The Forge Archives

(Apparently this post was lost in the hack attack, so I am reposting it.  Yeah for writing and saving posts in Word!  At any rate I know that one person had posted 3 general questions in response, but I don't remember who or what the questions were.  If who ever posted could do so again I would appreciate it.  Thanks.)

Hello everyone,

Thank you for staying with me this far.  I have another installment to make in the world of AP and I must again apologize ahead of time for the length of the post.  I am doing my best to "understand" what is relevant in these types of posts and part of that comes from your responses.  The first part is something I was faced with in my character and the other was something another played did that led to some discord at the table which I hope will be illustrative of our group dynamic in some way.  This record of the game was committed by another player at the table.

[PR 27, February, session III]

Leuca is helping to rebuild damaged buildings from the civil strife in Harandor. Creedy (his woman Elya's brother) has disappeared. . . and it seems as though he was never really a part of the life of this town. At least not to the extent that Leuca has now become so.

Noone (Montana's 'inquisitor') has gone underground in Harandor . . looking to infiltrate the Haradan resistance movement. Without supplies, he's exhausted and starving when he and a little Haradan boy come upon a rabbit. . . and both manage not to capture it.

Down in Harandor, Noone enters a Haradan town. . . and takes work as a 'busboy' type in a tavern. He wears his apron for only a short while before infiltrating the local 'rebel' sympathizers. . . and even  begins 'recruiting' on their behalf.

Leuca's town gets overrun by Gondorian brigands. . . and he winds up in battle, fighting in the streets. He kills several. . . dragging a wounded one back into the town square, shouting 'Who knows this boy?'. . . and threatening to spit him with his sword. The brigands aren't anxious to lose the boy. . . but he's not their leader either. So while Leuca is speaking with their mounted 'leader', another brigand tries to sneak up on him from behind. A townsman cries out 'Lena!' (Leuca's name among them) and the situation goes to hell in a hurry. Leuca is suddenly beset by a dozen brigands swinging sabers, whips and other weapons. Leuca is getting overrun – wounded several times – about to pass out when the last sight he sees is. . . I was getting my ass beat like a drum!  I couldn't roll to save my life – literally.  I was getting hammered and could not effectively mount any momentum.  I was both angry at what was happening to the town, the townspeople, at my dice, and I was fearful that I was going to die.

Creedy galloping toward him – coming down the street with a number of 'wild boys' hellbent for leather. Just enough time for the image to register before. . . Leuca passes out. Leuca awakens much later, lying in a bed. Still alive. . . much-wounded. . . and needing time to recover, having weathered another after-echo of Gondor's heavy handed occupation of Harandor.

Leuca realizes he's not quite as badly wounded as originally thought. He learns that seven men are dead. . . two women have been taken and raped. Fifteen are wounded. . . plus a boy who got trampled, and dies shortly thereafter. Two buildings have been destroyed. . . but the bandits have been driven off. And fortunately for Leuca, Elya and Misha are unhurt.

Several days later Creedy and about 30 of his boys ride up to the house of Elya where Leuca is convalescing.  Leuca and Creedy exchange a few pleasantries after which Creedy drops the bomb that he knows that Leuca is (was) a Ranger of Ithilien and impassionedly pleads the case that Leuca, with his training in battle and Gondorian battle tactics specifically, should lead the rebellion against Gondorian occupation.

I am stunned by this turn of events and make several arguments against why I am ill suited to fulfill this request.  The DM starts pouring it on with Creedy saying that fewer lives would be lost if the rebellion was led competently and then Elya, my wife, starts in on me about wanting freedom and self-determination.  Finally I told Creedy that I was oath sworn never to raise arms against Gondor.  Now I never actually played out taking such an oath, but it struck me as something that would probably be very commonly done.  Creedy then counters that I don't have to actually fight, but I could train them.  There is also the issue of aiding and abetting the enemy, but Gondor is not "at war" with Harandor...yet.  So as a player I am faced with the Situation whereby I try and save whatever vestiges of loyalty I have to Gondor and refuse to aid the people of my adopted country who are suffering under the occupation and the chaotic aftermath of war.  Or I aid Creedy and the likes and lead or teach them how to effectively engage the Gondorian military, some of whom might even be friends of old.  Whatever choice I made would certainly reflect on my relationships with Gondor, the Rangers, my oaths, my old friends, my new friends, my new country, my new wife and son, etc.

I asked Creedy for some time to consider his plea and he rode off.  Actually this was me as a player temporizing until I could figure some way out of this mess the GM put me in!  The next day, after the game ended, I decided that I would go for plan C.  I guessed that Gondor saw Harandor as weak and thus vulnerable to future Harradrim attacks so was building forts and fortifying the country.  Plan C would roughly entail empowering the local populace to fend off banditry, demonstrate the ability to self-govern and hopefully down the line remove the reason Gondor has for occupying Harandor.

OK – why this point?  To demonstrate that Premise was not on the table - at all.  There were many intertwined issues involved but Premise was not being addressed.

This following section details an event that led a breakdown at the table.

Gralin was played by Chuck.  Chuck was the one who wrote this chronicle and this is an important fact which will come up later.
Gili was played by Chris.
Angrim was played by Dave.

Beneath the Lonely Mountain, Gralin son of Gurin completes the first phase of his training with the axe master. Studying as best he can to forsake his physical strength in battle, learning instead to depend on better technique, agility and technical proficiency. He returns to his 'home' for the first time in months. . . and finds a dwarf waiting for him outside his chambers. . . as though a 'watch' has been ceremonially kept there, waiting for his return. He is taken to a domed chamber high above the main halls. . . atop the thousand stairs. . . where Dain himself is present for Gralin's presentation of the 'Red Armor'. Gralin bears the armor as he descends the Great Stair. . . to where many dwarves are waiting at the foot of the steps. But he goes first to his father's tomb. . . where he goes to one knee and whispers 'You were more deserving of this. . . but I will bear it in your name and honor for as long as I have breath in my body.'

Gralin returns to his home once again. . . where many dwarves are waiting to be 'received'. Many bring gifts. . . and Gili presents a pair of matched writing quills of exceptional quality.  Gralin extends invitations to Gloin and his son Gimli. . . Urigal and his 'master' Gili This representation was actually inaccurate.  Chuck has a long history of avoiding having player characters involved in ventures that are important to him if he can arrange/justify matters effectively.  Chuck/Gralin did not extend an invitation to an PC, including Gili/Chris until Chris played out a scene where he went before his grandmother (Gili is son of Fili who was the nephew to Thorin II Oakenshield) who is very connected and claimed that he felt slighted by not being included in this socially prestigious event.  Logically speaking Gili should have been on the short list, he is of a prominent family and he is accounted (he has been on other adventures and is around 9th level).  Some strings were pulled and word filtered to Gralin that it would be politically beneficial that he include Gili on this venture.  Gralin is a hero of the realm, but is not from a prominent (read – rich) Dwarven family.  It was revealing to me upon reading this chronicle that the matter should have been recorded this way . . . Dwalin, brother of Balin. . . and a number of other dwarves for his upcoming journey to Thranduil's realm in the Mirkwood. Gralin also meets with Mira's father Nen. . . and asks permission to 'call upon her' in her father's house.

The great gem which Gralin ordered crafted – a ruby of consummate beauty inlaid with mithril scrollwork. . . is presented by Adan, the craftsman who created it. Gralin pronounces it to be known henceforth as 'The Fire of Adan'. . . and even Gralin is loathe to face the idea of parting with it. . . although that was the purpose of its creation. Secretly, even Holly (Gralin's sister) is envious of it, knowing she will never own anything of such value. She takes her leave of it. . . leaving Gralin and Balin to stare at the gem through the night . . . thoroughly enraptured by it.

Gralin makes sure the jewel-box is closed and put away before finally going to sleep. . . afraid that others may fall too-much-in-love with the marvelous creation, as did Adan, who begged at its presentation to be allowed to pay ten times its purchase price in order to keep it, assuring it would never fall into elven hands.

