Dogs is not about playing Mormom Zealots in the Old West. Dogs is about playing a moral authority of vaguely defined scope and nature answerable to no one in complicated social situations that often escalate to violence. That’s why you can play it in the Old West, at Sekigahara, in the Old Republic or in highschool. The mechanics flex to the setting color.

-Luke

I think I just have a really hard time understanding why you would want to use someone’s, at least in some sense, generic characters instead of some you make yourself. I tend to think that the only real purpose of standardizing like that is for competative purposes: Did you portray the character better than someone else did?

I may need to kick off another thread to discuss this: Why do some roleplayers prefer to play in games in which they are told what to do?

It seems clear that some people do, and my gut reaction is: “But that’s not right! They shouldn’t do that!” But that’s a bit judgmental of me considering I have no idea why they might prefer that…

So, Jonas, thanks for sticking with me. Hopefully the follow-up discussion will be as interesting as this one has been. (Also, I’m not cutting you off, feel free to discuss this some more, but I’m going to have to take some time to think about this.)

Thomas

For me personally it is not the same, but I do get your point.

Om the rule-less play it is of course not void of any structure (if that is even teoretically possible in any activity) but the majority of the free form scenarios is just “Here are your characters in prose form. Portray them as good as you can and otherwise listen to and obey the GM.”. Like “nomal” roleplaying but no resolution mechanics and very little defined structure of play. (I prefer those with a more well defined procedure of play myself, but they are less common.)

Getting one of these games for the system would be pointless, if it’s there at all it is short and nothing new. It is the setting that is the part that matters. Had I known of any good examples in English I would have posted them.

I just want to pop in and point out that “There are tons of systems out there for handling the stuff I don’t care about” isn’t the same as “What a game is really about is contained in its mechanics.”

(The former is a point well-taken in a design blog, I’ll grant you.)

I can get setting material from anywhere, and to be completely honest I can get better setting material from other places. If all I want is setting or other atmospheric material then I can watch a movie or read a novel.

You’ve mentioned “completely rule-less games”, and I must admit that such things lie outside my experience. How do those work?

Thomas

“On the other hand, if my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, why do I need to read your book at all?”

You could read my book because of the setting.

“It’s not like you’re going to offer me anything that isn’t already out there because there are tons of systems that are appropriate for just hanlding the stuff I don’t care about playing out.”

I agree if you are only looking for a rules system. But that is the problem with your reasoning. You immediatly think about a game as its system. I mainly think about it as its setting. Both ways are equally valid but your definition of “what a game is about” seems to imply that “games as their rules” is the objectively better one.

“Does that make sense?”

It makes sense in that I get what you are looking for in a roleplaying game. It do not make sense as a definition of what a roleplaying game is about.

I also want to add that I do think system matters, but it is certainly not everything that matters. A system can be better or worse at handling different stuff. The Dogs system would be very bad att handling the peripheral stuff I want rules for. The D&D system is bad for telling stories in a nar way. But as the purpose of the rules vary you cannot say that for every game the rules define what the game is about. The existance of completely rule less games is enough to invalidate that statement as they are certainly still about something.

First, I agree with you that you have to look at the entire work to really understand what the game is about. I just look at things a bit differently, and here’s how:

You say that you want the book to tell you what play is about and the rules to get out of your way so that you can do that. I want the book to tell me what the game is about and the rules to actually help me do that.

Think about it: If my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, and the rules actively assist us, then we’re that much better! On the other hand, if my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, why do I need to read your book at all? It’s not like you’re going to offer me anything that isn’t already out there because there are tons of systems that are appropriate for just hanlding the stuff I don’t care about playing out.

Does that make sense?

Thomas

Do you know what dogs is about simply by reading the resolution mechanics? No. Do you know what it is about by only reading the background? No. To know what a game is a about you need to consider both the setting and how that setting is handled by the rules.

Saying that D&D is not about fantasy heroes at all is like saying Dogs is not about religion at all. Or not about morality at all. Certainly dogs is about conflicts as shown by the system but that is not all. If you used the Dogs mechanics in a high scool setting it would become another but related game. If you play D&D in a modern setting it becomes another but likewise related game.

Does that still make sense? If the game isn’t about what’s in the rules, then why the heck have the rules?”

