Yesterday, for Story Game Sunday, I ran a one-shot of the classic Dogs in the Vineyard.

Yesterday, for Story Game Sunday, I ran a one-shot of the classic Dogs in the Vineyard.

Yesterday, for Story Game Sunday, I ran a one-shot of the classic Dogs in the Vineyard. I was the only person who had played it before, and my hope was to highlight the game’s numerous strengths, including a very fun character creation process; the captivating setting; and the basic tension of the game, which is that your characters have to enforce a moral code that you, as a player, may not agree with. In truth, DitV should be played in multiple sessions, but we had a nice story arc for our one-shot, and I think the players got a good feel for what the game is all about. If nothing else, they got to see me do a boozy, older woman NPC, which is a specialty of mine, haha. 

The game was published in 2004, and is certainly starting to show its age a bit (all those dice!), but for the most part, it holds up really well, mainly on the strength of its setting. Along with The Shab-al-Hiri Roach, this is a game that would benefit greatly from a second edition. I would pay many American dollars for that. 

Thanks to everyone who came out: Kyle McCauley Russell Benner Jeff Burke and Steve Mains. 

16 thoughts on “Yesterday, for Story Game Sunday, I ran a one-shot of the classic Dogs in the Vineyard.”

  1. One thing I think people are missing when they get “attribute fatigue” from trying to pull every trait into every conflict is that this is a Vincent Baker game, so the fiction is just as important as the mechanics. If you can’t come up with a LEGIT reason for that trait, YOU DON’T GET THOSE DICE. If anybody at the table makes that “I dunno, man” face when you try to bring in something dubious, then NOPE. No dice for you. So if you’re getting bored because you use the same traits every time or because you’re trying to justify all of them for every conflict, well, stop doing that. Does that mean you’ll have to compromise more? Probably. Does it mean you’ll lose more often? Maybe. Does it mean you’ll have to be more careful about what conflicts you get into? Could be. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

  2. One thing I think people are missing when they get “attribute fatigue” from trying to pull every trait into every conflict is that this is a Vincent Baker game, so the fiction is just as important as the mechanics. If you can’t come up with a LEGIT reason for that trait, YOU DON’T GET THOSE DICE. If anybody at the table makes that “I dunno, man” face when you try to bring in something dubious, then NOPE. No dice for you. So if you’re getting bored because you use the same traits every time or because you’re trying to justify all of them for every conflict, well, stop doing that. Does that mean you’ll have to compromise more? Probably. Does it mean you’ll lose more often? Maybe. Does it mean you’ll have to be more careful about what conflicts you get into? Could be. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

Comments are closed.