Gralin journeys from the Lonely Mountain in the company of seven dwarves of his own choosing. . . including Balin, his brother Dwalin, Gloin and his son Gimli, Gili (Chris), Angrim (Dave). . . plus sixteen royal guardsmen, led by Drar. Their journey to the Mirkwood realm of Thranduil is uneventful. Once under the eaves of the forest, Gralin pronounces that he seeks audience with Lisivas, mother of Hithgal. After a time, a warden appears. . . asking why Gralin seeks her. Gralin explains that he has come to pay his respects. . . and to offer a token of his grief.  In the beginning of the character's history Gralin was exiled from the Lonely Mountain (long story).  While in the Mirkwood he was beset by orcs and was being overrun.  Gralin saw evidence that there were elves nearby and called out for aid.  Only one Elf responded – Hithgal.  In the ensuing battle Hithgal was slain, but Gralin obviously survived.  When Gralin cleared his name and was returned to the Lonely Mountain as a hero he vowed that he would make a gift of sorrow for the mother of the slain Elf.  The gem, Naur Adan was to be that offering.

Gralin is informed that he, alone will be admitted. Gralin leaves his 'red armor' – symbol of the King's authority – outside the eaves of the realm with Balin. . . and follows his escort into the woodland realm. After much travel, he comes to a clearing where a counselor informs Gralin that Lisivas is recently 'gone'. . . headed westward (i.e. across the ocean). Gralin had already considered this as a possibility. . . and after expressing his grief, asked to be returned to his kin. He was refused. . . and told that the king (Thranduil) wished to see the gift he intended to bring Lisivas. Gralin refused the request. . . and was 'summoned' to the throne room anyway. . . where Thranduil walked 'past' him from behind to mount his throne, after which he poised his chin upon a fist, resting his elbow upon the arm of his chair.

Thranduil began by saying "You have brought us a gift". . . and asked to see it. All of Thranduil's words and questions were all 'angled' towards insisting that Gralin leave the 'gift' with him. . . insisting on his 'right' to take possession of it, which Gralin refused, attesting and ultimately proclaiming to all within the hearing of all that his property was to remain his property, once it became clear that to him that Thranduil was going to have the item seized to examine it. Gralin again confirmed and affirmed that which he was about to expose was and was to remain his property. . . then declared 'Behold Naur Adan!' (Behold the Fire of Adan).  Yes, Thranduil was angling to get his hands on the gem, but long before Thranduil starting "insisting" Gralin/Chuck was being petulant and haughty towards a king is his own throne room in front of his own court!  Very early on Gralin was "proclaiming" that his property was to remain his property.  This happened so early in the meeting that I was growing irritated with how arrogant the dwarf was being played.  This, in my opinion, was extremely egregious, as Gralin was not even answering questions put to him by the king but continued to make his proclamations in a very authoritative tone, as if one were addressing a person of lower station.  This was so out of control that I wrote a note to another player at the table about this and he sent one back saying that Gralin "needed a humble enema."

Thranduil redoubled his demands for the jewel – which Gralin refused to assent to. Ultimately, Thranduil ordered Gralin conducted from the throneroom. . . along with the jewel. . . and once it was Gralin was being led at spearpoint down to the dungeons, Gralin screamed 'Thief!'  Actually this is a slight misrepresentation.  While the guards did have spears they never lowered them nor ever made any sort of overtly threatening or aggressive move.  He screamed it again – followed by 'Petty thief!'. . . whereupon an enraged Thranduil ran down the stairs after Gralin – snatching the jewel from Gralin's tunic.  What was omitted from Chuck's record was that Thranduil said, "If a thief I am called, then a thief I shall be!"  Gralin tried to keep it from happening but reacted too slowly – screaming 'Thief!' once again.  An enraged Thranduil was on the point of ordering his execution then-and-there. . . hissing 'Say-it-one-more-time'. . . and Gralin bit his tongue. . . after which he was conducted to the dungeon, sans his treasure.

Out in the forest, the dwarves waiting for Gralin were informed by an elven messenger: 'Good news! Your companion has done well and is spending time with the king. He wishes you to depart. . . and he will follow in a few weeks.' More messages of a similar nature followed. . . each supposedly at the behest of Gralin, urging his kin in more strident terms to return to the Lonely Mountain without him.

Gralin was dragged before a counselor, who spoke of Gralin 'breaking laws' and 'uttering curses', accusing him of espionage, etc.  The charge of espionage, while obviously fabricated stemmed from the fact that Gralin changed his story during his audience with the king of the Elves.  Gralin originally explained his reason for coming so as to make a grief offering to Lisivas.  During the audience Thranduil disclosed that Lisivas had just recently left for the utter west and that he would be happy to take delivery of the gem and see that it got to her.  Gralin declined the offer, so then was questioned as to why he came in the first place, "Was it not to see that Lisivas received the gift?"  Gralin then answered, "No."  So now, in his petulance, Gralin had removed the reason for his presence in the Elven realm and henceforth would not answer any question as to why he was then in the realm other than to proclaim that his property shall stay his.  They offered Gralin a chance 'in their mercy' to leave if he promised to gift the gem and think of it no more. Gralin laughed. . . demanded to be released with 'his property'. . . and was returned to his cell, with the counselor promising that 'Ere you see me again, you shall beg for the meeting.'

Eventually, the dwarves in the forest were told in a radical reversal that Gralin had offended the king – not in one way, but in many – and they were ordered to leave the forest. Informed in harsh terms that if they were still there in the morning, 'Old hatreds will be rekindled.' Balin is ready to launch himself into battle over the stream which marks the boundary-line of the realm. . . but Gloin calls him back, saying words-to-the-effect-of 'Little good would twenty-three be.' Then continuing in louder voice for benefit of the elves: 'But know that we will return for our kin.' Thus saying, the dwarves turned to go. But unlike the stately procession of their arrival, they run through what remains of the forest and out into the open plains at battle-speed, in formation with weapons at the ready. Running for the Lonely Mountain with thinly-veiled rage and thinly-veiled rage in their countenance.

Gralin is afterwards conducted before the counselor once again – without asking for the meeting -- where it is pronounced that he will be sent forth from the realm, with his name stricken from all records. Gralin smiles, knowing it's a wonderful way for Thranduil to 'cover' his own guilt – to the very-limited-extent that a monarch need 'cover' anything within his own realm. The counselor then departs. . . leaving Gralin with four guards, who escort him from the chamber to the open-air world outside.

Ironically, they insist Gralin is to be blindfolded on the way out of the kingdom. Gralin comments ironically that it is customary to 'hoodwink' the victim before the theft, not afterwards. He also asks that since he expects to be delivered 'naked' on the eaves of the forest, without weapons, armor, his companions or any provisions, that some weapon is appointed to him. The request is denied. . . and Gralin considers appealing it. . . but decides against it. If this is the 'justice' of the elves, so be it. He is conducted to the edge of the realm. . . where he is unblindfolded. But before the guard departs, Gralin pronounces in a loud voice: 'I have been thieved by the self-proclaimed King of All Elves.' Thus saying, Gralin goes on his way.

Gralin's mindset at this point is 'All the good elves are gone. Dead in battle or gone over the sea. Those who remain are little better than orcs.'

At this break point in the game the tabled erupted into questions that basically fell along the lines of, "What were you thinking?"  "Do you realize what would happen to the world, and the war of the Rings, if the Elves and the Dwarves went to war?"  "Do you realize that you were talking down to a king in his own throne room?"

Given that we are not there to make moral judgments in Sim, where did all this rancor come from?  This was not the first time that the player had escalated events and nearly suicided his character when he "felt" that he was facing a no-win situation.  That last time he did this the game ended with a near total party kill as the two sides went at it, because he egged them on once he "felt" that events had become hopeless.  The key here is that events had not yet become hopeless when the player decided they had become so.  The situation with Thranduil was not yet at a dead end when Gralin felt there was nothing left to gain and became offensive and rude towards the king effectively calling him a thief long before the king had started to exert his authority.

