WombatZone

The premise is that the PCs are Dogs -- the King's Watchdogs, agents of God who travel from town to town in a quasi-Old West setting, laying bare the sins of the people and then judging them, with a bullet if necessary. The default background parallels Mormon life in the Utah Territory. Most towns are inhabited mainly by the Faithful, who follow a religion of strict morals and separation from those outside the Faith. Complicating matters is the Territorial Authority, the secular government that does not share the local Faith. Also sharing the region are the heathen Mountain People (Native Americans), with whom the Faithful have a paradoxical connection: though the Mountain People today follow the strangest of strange religions, the mythology of the Faith indicates that they were once Faithful and should be brought back into the fold. However, as previously indicated, this larger background exists only to facilitate the premise -- PCs traveling from town to town as moral judges. Variant settings are suggested in the book itself, and others have been proposed by fans. These can be relatively similar to the default background -- PCs as Dominican Inquisitors in the Middle Ages or Judges in Old Testament times -- or quite different -- PCs as Mob enforcers, Eliot Ness' Untouchables, Judge Dredd Judges, even Star Wars Jedi in their "traveling mediator" role.

Character Creation
Characters are defined by Stats, Traits, Belongings, and Relationships. A choice of background from a few generic options (secure vs. complicated upbringing, for example) gives a number of dice to divide among these values. (The d4, d6, d8, and d10 are used in the game.)

The Stats are Acuity, Body, Heart, and Will. They are combined in specific pairs to form the basis of all actions in the game. Talking and thinking are based on Acuity + Heart. Physical activities other than combat are based on Body + Heart. Hand-to-hand combat is based on Body + Will. Ranged combat is based on Acuity + Will.

Traits are more specific things about a character, usually stated in sentence form: "I'm a good shot" or "I never learned to ride a horse." Each is assigned one or more dice from the available Trait dice. Lower dice tend to cause more complications for a character than higher ones, but there's no rule relating die type or number of dice to the nature of the trait. A player may rate "I'm a good shot" at d4 and "I never learned to ride a horse" at 2d10 if desired. The character is still a good shot, but calling upon his ability with a gun tends to cause problems in his life. Conversely, his inability to ride a horse will seriously affect the game every time it comes up (and could be used to help the character, if the situation calls for it).

Belongings are things the character owns, like a pistol, a horse, or the many-colored coat that every Dog wears to signify his office. A standard belonging has a rating of 1d6. That goes down to 1d4 if the item is "crap," or 1d8 if it is "excellent" or "big," and 1d10 if it is both. A firearm always adds an extra d4 to its rating ('cause guns are dangerous and likely to decide conflicts, whether for good or ill).

Relationships represent a character's connections to other people, institutions, and even sins (whether that means the character is prone to committing the sin or especially dedicated to fighting it). A player does not generally spend all of his or her Relationship dice at the start of the game, but saves most of them to establish Relationships in play, which can be done at any time the player likes. ("Boy, that guy rubs me the wrong way," or even "I think I'm falling in love with the woman whose brother I must judge.")

In an unusual move, character creation ends with an actual conflict (as the game calls situations where the dice come out), partly to introduce the mechanics to the players and partly to give each character a little more flesh. At the conclusion of character creation, each player states one thing the character hoped to accomplish during his or her training as a Dog. The player and GM then play out one or more flashback scenes in which the character has the opportunity to succeed or fail at his desire. The dice determine what actually happened, and either way the player gets a new Trait rated 1d6 on his sheet to reflect the experience. The new Trait can be phrased simply as "I succeeded/failed at X," or expanded into something like "I gained confidence from succeeding at X"; "I'm determined never to fail at X again"; or "I'm constantly afraid I will fail at X again."

The System
The system for resolving conflicts in Dogs is rather cool, though strange. First, those involved agree on the stakes for the conflict -- what will happen if each party wins. This can be anything from "Your Dog succumbs (or doesn't) to her womanly wiles" to "He tells me what I want to know (or doesn't)" or even "He splits your head with an axe (or doesn't)." It's always possible to launch a follow-up conflict based on the results of the first one, so it's usually best to keep the stakes small (and less likely to get someone's head split with an axe, to boot).

Now everyone takes out their starting dice (those of the two appropriate Stats, at least, depending on the nature of the conflict, plus any Traits, Belongings, or Relationships that immediately come into play). Everyone rolls all those dice and keeps them in front of him with the rolled results showing.

Now the person initiating the conflict (the one who can make the highest total of two dice from those in front of him, if there is no obvious initiator) declares a Raise, describing an action or circumstance that puts him at an advantage in the conflict, and puts forward two dice of his choice. If the description of the Raise brings in additional Traits, Belongings, or Relationships that were not initially used, he may roll those dice first and add them to those available, using one or two for the Raise if desired. A given Stat, Trait, Belonging, or Relationship can only be rolled once in a conflict, though.

