"Dogs" shortlisted for Diana Jones Award

[Darren Watts]

Anybody who's talked RPG design with me in the last year has heard me pimp "Dogs In The Vineyard" by Vincent Baker as the most interesting new game design in years, despite being almost 100% at variance with our goals with the Hero System. The Diana Jones gang, who every Gencon give out an award for "excellence in gaming," have announced their "shortlist" of candidates for the award this year, listing "Dogs" along with the chat game "Code of Unaris" (which I'm not that familiar with) and "Ticket To Ride," the train board game by Days of Wonder, which is extremely cool if you're into that sort of thing. Here's the review of "Dogs" as listed in the press release- don't know who wrote it, though it was probably James Wallis, but it sums up my view of this outstanding game perfectly.

"DOGS IN THE VINEYARD
(role-playing game designed by Vincent Baker, published by Lumpley Games)
Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard is as spare as Greek tragedy, and
almost uniquely among roleplaying games, it is designed to tell stories of
similar power. Using the classic framework of the Western, it sets the
scene for characters who must act decisively to restore morality to a world
overgrown with sin. The moral argument, neither handwaved nor infantilized,
is the heart of this game. Combining the best of character-driven,
psychological roleplaying with careful attention to setting and conflict
design, in Dogs in the Vineyard Baker produces an uncompromising
exploration of justice and responsibility, and a virtual master class for
game designers in hitting what you shoot at."

dw

[Blue]

The name is a hindrance. I bet it has a great significance to the game, but I think it's a rare instance where some marketing might have helped.

I'll be curious to see if this pops up somewhere where I can browse a copy.

Thanks for the info.

[JohnTaber]

Here is a link to details...um...Darren pimped it to me already...
Dogs In The Vineyard

[BigJackBrass]

A genuinely worthwhile game, and a good argument for the value of specific systems in some cases (I know, I know... don't kick me off the boards, eh?) it deserves to do far better than it ever will. Personally I found the name intriguing, and it's one of the things which drew me to the game. Well worth shelling out your hard-earned on.

[JohnTaber]

Personally I found the name intriguing, and it's one of the things which drew me to the game.

That's funny...I also like the name when I heard it...

[Blue]

I just think that if I came to my gaming group, who are a fairly open-minded group, the name is an instant "Huh?", and therefore a slight impedement.

[Captain Obvious]

Looks like a pretty interesting mechanic.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml

[Markdoc]

Hmm. The mechanism sounds very Robin Laws influenced (Hero wars, etc) though perhaps a little better defined. We tried those in our RQ group and after numerous arguments on how to apply scores happily agreed to drop it.

I have to admit, though it sounds really cool in examples (where the writer gets to decide everyone's reactions), in actual play it blows chunks. It *could* work (and probably pretty well) if you have people who are more into the game than gaming, if you know what I mean: but then with a crowd like that rules become basically irrelvant: even basic D&D works fine.

So my reaction was "Hmm interesting setting. Use Hero system instead for play, though."

cheers, Mark

[SCUBA Hero]

So my reaction was "Hmm interesting setting. Use Hero system instead for play, though."

A thought I've often had, as well....

[teh bunneh]

It might be interesting for a one-shot con game, but (despite my love for dark westerns) I doubt I could ever get into a game like that. People who's job it is to force others to "...worship the correct god in the correct way..." have always been a big turn-off for me in the real world; I see no reason to play such people in a fantasy setting. I would consider such a game to be a "Villains" game, which might be interesting for an evening's diversion but not worth trying to base a campaign on.

Bill.

[Chris Goodwin]

I have to admit, though it sounds really cool in examples (where the writer gets to decide everyone's reactions), in actual play it blows chunks. It *could* work (and probably pretty well) if you have people who are more into the game than gaming, if you know what I mean: but then with a crowd like that rules become basically irrelvant: even basic D&D works fine.

So you have actually played it then, and found it to blow chunks?

I have read many, many actual play reports of DitV and found that people have enjoyed it massively.

Perhaps it doesn't blow chunks. Perhaps it just isn't the game for you.

[Lethosos]

I recall J slipping me his Con-copy of it for me to look at. Not too shabby--it's more RP intensive to work with, but the mechanics is easier to deal with. Even if you don't like the idea of playing a King's Dog, the mechanics (if you leave out the extra rules) works well in other settings, too. I would see this playable in a more intimate group, say 2-3 gamers, with one GMing it.

I've already scratched up some notes for a 'Claws of Steel' version based off the mechanics in Dogs.

[SCUBA Hero]

Sounds like it might be good for a PBEM game...

[Markdoc]

So you have actually played it then, and found it to blow chunks?

I have read many, many actual play reports of DitV and found that people have enjoyed it massively.

Perhaps it doesn't blow chunks. Perhaps it just isn't the game for you.

Actually I wasn't referring to DiTV, which I haven't played, but to the trend for "post-modern" games in which players define their own characteristics (Hero Wars is the one that I have most experience with - and that's the one I specifically referenced).

"Blows chunks" might be a little strong , but it is fair to say that my reaction to the various games that use this mechanic have been negative (and my experiences trying to run or play in them for more than a one-off game have been uniformly negative).

I don't think it's just me - since the number of people I know (IRL and online) who play Hero Wars but don't actually use the rules greatly outnumbers those who do. Likewise an Aussie friend's long running RQ game, wth a lifespan measured in years, suddenly closed down after switching to this type of system, amid some player acrimony.

Maybe I'm getting old and cynical, but the only people I know who are enthused about this approach - for all that it's "modern" - are people who don't play/run games, but simply collect them.

I've lost count of the number of conversations along the lines of: "So, how's your HW game going?" "Oh it's great!, The players have blah blah blah.." And you like the HW rules?" Slight pause... "Oh, now we're using RQ2/RQ3/My own homebrew/D20/Hero, etc".

This kind of system can work well for one-off games where the GM designs characters and the game - rather than the characters - is the centre of attention. But I must admit that I'm heavily biased in favour of longer-running games.

So perhaps I'm judging DiTV too harshly. The background sounded different from everything else that's out there (no mean feat) and interesting. But the "play description" sounded awfully like the hopelessly unrealistic examples given in HW and Dying Earth, so it triggered my Psych Lim.s

Cheers, Mark

[Michael Hopcroft]

So, did Dogs in the Vineyard get any awards?