But what I think was most "telling" was that everyone at the table was very worried about what a disaster would befall the world if war was waged between the Mirkwood Elves and the Dwarves.  While all this was going on, the GM said we can discuss this matter, but you cannot "attack" the player for his decisions.

So there you have it.  Simulationism.

Quote
I am stunned by this turn of events and make several arguments against why I am ill suited to fulfill this request. The DM starts pouring it on with Creedy saying that fewer lives would be lost if the rebellion was led competently and then Elya, my wife, starts in on me about wanting freedom and self-determination. Finally I told Creedy that I was oath sworn never to raise arms against Gondor. Now I never actually played out taking such an oath, but it struck me as something that would probably be very commonly done. Creedy then counters that I don't have to actually fight, but I could train them. There is also the issue of aiding and abetting the enemy, but Gondor is not "at war" with Harandor...yet. So as a player I am faced with the Situation whereby I try and save whatever vestiges of loyalty I have to Gondor and refuse to aid the people of my adopted country who are suffering under the occupation and the chaotic aftermath of war. Or I aid Creedy and the likes and lead or teach them how to effectively engage the Gondorian military, some of whom might even be friends of old. Whatever choice I made would certainly reflect on my relationships with Gondor, the Rangers, my oaths, my old friends, my new friends, my new country, my new wife and son, etc.

I asked Creedy for some time to consider his plea and he rode off. Actually this was me as a player temporizing until I could figure some way out of this mess the GM put me in! The next day, after the game ended, I decided that I would go for plan C. I guessed that Gondor saw Harandor as weak and thus vulnerable to future Harradrim attacks so was building forts and fortifying the country. Plan C would roughly entail empowering the local populace to fend off banditry, demonstrate the ability to self-govern and hopefully down the line remove the reason Gondor has for occupying Harandor.

OK – why this point? To demonstrate that Premise was not on the table - at all. There were many intertwined issues involved but Premise was not being addressed.

How would this have looked if "premise was involved?"

-Marco

Hey Marco,

Quote from: MarcoHow would this have looked if "premise was involved?

Beats me.  There are so many issues/relationships/conflicts involved I am rather baffled as to how a single one could be culled out as being the Premise.

Like a bricoleur who is faced with a "machine" that was just knocked out of balance and only having a few rather wonky "objects" with which to "fix" the problem, I must consider which "object" I will employ (the choice that I will make) because each "object" carries its own baggage.  Thus, in making whatever choice of which "object" I will employ (make my choice on how to respond) I have to carefully weigh all of the implications of any choice I make on the "machine" as a whole since no "object" will "fix" the problem without introducing some other problems as well.  Like choosing where and how much weight to add to a given spot in a spider's web, I have to take into account all the possible effects any such action will have on the whole rest of the web.  My choice lies in deciding which "fixes" are worth which "future problems" on the whole.

Well, I agree: I see lots of premises in play there. If a human experience problem gets too complex, when does it become Sim?

-Marco

When the players let it? :)

Hey Marco,

Quote from: MarcoWell, I agree: I see lots of premises in play there. If a human experience problem gets too complex, when does it become Sim?

When play does not focus on humankind experience problems.  Whereas you see Premises, I don't see any at all.  It's not because the potential does not exist, rather there is no focus upon the various conflicts as a vehicle for a statement beyond the SIS itself.  I am not interested, for example, in plumbing the nature of friendship, but rather in the expression or not of it as a quality of that character – which is one of the ways that meaning is imparted upon his relationship to his oaths, Ranger friends, his wife and step son, etc.

To me Narrativist play is where a Premise is (or several are) mindfully a continually/repeatedly "attacked" from many sides to create one "theme."  In Sim the response to a given conflict has many ramifications that must (should) all be considered in that moment in order to mindfully create the increasingly complex web (history) of meaningful interrelationships of the elements being operated on within the SIS.  Think of Chris' toaster or iron examples.

If you find the humankind issues interesting to you, then great!  You're a Narrativist!  Hot dog!  But I know that I am not interested in exploring humankind issues, but rather in creating, expanding and living in the Dream called Middle Earth via that tool which is available to me as a player – the character.  How do I do this?  By making the kinds of decisions I think other Ranger's, father's, husband's, ex-patriots of Gondor, men, etc. would make who actually lived in Middle Earth.  The point is that if you are seeing Premise there, it is because you are organizing/structuring the conflicts in a way that in not inherent to the Situation.  IOW this is merely an example of how three different players with three different CA's can look at the same Situation and have three incompatable approaches to it.

But what hasn't been taken into account, which is partly my fault, is all the other elements of play that happen outside the SIS which are very important.  There after game "debriefs" where we discuss the implications (read meanings) in a kibitzing sort of way of the events and the decisions made during the game.  There are many discussions about the various cultures in Middle Earth, filling in holes in the original material or giving our interpretations of the original material.  In discussing a new character there is much thought given to his role and relationship to his culture.  There are discussions as to his skills, but the most fun is creating something that hasn't been done before.  Many times these discussions are borne out of what transpired in play.  Often times there are discussions about how someone did this really cool new thing (added something new to the elements of Middle Earth) – how an elf sing an arrow from a tree, how a Black Commando used this wicked cool new killing move in play, or for example how (as the GM said – not to toot my own horn which I really am uncomfortable with) I played a Dunedain in the singularly best ("role-defining" was the phrase he used) performance he has ever seen it in 20+ years he has been running them.

I would post an example of that interaction and the important following game as well, but the general lack of interest (for whatever reasons - which may include my poor posting skills) is telling me not to expend too much more effort in this forum.

Hey Callan,

Quote from: NoonWhen the players let it? :)

Lol. =oD

I know that someone asked a question about the player I was griping about and how we handled it before the hack erased the original post.  

In our game the GM typically prefers us to handle problems by referring them through him.  So we did.  Though there was some direct conversation with the "offending" player on the ride home.  He (Chuck) is fully convinced that he made the right choice; that there is no other possible/valid interpretation to the events.  My position is that one may choose to play their character, even to detriment, and that is fine.  It is very tough to make those kinds of decisions on the spot, which is why so much latitude is generally given when things do go badly.  However, to not even consider other points of view in discussion afterwards is, to me, problematic.  Part of the point of the game is to have varying points of view on the events that transpired.  This is why the post game "debriefs" are so much fun and really are important.  Not only what is said, but also how it is said and how long the topic is dealt with and by how many people the GM gets an idea of what is important (meaningful) to the players.

I should note in closing that the player of the dwarf (Chuck) is generally an excellent player, has been in the game almost from its inception, is typically is a real asset to the game.  Like bricoling, everything has baggage that must be dealt with – its an integral part of the process itself!  As long as we are in the net gain department we are in good waters.

Quote from: Silmenume
I would post an example of that interaction and the important following game as well, but the general lack of interest (for whatever reasons - which may include my poor posting skills) is telling me not to expend too much more effort in this forum.

Well, there was a lot of response to your previous post -- I think people are just catching up on all the stuff now that the Forge is back up.

As for me, I find these accounts of the game fascinating, but I don't know what to say. It seems like in some ways the player of the dwarf in the scene with Thranduil was being heckled for stuff that makes perfect sense to do from a Sim perspective.

Objects so beautiful that they inspire uncontrollable greed in whoever sees them are a perfectly fine component in Middle-Earth, as is disaster being caused by a conflict between haughty elves and overconfident dwarves. I'm not sure where the problem is.*

*Actually, one thing that keeps coming up for me when I run fantasy or historical games is that the players tend to come in with very modern mindsets, so the player may have been thinking "you can't do that! That's mine! I've got rights, y'know!" when of course he has no rights all.

Quote from: SilmenumeI know that someone asked a question about the player I was griping about and how we handled it before the hack erased the original post.