Any other player whose character is affected by the Raise must now See the Raise, by putting forward dice whose total result equals or exceeds the total on the two dice used for the Raise. Like Raising, Seeing must be accompanied with a description of a response to the action with which the previous player Raised. If a player can See the Raise with only one of his dice, he "Reverses the Blow," and gets that die back to use on his own next Raise; he describes how the original action actually puts *him* at an advantage. One who Sees the Raise with two dice "Blocks or Dodges," and describes how he avoids or stops the Raiser's action. One who needs three or more dice to See the Raise must "Take the Blow," setting aside a number of dice equal to the amount of his See to be rolled later as "Fallout" of the conflict. These Fallout dice do not come from the player's own dice on the table, but from a separate collection of dice; the die type depends on the nature of the conflict -- d4s for talking, d6s for fisticuffs, d8s for fighting with weapons, and d10s for fighting with guns.

The next player then announces a Raise of his own and puts forward two dice, which all affected players must See. This continues until one of the participants (or everyone on one side, for a multi-party conflict) isn't able to See a Raise, at which point the conflict is over and the stakes occur as the winner specified. To avoid being completely defeated, a participant may Give at any time, which means he loses the conflict (and the stakes are applied), but he earns an extra die for any follow-up conflict, since he was able to end things on his own terms. Obviously, one would not want to do that in a conflict with life-and-death stakes.

Also at any time, a participant may Escalate the conflict to the next higher level (from talking to fists to hand weapons to guns). This is usually done when the player would otherwise lose the conflict due to being unable to See the latest Raise. That person is allowed to roll any dice for new Stats, Traits, or Belongings that apply to the new level of conflict, and add them to those on the table in front of him, giving him more to See with. Opponents must Escalate to the same level (or higher) for their subsequent Raises and Sees; if they're not willing to start a fight or pull a knife or gun over the issue, they must Give.

Once a conflict is over and the stakes are applied, anyone who earned Fallout dice from Taking the Blow rolls them. Depending on the value rolled, the player must choose from a list of possible negative consequences. However, the player also gets to choose a positive consequence from another list -- gaining Fallout is the only way to improve a character. This takes the "learning by experience" idea from other games and really makes it mean something. The GM rolls Fallout dice only for important NPCs. If no one cares what specifically happens to the Stats and Traits of the four thugs the rancher sent to "discourage" the Dogs, the GM instead gives the Fallout dice to the victorious player(s) for use as bonus dice in future conflicts.

Examples are provided to help players use the conflict system for everything from pistol duels (in which the outcome is decided in one shot, so the Raises and Sees must be things like staring the other guy down, thinking of one's wife, or the sun getting in the other guy's eyes) to extended learning experiences (in which the Raises and Sees take place over the course of a scene montage). It's even permissible to Raise or See by throwing in a flashback -- the example given has a Dog trying to track down an outlaw in the mountains; his player Raises by flashing back to the scene of the crime, where the camera zooms in on a bit of red dirt the Dog found left behind -- the same dirt that's found in the nearby creek bed!

Towns and their Sins
The play of Dogs in the Vineyard centers on the town. Every session (or every couple, if a town's problems take awhile to sort out), the Dogs come to a new town. In the course of carrying out their mundane duties (delivering mail, naming babies, blessing marriages), the Dogs discover problems in the town, and must penetrate past the agendas of different individuals and factions to get at the true nature of the sin corrupting the community. Having laid bare the sin, they must then judge it, resolving the problem in whatever way they think is best, as guided by their own consciences and the doctrine of the Faith.

The GM gets a whole chapter on creating towns, which starts from the progression by which sin corrupts a town. First there is Pride, which manifests as Injustice (an individual decides he's better than others and behaves accordingly). Then there is Sin, which manifests as Demonic Attack (either the perpetrator or the victims of the Injustice -- or both -- commits acts against the doctrines of the Faith, which allows demons to inflict the town with infertility, crop failure, disease, and the like). That leads to False Doctrine, which manifests as Corrupt Worship (a citizen "solves" the problem in his or her own mind by inventing a heretical belief or blaming the Faith itself for the problem). When three or more people adopt a False Doctrine, that's a False Priesthood, which leads to Sorcery (the demons obey the False Priest, whether he realizes it or not) and finally to Hate and Murder. (Violent crimes of passion may happen earlier in the progression, but the final step is demon-inspired hateful murder, either as a sorcerous sacrifice or to silence opposition to the false cult.) An individual town can be created at any stage in this progression, or even at different stages for different sins. As the GM develops the nature of the town's problem, he names and describes the NPCs involved. Soon a hotbed of clashing desires and goals is formed, ready for the Dogs to encounter.

