On Baker's "Dogs"

I've feared to approach "Dogs in the vineyard" for too long. Feared to jumble up Vincent's ideas (apparently stronger) with my own scratches. To begin with, dogs are (almost) teenagers, invested with authority - and even more resemblance awaits further on.

And yet, "dogs" contain one more point of essential interest. Baker deals with ethical matters, doing it in such a manner, that any DitV game will be about some realy serious stuff. More important, somehow, those problems float off spontaneously, in completely natural way. Players agree to solve ethical dilemmas from the very begining (part of soc.contract, if you please), but even within game everything is subtile and thin, no compulsion over characters, no unnatural forced choices.

What I mean here, is that, for example, WoD books, while seemingly constructed around comparable questions, often fails to adress it clear enough. Declarated themes are easily ignored, setting itself lacks, how should i say, footage, something special to nail players to pre-established problems. Or, to be correct, GM can nail anyone to anything - bad form as is.


What I essentialy needed now - strong enough to open "Dogs", despite my childly fears, were to understand, how to install serious, deep and not-so-funny questions in game, and do it slick and naturally.
Characters may be forcefully limited to wanted roles, but no force can keep player within borders, can it?

Baker, as I think now, works via enviroment. One of the first rules for a playwright: enviroment creates character. A person becomes who he is because of people and events around him. So, right thing to do is carefully and very thoroughly create such a place, such a setting, where characters will eventualy but inevitably  grow into needed personalities.
And after that you begin to play.