In our game the GM typically prefers us to handle problems by referring them through him. So we did. Though there was some direct conversation with the "offending" player on the ride home. He (Chuck) is fully convinced that he made the right choice; that there is no other possible/valid interpretation to the events. My position is that one may choose to play their character, even to detriment, and that is fine. It is very tough to make those kinds of decisions on the spot, which is why so much latitude is generally given when things do go badly. However, to not even consider other points of view in discussion afterwards is, to me, problematic. Part of the point of the game is to have varying points of view on the events that transpired. This is why the post game "debriefs" are so much fun and really are important. Not only what is said, but also how it is said and how long the topic is dealt with and by how many people the GM gets an idea of what is important (meaningful) to the players.

-emphasis added

I think that was me.  Note the bold quoted text.  What does that mean in play?  Latitude as in you can go back and retroactively change your decisions, or as in you are somewhat protected from the consequences of your decisions, or what?

Now take a look at the underlined quoted text.  Could you expand on how this works in play?  How do you consider other points of view (you seem to touch on this briefly toward the end of the quoted text).  Some examples of "seeing things from other points of view" would be cool.

And I'm not sure if this made it into the original post, but I think it's an important question... you said:

QuoteBut what I think was most "telling" was that everyone at the table was very worried about what a disaster would befall the world if war was waged between the Mirkwood Elves and the Dwarves. While all this was going on, the GM said we can discuss this matter, but you cannot "attack" the player for his decisions.

If the player had kept pushing and kept pushing (let's say that he was looking for a war), who would have "won"?  The player, or the world?  Would you have shot down his contributions because of the disruption of the world, or would you have allowed the world to be disrupted?  Why?

Thomas

Hey James,

Quote from: James HollowayIt seems like in some ways the player of the dwarf in the scene with Thranduil was being heckled for stuff that makes perfect sense to do from a Sim perspective.

In many senses you are correct.  That a dwarf would have no love or trust of the Elves, especially Elves of the Mirkwood and King Thranduil in particular is perfectly plausible.

The areas we other players had issues with lay along these lines –

• Dwarves, as we play them, have a profoundly structured society.  They, probably more than even the Elves, have a deep and abiding respect and understanding for social hierarchy.  The player of the dwarf never treated with Thranduil as if he were a king.
• Dwarves are not fools; of the free peoples in Middle Earth they are second only to Elves in wisdom.  They are also an incredibly intelligent and learned people.  The player quickly picked up, before he was even summoned to an audience in the King's chamber, that something was afoot and rightly so.  However for all that intelligence and wisdom the player immediately torpedoed any possibility of salving the King's ego while holding onto his gem.  The dwarf would have known and the player certainly new that this situation was a powder keg and he went immediately about lighting the fuse.
• This is not the first time the player has lit the fuse in what was desperate, but not an impossible situation.  In another game, sometime in the last year, the player in question was playing a man of Dale with his brother who was another PC.  The set up was in the land of Dorwinion which is constantly pressed by attacks from Easterlings.  The PC and his brother were visiting cousins in Dorwinion where my character lived.  I was playing a "half-breed" scout/tracker/hunter (half Dorwinion, half Easterling) who was called in when the young daughter of the cousin of the PC's was taken by "somethings that were bi-pedal."  I was not popular with everyone in the area, but I knew my craft better than anyone there and was friendly with the particular family, so off I went.  The locals gathered some men and followed as best they could.  Along the way I found tracks that indicated that the perpetrators were ambushed, killed and the girl taken by things that were larger than men.  At this moment I came across a small encampment of Easterlings that I was friendly with – their leader was a PC who's Character was not terribly enthused by the brutality and infighting of his people (the Easterlings) and was somewhat interested in "advanced society" of the people of Dorwinion.  I established an agreement with the Easterlings for their aid in this venture.  However, when I brought the two groups together there was immediate tension with hatreds and mistrusts.  Part of this was stoked by the GM via NPC's, however Chuck saw how one of the NPC Easterlings was getting in the face of one of the PC's (a new player who was a Dorwinion related to the missing girl).  Seeing the situation as impossible (where as the rest of us saw it as extremely difficult) started a fight that basically ended up in a total party kill.  Everyone was stunned and we asked him what he was thinking.  He claimed that he felt he was going to betrayed at some point and that the situation was hopeless so better to get rid of the Easterlings and then move on.  However the situation was not hopeless and his opinion resulted in everyone's death.  (I had left saying if all they were interested in was killing each other then so be it, I have a little girl to try and save.  I was hoping by getting the ball rolling that for a brief while the tensions would be on hold – Chuck thought the reverse and ultimately consigned everyone to death.)  Basically it boiled down to that he had no faith in the other players at the table to be able to contribute to the management of the situation and took it upon himself to execute whatever desperate measure was possible.  (He denies this up and down the line, but there are too many other pieces of "data" about his feelings regarding other players to give his defense full credibility.)
• Which brings me to the fact that the King had not demanded the gem though he was certainly suggesting that the dwarf deliver it up.  The player had already concluded the gem was already "stolen" so it didn't matter what he said, which in my opinion is pure bull.  Once again he was in a very tight situation which he felt was hopeless and so heaped gasoline on the fire quickly moving a bad situation to absolutely devastating.  As it turned out in the following session which I have not yet posted, King Dain did put the word out and summoned all able dwarves from all the kingdoms and mustered for war.
• To this day he refuses to consider that there are other points of view about how events unfolded.  For all the above, which is really moot as you had indicated, the real issue lie in that he put the two realms on a war footing and he refuses to accept any responsibility for that fact.  He still claims that he was an innocent victim – and truth be told he was being manhandled, manipulated and lied to.  No one disagrees about that.  We all play our characters, for better and for worse.  He refuses to accept the fact that in this case he did play for the worse.  Its OK to play for worse!  That he refuses to see that it could not necessarily should means he is dismissing the point of view of the other players – and that is a major problem.  In a grayish sort of way that is a social contract violation.  Part of the point of play is the in between game discussions of the "meanings" of what happened.[/list:u]

  Quote from: James HollowayObjects so beautiful that they inspire uncontrollable greed in whoever sees them are a perfectly fine component in Middle-Earth, as is disaster being caused by a conflict between haughty elves and overconfident dwarves. I'm not sure where the problem is.*

  
  I agree.  There was much note passing and murmuring among the "off camera" players about the incident of the Nauglamir.  Regarding the "problem" I hope that I have in some way touched on some of the issues.  Let me know if you have additional questions where I was not clear.
  
  

  Quote from: James Holloway*Actually, one thing that keeps coming up for me when I run fantasy or historical games is that the players tend to come in with very modern mindsets, so the player may have been thinking "you can't do that! That's mine! I've got rights, y'know!" when of course he has no rights all.

  
  Actually I think the exact opposite was in effect.  Chuck knew that he had no "rights" and that Thranduil could do anything he wanted to him while he was alone and deep in the Elven realm.  This is part of what I think "panicked" him into hopelessness.
  
  Hey Thomas,
  
  

  Quote from: LordSmerfLatitude as in you can go back and retroactively change your decisions, or as in you are somewhat protected from the consequences of your decisions, or what?

  
  Latitude as in a player is fairly strongly protected from the social, out of game, consequences of his actions.
  
  

  Quote from: LordSmerfNow take a look at the underlined quoted text. Could you expand on how this works in play? How do you consider other points of view (you seem to touch on this briefly toward the end of the quoted text). Some examples of "seeing things from other points of view" would be cool.

