Hier, das passt doch zu unserem Thema von Dogs Konflikten und Narrentum. Ron Edwards über Urteile und warum die Möglichkeit aufzugeben in Dogs absolut zentral ist:
“I think Giving is the most original and important mechanic in Dogs. It means either side can choose whether Fallout (in some cases further Fallout) is going to be a serious consideration in this conflict. It means that someone can introduce important information in the middle of a conflict which alters how the other person wants to play a particular character (PC or NPC). It means Raising, Seeing, and Taking the Blow have potentially-significant content
of their own rather than being "talking-tax" one pays in order to use dice. Therefore it allows judgment of fictional characters to play a huge role in the decision-making of the game.
Consider: the Dog's decisions are deemed morally right. So there you are, playing the Dog ... are you
, the real human being, prepared to take responsibility for the Dog's fictional actions? Because no one can be blamed for it but you. No one can blame the character or his culture or the setting or anything bogus like that - the Dog is right. But you wrote/created/moved the character. What about you
? [This paragraph paraphrases a key section in the rules.]
Giving is the primary mechanic that allows a player, any player, including the GM
to sit in judgment upon the Dog and thereby to express personal morality to an extent that almost no RPG has ever done before. This judgment is expressed as a radical change in someone's viewpoint or situation (most extremely, instant death), right in the middle of conflict, either the Dog or the person he or she is disputing with. What if I don't like my Dog any more? He or she is a son of a bitch, and I don't even want to go through any kind of repentance or redemption in my mind - the character went too far, and I am responsible. OK, in a later shooting-based conflict in which I am playing the Dog the same old way, bam! I Give. The Dog dies. And a damn good thing ("nothing in his life became him as well as the leaving of it," I'm probably butchering that quote).
Or a positive one works perfectly too. The Dog argues with the steward to quit being such a prideful dick and causing all these problems. They roll! The Dog's dice suck. The GM sits in judgment of the Dog - "he's right. He's just right. The only way the steward would continue is if he's a psychopath, and he's not." And Gives, hence providing his judgment of the Dog's commitment. (This example exactly parallels the use of the Sincerity die in My Life with Master; it is not a fudge or a gimme - it's a judgment.)
So a group which misses out on Giving is playing half-Dogs, kind of an anime-adventure paladin game with guns which often throws up hitchy/confusing moments during play, and in which the point
(besides shooting people) is a little obscure.”