2009-09-01 : Ninja vs Pirates vs Me - part 2

Ninja vs Pirates have just put up part 2 of their interview with me. I'm listening to it with one ear and working with the other.

We open with fallout, the theory and reasoning behind it. Fun stuff!

1. On 2009-09-01, Vincent said:

Oh and they made a YouTube teaser for this one too, here. I can't see YouTube from work, so I don't know how big and/or excellent it is.


2. On 2009-09-01, Vincent said:

Oh no! In minute 25, it was Matt Forbeck of course. I remembered his name 10 minutes after the interview, naturally.


3. On 2009-09-01, Judd said:

It wasn't Shane something-or-other who was the Deadlands person?


4. On 2009-09-01, Vincent said:

Could be. I don't really know anything about who did what with Deadlands. It was Matt Forbeck I was talking to for sure, but maybe he wasn't the line developer or whatever I said he was in the interview.


5. On 2009-09-01, Judd said:

I have no idea.


6. On 2009-09-01, valamir said:

I don't know what you're talking about but Shane Hensley was/is the Deadlands guy.


7. On 2009-09-03, Will said:

Hello Vincent et al.,

I wonder, why Lumpley? What's the story?



8. On 2009-09-03, Vincent said:

It's to keep me from expressing my full instinctive self-grandiosity. Whenever I see it, it reminds me to not inflate myself.

You know how self-grandiose I can be? Believe it or not, I could be much more!


9. On 2009-09-03, Emily said:

You should see, Vincent when he really gets going. ;) (note: not)

The Teaser is truly big, excellent and grandiose, however.


10. On 2009-09-22, Joel said:

I just got done listening to Part 2. The cool new Dogs nuance that jumped out to me: Relationship dice as disposable bennie points. It's obvious when you think about it, but I struggled forever with the dissonance of not getting to use those dice again once you leave town.

Vincent, there's an issue I'd like to discuss more deeply: You mentioned that though the book encourages group character creation, you never really see it happen—mostly folks just slump over their sheets scribbling away. You said that you're not really concerned about it, but for me, it's a fairly big pitfall in Dogs play. When the players aren't mutually bought in to each other's deal (bought in can range anywhere from "Ooh, secret witch? Then I'll be a zealous witch HUNTER—who's in love with you!" to "ooh, neat!")then play can be a bit lackluster and disconnected—"Oh, he goes there and does that? Eh, whatever. I'm going HERE and doing THIS!" I also occasionally run into disharmony of tone, like one guy playing serious while another's a clown, or one guy playing "thee and therefore" and another playing "howdy, y'all!"

I always thought that one of the (minorly) revolutionary things about Dogs was that it told you straight-up not to come to the table with your precious untouchable vision, or to sit around at home statting characters, outside the context of a group. I took it all very much to heart, but always had a bit of trouble actually facilitating the "group character creation" ideal. One thing I always tell myself to do, and usually forget, is to do the group character talk BEFORE handing out sheets—as you said, once everyone's furiously scribbling, all bets are off.

Any thoughts on how to facilitate this if you DO want it, or on why it's not a problem for you?



RSS feed: new comments to this thread