  
  How "seeing things from other points of view during play" would work out in play is difficult to fathom.  First of all, "the other points of view discussion" refers mostly to the after-game post partum.  Because everyone is, for lack of a better term, immersed in their Character their "take" (point of view) on the game events is going to be slightly to greatly divergent and this comparing of notes is lots of fun.  During this post partum many ideas are discussed and very very importantly the significance (read – meanings) of what transpired is hashed out.  This is totally informal but is critically important to keeping everyone on the same page.  If one is unwilling to consider other points of view then they are in essence rejecting the input of the other players outright.  This does not mean that must all agree to each other's point of view, but the outright refusal to consider is, in my opinion, as serious problem.  Much of what the game is "about" is the mulling over and the chewing on in these bull sessions.  In a sense much bricoling occurs here as well as in game if only that we are contemplating the "meanings" of what did happen.  This could mean saying, "Hey he really played his dwarf exactly as I would have imagined a dwarf would have reacted" or "I don't know, that seemed a little out character for a dwarf."
  
  Eventually all this discussing and debating does impact the game down the line as these meanings are fined, refined and at different points put back into play.  If a player, after all these discussions decides that indeed his actions were not "dwarflike" then maybe at some future time he would take all these "points of view" into consideration when deciding what to do.  There is a very difficult line to draw here between player freedom and the constraints of the established world.  We the players are the living memory of that established (historical) world so in a fashion we do have a stake in how anyone plays their character as we are all sharing in the construction of the Dream.  IOW how one player plays a dwarf affects how another player plays their dwarf in the future.
  
  At the table after the Character was ultimately released from the dungeons the game came to a natural stopping point and we all spoke up about what happened.  This was very unusual, as we usually like to keep playing, but what had happened was potentially world shaking.  We immediately started discussion about what happened and the player (who has been playing for over 20 years) was absolutely unyielding in his position and things did start to get heated.  The GM stepped in and said discussion was fine, but "attacks" which really meant judgments on his play, were not allowed.  Things cooled down, play continued and when we met after the game at a local Denny's we all apologized for "getting in his face."  We all felt bad because he felt a little persecuted.  However, he has yet to admit that he could have approached the matter differently – IOW he is so far absolutely unwilling to consider another "point of view."
  
  My "point of view" was that he was exceedingly arrogant and rude to a king in his own chambers in front of his own people.  I also felt that he lit the fuse and made matters much much worse than they warranted at the time.  He knows better and dwarf certainly whould or could have considered where his actions were taking his people.  He doesn't have a trust in the other players and it manifested itself in how he played his character.  In a way I would say that he shifted from Actor to Pawn Stance, but that is only my opinion as he maintains that he "stayed in Character."
  
  

  Quote from: LordSmerfIf the player had kept pushing and kept pushing (let's say that he was looking for a war), who would have "won"? The player, or the world? Would you have shot down his contributions because of the disruption of the world, or would you have allowed the world to be disrupted? Why?

  
  I'm not sure what you mean by "won."  In a sense I would say that everyone would have lost, which is what I think the main complaint that all the other players had.  Now the GM says that we must all take the good with the bad, and I strongly agree with him.  So while I was upset about what transpired, I'm OK with letting it pass as just another event in the world that needs to be dealt with.  What I am more concerned about is his (in my and a couple of other players opinion at the table) lack of faith in us other players.  This is an issue that has been floating around for a few years now and has been discussed on a number of occasions.
  
  Regarding "shooting down his contributions" we would have allowed the world to be disrupted.  That we cannot "undo" our actions makes every decision we make that much more "meaningful."  "Undoing" would totally undermine the intensity of the game, as well as the feeling of Dream.  Just as in real life I can't "unmurder" someone, thus making that decision to do so so harrowing, so it is in our game space.  To even think that we could possibly undo something, even if it hasn't happened, is like opening a pressure escape valve.  It would severely deplete the decisions of their finality and thus, ultimately, their value.  I should note that there is "hacking" as I tenuously understand the term, but the more important the decision the less likely "hacking" would be allowed.  However, once we are past a decision and onto a new one there is no going back.
  
  If I have misunderstood or not answered your question about "winning" could you please rephrase it so I can answer you more fully?  Thanks!

Quote from: Silmenume

In a sense I would say that everyone would have lost, which is what I think the main complaint that all the other players had.  

Hey Jay! Thanks a lot for your answers -- it almost sounds like your biggest problem is not with what the player did during the game but with his subsequent attitude about it, particularly considered in light of an ongoing pattern of behavior. This player sounds like a bit of a hellraiser, which was tougher to tell from one instance of play.

So here's the one other question I had, regarding the whole "everyone would have lost" thing: are you guys trying to create happy endings?

Quote
Dwarves, as we play them, have a profoundly structured society. They, probably more than even the Elves, have a deep and abiding respect and understanding for social hierarchy. The player of the dwarf never treated with Thranduil as if he were a king.

Quote
Basically it boiled down to that he had no faith in the other players at the table to be able to contribute to the management of the situation and took it upon himself to execute whatever desperate measure was possible.

Sim game, gamist player?

Frank

Jay,

I think you nailed all my questions.  For clarity when I talked about "winning" I was asking who's authority would win out: The Established World or the Player's Choices.  Seems pretty clear that player choice wins, which is cool.

Now, let's get down to the real nitty-gritty:

Quote from: SilmenumeBasically it boiled down to that he had no faith in the other players at the table to be able to contribute to the management of the situation and took it upon himself to execute whatever desperate measure was possible. (He denies this up and down the line, but there are too many other pieces of "data" about his feelings regarding other players to give his defense full credibility.)

and

QuoteAt the table after the Character was ultimately released from the dungeons the game came to a natural stopping point and we all spoke up about what happened. This was very unusual, as we usually like to keep playing, but what had happened was potentially world shaking. We immediately started discussion about what happened and the player (who has been playing for over 20 years) was absolutely unyielding in his position and things did start to get heated. The GM stepped in and said discussion was fine, but "attacks" which really meant judgments on his play, were not allowed. Things cooled down, play continued and when we met after the game at a local Denny's we all apologized for "getting in his face." We all felt bad because he felt a little persecuted. However, he has yet to admit that he could have approached the matter differently – IOW he is so far absolutely unwilling to consider another "point of view."

and

QuoteWhat I am more concerned about is his (in my and a couple of other players opinion at the table) lack of faith in us other players. This is an issue that has been floating around for a few years now and has been discussed on a number of occasions.

and, finally, taken out of order

QuoteLatitude as in a player is fairly strongly protected from the social, out of game, consequences of his actions.

I'm going to ask some questions first, and then I'm going to make a preliminary analysis without waiting for the answers.  Let me know if I'm off-base here.

When was the last time this player made a decision that you strongly agreed with?  Are there any other players who consistently make decisions you strongly disagree with?  Could you give an example or two of other players makming decisions that most of the players disagreed with?

Now, analysis.  It seems to me that while you are talking about this guy not trusting the other players, you and some portion of the players don't trust him.  In fact, you've discussed your lack of trust with each other.

I'm also getting the impression that you've never said any of this to his face.  My guess is that he knows you don't trust him.  People tend to be pretty perceptive about that kind of thing.

Further, while you say that you're "okay" with what happened, my impression is that you are emphatically not okay with what happened.  You (and some of your other players) think that this guy played, not just poorly, but wrong.  That's fine, in fact, the impression I'm getting is that he very well may have been violating accepted social contract (which would be wrong).  But again, I bet he knows this.

Thus, when you say you want him to "consider other points of view" you are saying (to me) that you want him to consider the possibility that he was wrong and that you are right.  This may be entirely valid within your Social Contract, in fact I get the impression that it is.

So, here's what I think: you are playing with different understandings of the Social Contract.  You have said that he has violated the rules (Social Contract) multiple times and that he doesn't seem to understand why it's a problem.  There are two possibilities: 1) he's a jerk, or 2) he's playing by a different set of rules in which his bahavior is okay.

As far as I can tell there's only one solution to this problem.  You're going to have to all sit down and hash this out.  Face to face, no holds barred.  Put it all on the table: bring up every action he's taken that indicates that he doesn't trust the players and explain why you think it means that.  See if you can get him to explain why he was thinking that way.

