thread: 2009-07-03 : A fun interview about Dogs in the Vineyard

On 2009-07-10, Vincent wrote:

Josh: I know the thing you mean, and I think the game's going to be pretty resistant to it.

Like, I've never played a game of Dogs where the character's history, the character the player wanted to play, turns out to have mattered. Confronted with the (pardon me) refining fire of towns in crisis, the players themselves abandon the characters they envisioned upfront. That's what I mean when I say that the game wins over even oddball characters - beginning at the moment of initiation, every character is effectively a blank slate, untested, receptive, no matter what the player envisions. There's no reason not to play with rules that acknowledge that.

Like, J, your murderer-brought-back-to-life character - did you get to fulfill your vision for that character? Your not-supposed-to-be-a-Dog kid, did anyone once question his calling? Challenge him on it? Make him defend his right to the coat and the book and the gun? (I was there, the answer is no.) Dogs' pre-play histories never really figure, so there's no reason - other than to reassure players who'd otherwise balk - to create them.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":