a little smudge of sin on your character to spice things up a little? After all, it's not like you've got Divine Aura +5; this is a qualitative, heuristic thing. It's your own conversation with God.
Kinda like life.
-J (Divine Aura +1, just like the rest of humanity)
Reply
I love, Love, LOVE this self-balancing act. Love it. Lovity dovel it. I can see this working into other types of game, as well: Shame vs. Resolve in 16th c. Japan, for instance. Sin vs. Honor in medieval Europe.
Yeah, yeah, lovitty dove it.
-J
Reply
Leave a comment