This is hard stuff to do since it has to be completely (or almost completely) non-threatening.  Threatened people get defensive, and probably won't tell you why they really took an action.  If you aren't close enough friends for this to work (and it's entirely possible that you aren't) then I'm not sure that this can be fixed.

Finally, let me try to get inside the head of this guy I don't know and point out some of the things he may have been thinking, but didn't say for social reasons.

"This whole trip to the Elven kingdom thing got boring fast.  I want something cool to happen, so I'm going to spice things up."

"The GM is a bastard.  I had all these cool ideas about the presentation of the jewel, and he robbed me of the oppurtunity to use any of them by having her gone already.  Well, if he's going to ruin my fun, I'm going to express my anger."

"Hmm, perhaps this wasn't the best set of choices after all, but all those jerks think I suck anyway.  I'm not going to give them the satisfaction of admitting that I'm wrong here."

All three of those are ways that I have thought in the past.  I hope that some of this is helpful to you, and that it isn't too rambling, and that it doesn't make too many false assumptions.  Also, I hope that it isn't offensive, as that wasn't my intent.

NOTE: Crossposted with Frank.  He may be on to something, but I think he's over-simplifying things.  As evidence by my long rambling above...

Thomas

Hey James,

Quote from: James HollowaySo here's the one other question I had, regarding the whole "everyone would have lost" thing: are you guys trying to create happy endings?

That is a tricky question, because I am not exactly sure what is meant by "creating happy endings."  To directly answer your question about how everyone would have lost – simply put a game world without Thranduil's realm and the Dwarves would quickly succumb to the Dark Lord.  On one level we all love the world very deeply and would like it to stay free of the shadow of Sauron.  So we would all like to aid in that struggle in whatever plausible way that we can.  IOW if we had a character who was not vested in the "grander scheme of things" said Character would not be played with an eye towards the coming war of the ring.  However, the Dwarves, the Elves and the Dunedain have not fallen asleep regarding the threat of Sauron so any Character of those lines does have an understanding that their actions do have a wider import.  This is part of the reason that such Characters are coveted – they allow us more latitude in the prevention of the world of falling into shadow.  I suppose one could say that preventing the world from falling under the sway of Sauron is "trying to create happy endings," but that particular assessment does not strike me a quite right.  (In review it also occurred to me that all of us have Characters as well as NPC friends whom we would probably lose to this battle that would rather not lose.)

Conversely there are "tragic" characters whose end will probably not be happy.  I have a half-uruk, half-peredhil who in all likelihood will end in a tragic manner.  He is no "good-guy".  In fact he is rather dark with no love of any person though he does have two boon companions – a "dark" elf (not in the D&D sense) and a swindler street urchin boy.  One of the really hard parts of playing this character is that should any of his two companions be in serious need, he would in all likelihood not make heroic efforts to save them.  Life is a dog eat dog world and if one doesn't have what it takes to survive – then too bad for them.  This is totally against the grain of what we like to "celebrate" at the table, but it does provide a nice foil.  IOW because this character is not "heroic" it makes playing those that "heroic" that much more exciting!  It's a different flavor, as it were.  However, I suspect in my mind that the Character will actually die while trying to do the only noble thing in his life or be killed by those whom he is actually trying to help in some fashion.  We shall see what happens though...



Hey Frank,

Quote from: ffilzSim game, gamist player?

Interesting notion, but I don't believe that is the case.  First he is mostly conflict avoidant.  In fact there is a running joke that if Chuck had is way he would play a hobbit in his hole drinking tea, eating cookies and never leaving.  Second he does not exhibit a particular interest in rewards, especially social rewards.  It's strange, it just seems that every once in a while something gets under his saddle and he just loses it.  Again I would peg it at situations where he has few if any options other than to blindly trust in the actions of the other players at the table.

Hiya Thomas,

Quote from: LordSmerfWhen was the last time this player made a decision that you strongly agreed with? Are there any other players who consistently make decisions you strongly disagree with? Could you give an example or two of other players makming decisions that most of the players disagreed with?

That night, prior to his entering the Mirkwood Forest, he made many decisions that I agreed with strongly.  On a strategic level he makes many very shrewd decisions that I frequently stunned by in their subtlety and reach.  In my first post in the AP about my July 4th week game last year, the GM had Aragorn assign the planning of the assault on Aria to Chuck's Dunedain.  He had his Istari Wizard go to the isle where Maglor had isoltated himself to try and persuade him to give of what turned out to be one of the 9 rings of men.  His wizard is also trying to convince King Dain to prepare basic weapons and earthworks for the men who will come to the Lonely Mountain during the coming war of the rings.  All these and more I agree with strongly.  I think that my focus on this one circumstance is creating a somewhat myopic understanding of what transpires in the game as a whole.  I was trying to demonstrate how things do "go wrong" so as to shed some light on the internal workings of our group at the social contract level.  IOW this post was not meant to be bitch fest about a player per say, but another type of window to our inner workings.

As far as other decisions that most of the players disagreed with I'll have to put on my thinking cap.  One that comes to mind rapidly was when one of the PC Black Commando's killed their brand new political officer who had just barely starting laying down the "new rules."  Now this NPC was a world class asshole and everyone who was playing a Commando in his unit wanted him dead on the spot, but to kill him was to kill all the Commandos in that unit, so the shit really hit the fan there.  As I didn't have a Commando and that I personally despised them I was actually quite delighted by this turn of events, but for those players who had Commandos there it was a colossal f***-up.

Quote from: LordSmerfI'm also getting the impression that you've never said any of this to his face.  My guess is that he knows you don't trust him.  People tend to be pretty perceptive about that kind of thing.

Actually we have discussed it with him on a number of occasions.  Make no mistake; he has pulled our collective bacon out of the fire many times.  Part of problem is that situations are so intense that players tend to fall back onto who they really are, and he tends to be a bit slow to warm up to people.  That is, he is slow to let people in which means he does have some trust issues.  He is also brilliantly smart with a near photographic memory so he tend to think and respond more quickly than those around him typically do.  This I think fosters an idea of "I am the only one who knows what is going on and thus I am the only one who knows how to resolve this situation."  Frequently he is pretty much spot on, but this leads to problems where his himself is left with little personal maneuvering room and then he panics because he feels hopeless.  Given such a thought process it would make sense for him to feel hopeless under those circumstances, but there is a problem in his thought process.  We are not incompetent or incapable and we will work the best we can to support and aid him as per the circumstances.  The thing that gets us, or at least me and one other player, is that he apparently does not positively include us other players in his planning processes.  Seeing as this game is a social process, this can and does lead to some problems.

Quote from: LordSmerfFurther, while you say that you're "okay" with what happened, my impression is that you are emphatically not okay with what happened.  You (and some of your other players) think that this guy played, not just poorly, but wrong.  That's fine, in fact, the impression I'm getting is that he very well may have been violating accepted social contract (which would be wrong).  But again, I bet he knows this.

Actually the only "wrong" way to play is play in which one does not take responsibility for or does not recognize (for whatever reasons) the consequences of their actions.  The very and I mean very grey part in determining if a social contract failure occurred along CA lines lies in trying to determine if a player did make an effort to recognize the consequence of their actions.  This is why the after game discussions are so vital to the health and well being of the game group.  This is also why it is important for a player to at least consider other points of view because it demonstrates an effort to "recognize the consequences of their actions".  How can a player know all the consequences of their actions without input from those very players who were directly or indirectly affected by their actions?  In a very real way this sharing of notes makes the game very much richer experience and a "refusal" to engage in this post game dialogue (and he does talk, but when the specific topic comes up he just defends but does not engage) can create a problem.

So, like you suggested, I do think he is operating under a slightly amended Social Contract.  However, I do not think he believes himself to be in violation of the contract.  I tend to think he just plain doesn't believe we know what we are talking about (with regards to his actions) and thus doesn't give much credibility to other positions.  Most of the time what he does is very good, but sometimes it's just plain off.  Typically this isn't a major problem, but it does crop up from time to time.  This time the consequences were so enormous the whole group wished to attend to it immediately.