The chapter also goes into detail on the doctrines of the Faith, especially those that can lead to really juicy sins if disobeyed. The Faith is a conservative one, relegating women (except for those called as Dogs) to subservient status, forbidding sex outside of marriage, making same-sex relationships a crime, and discouraging all but the most cursory contact with the non-Faithful. The author acknowledges that some of these doctrines may make players uncomfortable, but that they exist to make many sinners into sympathetic folk from the players' perspective, thus making the Dogs' decisions morally challenging rather than a clear-cut "save the good by shooting the evil" decision. The specific tenets can be changed, though, as long as the underlying idea of putting different moral principles in conflict with each other is retained. (Some fans maintain that Dogs is an even more intense game if the "doctrine" guiding the Dogs is closer to the players' actual beliefs, since then the idea of being the ultimate enforcers faced with messy real-life situations really hits home.)

The presence of the supernatural in a given Dogs game is up to the individual group. References to demonic influence and sorcery don't have to be taken literally. Mechanically, demons are just extra dice that the GM rolls when bad things happen, and sorcerers are people who get to use those dice. Whether there are obvious supernatural effects or just manifestations of bad luck is up to the group. Similarly, in some games a Dog's faith and the ceremonies he is entitled to perform may grant benefits only by enhancing the Dog's confidence or the town's morale, while in others a Dog filled with righteousness can actually bounce bullets off his coat of office or strike down a sinner with words of judgment.

GM Advice
The central tenet of the GMing advice in this game is that the players and their Dogs must be allowed to make a real decision . In no way are they to be led to a "correct" outcome, whether that be a result of the GM's own morality or of his sense of drama. The GM is to play the NPCs of the town and reveal its mysteries to the Dogs, then let them be the active force. The GM should have in mind what would happen in the town without the Dogs' intervention, but should not fall in love with specific events or scenes, as the Dogs may manage to change a would-be murderer's mind (or just shoot him) long before that juicy finding-the-corpse scene. Perhaps most surprisingly, despite the religious nature of the game and the moral quandaries at its heart, the GM is explicitly forbidden to "play God" literally as an NPC, or otherwise have the universe judge the Dogs' decisions. Playing NPC reactions to the Dogs' actions is fair game, of course, but the GM may not shape events to show how "wrong" (or right) the PCs were. In-game, the Dogs really are the final authority. The solution they come up with, whatever its mundane repercussions, is always the "right" one in terms of cleansing the town of sin and demonic influence. The GM and players are certainly encouraged to discuss the events out of game, and come to their own conclusions about the morality of the characters' decision, but there must be no GM-approved "right answer" in the moment. There's a bit of armchair psychology to the rationale behind this rule -- the author talks frequently about seeing new sides of one's friends by putting their characters in situations with no clear-cut solution.

What the GM is encouraged to do, is to push the envelope a little with each new town. He can't judge the PCs' decisions as wrong, but he can define them with further tests. Thus, if a particular Dog's decisions indicate a continuing willingness to put romantic love above other concerns, the GM should create future situations to test just how far that priority extends. Likewise, if another Dog always preaches giving the sinner a second chance, the GM should test whether that precept extends to all sinners. The purpose in either case is not to show the player "See, that's a dumb principle, it leads to this !" but simply to define the boundaries of the principle itself in the minds of the character and the player.

Overall Opinion
Dogs in the Vineyard is not going to appeal to everyone, and I'm not certain I would want to play it as written. I think it is a well-done game, however. I'd love to try out the "Raise and See" conflict mechanics sometime; they're different than what I'm used to, but look like they could be fun and flavorful with a group in the right mindset. The deliberately episodic nature of the setup makes continuing relationships with NPCs somewhat difficult, but the interactions between the Dogs themselves should really grow over time, especially once they've had a few differences of opinion over how to judge a town. The idea of deliberately facing the characters (and, by extension, the players) with moral dilemmas seems as though it would be an intense play experience, though I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with the "learn new things about one's friends" motivation. On the other hand, plenty of board and party games sell based on that very notion, so I suppose it is a valid reason for playing a game.

Hmm. I wonder if Dogs in the Vineyard would actually be the RPG to facilitate playing out something like a Law & Order episode. The protagonists are divided between cops and lawyers, but together they fulfill most of the Dog role. While they don't travel from town to town, they do encounter a brand-new situation in each episode and spend the entire time unraveling its complications. Usually, the story of what really happened is so convoluted as to have many guilty parties, several of them sympathetic in their own way. Frequently the lawyers differ over whether they should defend a legal principle to the bitter end, or make an exception for specific circumstances (and conversely, whether leniency for a sympathetic defendant is worth denying justice to a rightfully aggrieved victim). In the best episodes, even the final wrap-up leaves much room for moral debate, with the "universe" never fully coming down on one side or another. I would never have thought one could make that into an interesting role-playing game, but reading Dogs has me thinking it just might work.