You can know what a roleplaying game is about by reading the book but not only by looking at the rules. There is a lot of other stuff in the books and they matter to me and I’m sure a lot of ther people.

“The most important rule in your game is “when talking to the big bad guy – you the player need to convince the GM, you can’t just fall back on your dice.”

Now if your rule book had that rule explicit in it, in fact talked about that right up front in the introduction, folks like you would know you’ve found the right game.”

No, becasue if there is a rule like that in the game is not what matters to me. What matters is what the game is about and a roleplaying game is not only about the rules. To me is is very little about the rules. I play a lot of pre written games with absolutely zero rules in them. They are still about something.

“f it isn’t important whether you fool the bartender or not, why even waste time rolling dice? Why not just say “you fool the bartender.””

If he is fooled or not is important, but how the caracters goes about suceeding or failing in that goal is unimportant. If it is not an interesting situation for roleplaying but still with an uncertain outcome, a dice roll does the job. In many cases just deciding works as well.

“I would strongly suggest you look for a Dogs in the Vinyard game to play in. You will see just how having rules that address what the game is actually about works. In Dogs, you never pick up dice unless it’s important. “Say yes or roll the dice.” And it’s worth adding Chris Chinn’s corrolary to that – if you’re not rolling dice, you aren’t doing important things.”

I’ve played it and while is was fun in some ways it forces me to play contrary how I like. To me, picking up the dice reduces the intensity of an situation. In the worst case it turns roleplaying into a board game. When it really matters, keep the dice away. That may not apply to you but it applies to me. Why should your way be universal?

My main point is that the rules is just one part of a roleplaying game. For some persons it is the most important part and for some it is the least important part. When talking about what a game is about both types of people need to be considered.

Does that still make sense? If the game isn’t about what’s in the rules, then why the heck have the rules? Your analogy of the rules of the movie theater is not valid. The correct analogy for the rules of the movie theater to your gaming is things such as “My house is smoke free.” “Take your shoes off at the door.” “The host doesn’t supply the munchies.” And yes, these are incredibly important rules that support what’s important (the movie, the game).

Here’s another angle to think about. Your game, where you roll to fool random folks, and whip out the best of your oratory to fool the big bad guy, has a system. It has rules. And those rules govern what is important in play. The thing is, that if you don’t grok how the other players are playing, you don’t get the game. Because the most important rule isn’t written. The most important rule in your game is “when talking to the big bad guy – you the player need to convince the GM, you can’t just fall back on your dice.”

Now if your rule book had that rule explicit in it, in fact talked about that right up front in the introduction, folks like you would know you’ve found the right game. And folks like me who aren’t confident in our oratory, or just want a different kind of play, can pass over that game.

And here’s another question: if it isn’t important whether you fool the bartender or not, why even waste time rolling dice? Why not just say “you fool the bartender.”

I would strongly suggest you look for a Dogs in the Vinyard game to play in. You will see just how having rules that address what the game is actually about works. In Dogs, you never pick up dice unless it’s important. “Say yes or roll the dice.” And it’s worth adding Chris Chinn’s corrolary to that – if you’re not rolling dice, you aren’t doing important things.

A last though: when I played my first game of Dogs, we spent something like an hour not rolling dice. And I was frankly bored and uninvolved. When the dice came out, boy did that change. We spent an hour not playing, but just diddling about.

Frank

Consider watching a movie at a theatre. There are certain rules you have to obey like buying a ticket, show up when it plays, sit in your seat and not talking load during the movie. When asked what watching a movie is about do you talk about this stuff? No? But they are the most important stuff for actually getting to watch a movie. The thing is that they are only there for *enabling* you to watch a movie. These rules take care of the unimportant stuff in a well defined way so you can focus on the actual experience. Watching the movie is the point of the activity, yet there are no rules for that, just the unimportant stuff around it.

It’s the same thing with many rpg:s. The mechanics is only there to take care of the stuff that is needed for play but really isn’t important at all.

I want rules for the unimportant stuff, rules that quickly and without debate takes care of the suff I want in my game but do not want to spend a lot of time on.

I want a rule for rolling to fool the bouncer when entering a random bar looking for information. I want no rules when trying to fool the evil genius that I have been searching for and finally found. Is my game about fooling the bouncer?

Not at all. You cannot know what a roleplaying game is about by looking at the system.