Quote from: LordSmerfAll three of those are ways that I have thought in the past.  I hope that some of this is helpful to you, and that it isn't too rambling, and that it doesn't make too many false assumptions.  Also, I hope that it isn't offensive, as that wasn't my intent.

No offense taken!  You're intentions are seen as being very helpful and deeply appreciated!  However, I will have to disagree on the three proposed thought processes mainly because they don't fit his personality.  He loves the world deeply so he wouldn't do anything to damage it in person anger or spite.  As I mentioned above, he tends to be so conflict avoidant that we have a joke about it, thus it does not make sense that he would stir the pot to the point of "world war" just to "make things interesting."

Thank you all for all your time an input!

On closing I should note that there is always some sort of grumbling on at some level about who did what.  Rarely does it get to this level where the game shuts down.  In my eight years at this table I have only seen it happen 3 or 4 times.  Let's face it, everyone has their own interpretation of what happens at every game and no one person can be "right," including me!

Jay,

Sounds like you guys have fun even with the rough spots.  And it's those rough spots that remind us that this is a social activity.  Seems I made a lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong, oh well...

QuoteActually we have discussed it with him on a number of occasions. Make no mistake; he has pulled our collective bacon out of the fire many times. Part of problem is that situations are so intense that players tend to fall back onto who they really are, and he tends to be a bit slow to warm up to people. That is, he is slow to let people in which means he does have some trust issues. He is also brilliantly smart with a near photographic memory so he tend to think and respond more quickly than those around him typically do. This I think fosters an idea of "I am the only one who knows what is going on and thus I am the only one who knows how to resolve this situation." Frequently he is pretty much spot on, but this leads to problems where his himself is left with little personal maneuvering room and then he panics because he feels hopeless. Given such a thought process it would make sense for him to feel hopeless under those circumstances, but there is a problem in his thought process. We are not incompetent or incapable and we will work the best we can to support and aid him as per the circumstances. The thing that gets us, or at least me and one other player, is that he apparently does not positively include us other players in his planning processes. Seeing as this game is a social process, this can and does lead to some problems.

and

QuoteActually the only "wrong" way to play is play in which one does not take responsibility for or does not recognize (for whatever reasons) the consequences of their actions. The very and I mean very grey part in determining if a social contract failure occurred along CA lines lies in trying to determine if a player did make an effort to recognize the consequence of their actions. This is why the after game discussions are so vital to the health and well being of the game group. This is also why it is important for a player to at least consider other points of view because it demonstrates an effort to "recognize the consequences of their actions". How can a player know all the consequences of their actions without input from those very players who were directly or indirectly affected by their actions? In a very real way this sharing of notes makes the game very much richer experience and a "refusal" to engage in this post game dialogue (and he does talk, but when the specific topic comes up he just defends but does not engage) can create a problem.

So, like you suggested, I do think he is operating under a slightly amended Social Contract. However, I do not think he believes himself to be in violation of the contract. I tend to think he just plain doesn't believe we know what we are talking about (with regards to his actions) and thus doesn't give much credibility to other positions. Most of the time what he does is very good, but sometimes it's just plain off. Typically this isn't a major problem, but it does crop up from time to time. This time the consequences were so enormous the whole group wished to attend to it immediately.

Have you discussed this explicity (in roughly these words) with him?  I remember I used to "discuss" problems with my gaming groups, but I'd just dance around what was really bothering me hoping that someone would pick up on it.

If you haven't done this, then all I can recommend is that you do it.  Put all this on the table, and make sure that he understands what you're saying.

If you have done this I would be incredibly curious to know what his reaction was, assuming that you don't feel that you would be violating someone else's trust or airing dirty laundry in public by discussing it.

Isn't it interesting how roleplaying, like all other social activities, benefits from full disclosure from all parties?

Thomas

Quote from: LordSmerfHave you discussed this explicity (in roughly these words) with him?  I remember I used to "discuss" problems with my gaming groups, but I'd just dance around what was really bothering me hoping that someone would pick up on it.

We have spoken to Chuck about his needing to "trust" and "invest" in the other players at the table more and we have complained to him about his only making an effort to "invest in NPC's" in those quoted forms.  The problem is that he himself has "trust" issues that he doesn't see in himself, making this an especially difficult problem to discuss.  However, it is not a deal breaker, and as I have said before, nothing is ever going to work perfectly smoothly and this issue only becomes a problem infrequently.  Yes, I will continue to talk to the GM about this, if for no other reason to shore up my case should it become an issue in the future.

Quote from: LordSmerfIf you have done this I would be incredibly curious to know what his reaction was, assuming that you don't feel that you would be violating someone else's trust or airing dirty laundry in public by discussing it.

He tends to turtle up.  Remember in all of this he is not trying to steal the spotlight, he's trying to do what he thinks is best for the world.  I can respect that, but there are ways and there are ways!  When he does respond he usually does so with a very in depth logical defense of his actions.  He is brilliant and stubborn, which is not always a good combination!  Generally he is a nice guy if somewhat opinionated and very helpful.  But talking to him directly on such matters is not easy.  This does not mean we shall not continue to try, but neither is the difficulty now going to end the game.

Quote from: LordSmerfIsn't it interesting how roleplaying, like all other social activities, benefits from full disclosure from all parties?

Absolutely!

Reading this, the view that "none of you feebs understand whats really going on here" and similar sentiments do seem to suggest to me that this player may be gamist.  Certainly I have shown a propensity for similar decisions, and so I think have the most gamist of players I have gamed with.  On that assumption I'm laying out how I would respond.  I do not actually think that the observation that the player is conflict-avoidant mitigates a gamist diagnosis - thats often good strategy.

My proposition then is to demonstrate to him that "NPC's play hardball too".  This may be especially pertinent if there is a history of cushioning players from the consequences of their actions.  That might be appropriate for other players, I don't think its appropriate for gamists, and probably not this one.  I suspect his past successes, combined with cushioning, give him quite a bit of room to rationalise his way out of any unpleasantnesses.

The first thing I would seek to establish firmly is that the Elvish king would have been within his rights to take his head.  The most effective way for this to happen would be to have the dwarvish kingdom back down in some form.  IMO the least effective method would be to try to have the other players apply persuasive pressure; I think this is rather a case of "you've made your bed and now you'll have to lie in it" and the other players are better cast as sympathisers than critics.

One suitable way to do this, for example, as it appears the dwarves are already mobilising, might be to have the two armies draw up, and the kings meet to negotiate in the field.  Perhaps rather than fight a bloody battle over a (percieved) insult, they agree to settle it through champions, and the dwarvish king sends this player out to literally fight his own battle.  Or, perhaps Elvish diplomats come to the dwarvish court and argue that the dwarf king should send the PC's head home with them in a box to keep the peace.   Or demands an exorbitant honour-price for the offence given their king.  The point is to put someone who can speak to the other point of view into the dwarvish court so that the players interpretation of events is no the only one aired.

The purpose here is to detach the player from his source of support and backup; to demonstrate that if he expects to retain the ability to call on that support, he has to subordinate his immediate feelings to the needs of the group as a whole.  The group as a whole probably doesn't want to get into a war with the elves over an avoidable insult.  The player may well feel that this is unfair, given his reading of the "necessities" of circumstance, but he's unlikely to be able to hold a grudge for words spoken from NPC mouths; thats how you voice "other points of view" in the game itself.  the GM is not obliged to play NPC's as relentlessly rational, and you can use this to soak up some perceptions of the justness of the cause.

My first reaction to this was "OK, so the GM wants to replay the story of King Thingol and the dwarves, and the players are playing along."  And there may still be some validity to that reading.  Frankly, I think it explains a lot about why the dwarves chose to take up arms in this case.  The GM gets to play out the story he wants.  But from Chuck's point of view, it's another example of playing hardball and getting what he wants as a result.  

