Episode Fifty-One: Defend Your Game -Special Edition-
Hosts: JOHNKELLY, Majdi, Lexx, Scott, Megan, Timo
If you are listening to this, then it might mean that you are trying to listen to Episode One of the Jank Cast. However, we have replaced the first six episodes with episodes fifty-one through fifty-six in order to give a better example what our podcast is actually like. If you would like to listen to Episode One of the Jank Cast, click the following link: www.jankcast.com/episodes/tjc_1.mp3
The Podge Cast/R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio
Steve the F.N.G. (Fucking New Guy)
Rob from Bear Swarm
Dave the Purple Hat Guy
Main Topic: Defend Your Favorite Game
Majdi’s Game: White Wolf
Timo’s Game: Dogs in the Vineyard
Megan’s Game: Dungeons and Dragons
Scott’s Game: Legend of the Five Rings
Lexx’s Game: Call of Cthulhu
JOHNKELLY’s Game: FATE System (blog entry about it)
Rants
Majdi: Rules Adherence
Lexx: Con Kidnapping
Scott: Furry Suit with nobody in it
Megan: Balloon Animals
Timo: Majdi is wrong
JOHNKELLY: Adventure!
Questions for Gaming Gods:
Dear, Ed Greenwood
Who would win in a fight: Yoda or Elminster?
If you want your questions to your gaming gods answered send them to Feedback@jankcast.com
You have been listening to The Jank Cast, copyright 2010 under the creative commons license. You can find out more about us at jankcast.com. All the music in the show is from the song, “Jank is a Dork Word” written and recorded by Todd and is used with his permission. You can send comments and feedback to feedback@jankcast.com Again, we are sponsored by Chicagoland Games, and this is JOHNKELLY reminding you to support your local gaming store. Now go out and roll some dice.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I’m glad you explained Dogs in the Vineyard a bit more Timo, I’ve heard a lot about that one but haven’t had a chance to try it. What I’ve heard about the game mechanics sounds interesting to me, but I must admit the setting as I’ve heard it described gives me pause. As I’ve heard it, you’re supposed to be playing religious watchdogs in the Old West, spreading their version of morality based on their superstitions (as illustrated by your “drinking is a sin” example in the cast). In other words, from an atheist’s point of view, you’re playing a villain.
Now, I’ve found that playing the bad guys from time to time can be very fun, so I’m sure I could approach the game from that angle or some other and enjoy it, I just have some questions: How much flexibility in character creation is there? Is my interpretation of the game basically correct? Would it be possible to play a game where the players made “Dog Hunter” characters sent to track down these religious fanatics? It seems the point of the game is to tell a story that explores different moral questions, how easy would it be to do that from a different angle?
I know I’m being lazy by not going out to get the book and research this more myself, but I’d like to get the take of anyone who’s played DitV.
My “drinking is a sin” thing was more about a misunderstanding of cultural norms as they pertain to my character: I made him as a light drinker thinking that in abstaining he was showing restraint. But in the culture he was from in the story, considering his overall background, That trait of drinking infrequently would not be a characteristic of restraint but of excess. That was the disconnect I was having there.
That out of the way, DitV is set up to default to characters playing dogs. However, there is no mechanical bound that says you must play as a Dog. Playing the setting where you are the Territorial Authorities trying to curb the actions of the Dogs is pretty possible. The real problem would not be in creating that character, but for the GM to create stories that play to that character.
Ditv is at it’s heart a kind of morality play. The PC’s are not judged by the world, or by the GM, or by any outside standard. The only real reference for good and bad come from the players on judgement of their characters. As such, the GM prep is all about creating situations that put the players in to situations where they have to make decisions about communities in hard, gut-wrenching positions that have already or about to spiral out of control and then leave it up to the PC’s to do something about it. All of the prep follows the tenents of the Faith, but I think you might be able to use it as is for a game about the territorial authorities.
…I’ll have to think about this. It sounds doable, and pretty interesting. I should point out that I am an atheist and I don’t view the Dog’s as villains: They are not inherently religious inquisitors pushing their religion to those who want to flee it, but rather problem solvers with a particular set of tools. If it’s a game about persecution, then that’s because the players have decided to make such.
I also did a review of Dogs here
You know, looking at that review, it’s still relevant but I would highlight different things about the game. Interesting.
Thanks Timo, that makes things clearer; I think now that the default setting isn’t as restrictive on the characters as I originally thought. Where I would put those characters on the shades-of-grey scale between good and evil would depend a lot on how much they use their faith to control people. But that would be a personal judgment on my part, which again, in a morality play game seems to be the point. I’ll give it a try if I get the opportunity.
See, I’m an agnostic-atheist and I LOVE Dogs, precisely because it allows you to play a very subjective understanding of good and evil, I think. Most “evil” people don’t think they’re evil (for all any of us know, there’s someone out there who thinks that we’re evil, right!), so the idea of playing someone who is behaving in a way which I feel is reprehensible, but who feels very morally certain is incredibly interesting for me.