From Chuck's side, I think contracycle has nailed it -- both in diagnosis and solution.  It sounds like, every time Chuck has played hardball, he has gotten what he wants out of it.  The NPCs have refused to play effective hardball in return.  I think contracycle has adequately pointed out the in-game reasons how they could do this.  The real question is:  why hasn't the GM done this, on a player level?

Heya contracycle,

I'll withhold judgment on the diagnosis of Gamist for now and move on to the next part.

Quote from: contracycleMy proposition then is to demonstrate to him that "NPC's play hardball too".

That "fact" has been firmly established in the world generally and with this Player specifically.  The GM has a KIA file of probably over 1,500 Character sheets.  This same player lost a Character not too many months ago to an NPC that didn't care for his Character's attitude.  Actually this particular incident ended with a near total party kill.

Not only are player Character's killed, they can be captured and tortured in gruesome detail.  NPC's can, and have, wiped out entire families or even villages, or in one case nearly an entire people (The Dunedain) where players lost multiple Characters in one session.

Quote from: contracycleThe first thing I would seek to establish firmly is that the Elvish king would have been within his rights to take his head.

Trust me when I say that we all firmly and deeply understand this position.  It was probably why he went off the deep end so fast.  I am guessing that he felt that primarily because the Elvish King could do just about anything he wanted that the player felt he had nothing to lose since he felt that his Dwarf was probably dead from the get go.  Mind you that is a guess on his interpretation as until the Dwarf insulted the Elven king to a state of fury there was no threat or hint of threat on said Dwarf's life from the King.

However this is not an issue of "rights" but of power - for both sides.  The Elvish king did have a "right" to be insulted, but then the Dwarf did have a "right" to feel that he was being dealt with in a less than honest fashion.  Both sides had legitimate beefs, borne of hubris that were handled in a catastrophically poor manner.

Quote from: contracycleThe most effective way for this to happen would be to have the dwarvish kingdom back down in some form. IMO the least effective method would be to try to have the other players apply persuasive pressure; I think this is rather a case of "you've made your bed and now you'll have to lie in it" and the other players are better cast as sympathisers than critics.

I disagree with the Dwarfish kingdom backing down would have been effective.  This is where the Sim preference differs from the Gamist.  More devastating than losing a Character is the loss of an entire people who make up a huge component of the Dream world being Simulated.  Not only that, but this particular player loooooooooves the Dwarves and works very hard for their "cause" in the "world".  It is not unheard of in this game for players to sacrifice their Character to protect an NPC!  While loosing a Character almost certainly sucks major ass, it is the Dream as a whole which transcends a given Character.  (I don't know if I have mentioned this before or not, but we play folios of Characters.  This means the loss of a Character does not "remove" or put a player out of the game nor does it necessarily put a player at a huge disadvantage to the other players.  Also we don't play "troupe style" games where the loss of a Character would be extremely problematic.)

That the two realms run the risk of annihilating each other is a far greater risk/burden to a player than the loss of a single Character... At least for those who end up "fitting in" with our style of play over the long run.

Quote from: contracycleThe purpose here is to detach the player from his source of support and backup; to demonstrate that if he expects to retain the ability to call on that support, he has to subordinate his immediate feelings to the needs of the group as a whole.

Emphasis mine.

Actually when the Character was called before the king to recount his ordeal, he actually pled that King Dain not do anything that would cost the life of even a single Dwarf.  IOW he basically said, "I don't want to go to war over this."  The King's response was roughly, "That's noble of you, but I grow weary of this mock friendship with the Elves.  They forget who we are and if we don't act now they will remember that we did nothing."

So rather than have the Player pay a price via his Character, he was having the Player live out the consequences of his actions by facing the real possibility of being responsible for the end of the Dwarves as a race.  In this he could not call on any support to prevent it from happening.  The best recourse would have been exercising wisdom and prudence before he shot off his mouth.

On the following game session, which I have not posted, Gandalf arrived and tried to bargain for anything that would salve the ego of Dain – though not in so many words.  Dain basically said he would "consider" with a jewel worth a thousand times more than the one that was taken.  So Gandalf took the Dwarf and off the went to the Dead Marshes.  During this travel Gandalf, who had been the Dwarf's (Gralin) only friend while he (Gralin) was in exile from the Lonely Mountain, expressed great anger at Gralin for his foolishness.  This was a terrible blow as Gralin (Chuck) nearly worships Gandalf as the person who saved his life and helped restore his honor in the kingdom of the Lonely Mountain.  This may not sound like much, but when one is deep into Character such an exchange can be devastating.

Hey Lee,

Quote from: Lee ShortBut from Chuck's point of view, it's another example of playing hardball and getting what he wants as a result.

The problem is that the player did not get what he was seeking, which was to expiate a death burden.  Basically his insolence was the "last great (pointless) act of defiance" before he was robbed and left for dead in the dungeons – as he understood how events were unfolding.

Quote from: Lee ShortIt sounds like, every time Chuck has played hardball, he has gotten what he wants out of it.

Nope, he rarely does this, and he has lost Characters as a result.  This is not a way for playing effectively or long term – its just plain way to unpredictable and dangerous.  For both the player's Character and the world at large (that is the Dream as a whole).

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real question is:  why hasn't the GM done this, on a player level?

For two major reasons.  First is that this is not a black and white issue.  Second, and this is absolutely vital to understanding our mode of play, the GM basically lets us play our Characters any way we want, as long as the Players' take into account the history of the race/culture/Character.  What the Player did was not out of Character for his Character or his race, but it was emblematic of a problem that surfaced a couple of times at the Social Contract level.  So as long as the Player was not violating the socially based "rules" of the simulated world, then the GM really does not have much authority to say anything.

So there you have it – I'm off to bed cuz I'm tired.  Good night and thanks for your comments!

Quote from: Silmenume
I disagree with the Dwarfish kingdom backing down would have been effective.  This is where the Sim preference differs from the Gamist.  More devastating than losing a Character is the loss of an entire people who make up a huge component of the Dream world being Simulated.

... assuming it is Sim driving the action.  That may be true for the game overall, but may not be true to this player.  This looks dangerously like an is/ought error.

Quote
Actually when the Character was called before the king to recount his ordeal, he actually pled that King Dain not do anything that would cost the life of even a single Dwarf.  IOW he basically said, "I don't want to go to war over this."  The King's response was roughly, "That's noble of you, but I grow weary of this mock friendship with the Elves.  They forget who we are and if we don't act now they will remember that we did nothing."

OK.  But then I cannot see the problem, anymore.  The player went to make a gesture, which was frustrated.  Quite possibly from the players perspective, the GM had been sufficiently informed as to the players intentions, but then shut them down.  Then despite the anger of the Elvish king, the character is let go.  And then the dwarves decide they want to take up the cudgels despite his urging them not to.

The player does not seem to have much impact here - it looks much more like the GM is engineering a conflict between the elves and the dwarves.  Certainly I no longer feel the player should bear any responsibility for the ensuing conflict.

Quote
The best recourse would have been exercising wisdom and prudence before he shot off his mouth.

I'm not sure that flies, anymore - were his actions so unusual by Dwarvish standards, given the dwarf-kings response to the situation?


Anyway, its not my game.  But unfortunately I think that if you are dealing with a gamist player here, the level of character death you are able to accomodate is undermining the risk level of play.  I don't think that killing characters, or NPC's, constitute hardball in and of themselves; thats too easy to accomodate under the label "enemy".

Quote from: SilmenumeActually when the Character was called before the king to recount his ordeal, he actually pled that King Dain not do anything that would cost the life of even a single Dwarf.  IOW he basically said, "I don't want to go to war over this."  The King's response was roughly, "That's noble of you, but I grow weary of this mock friendship with the Elves.  They forget who we are and if we don't act now they will remember that we did nothing."

I agree with Gareth, Jay:  reading this bit made my hackles rise.

Tell me if I'm off track here.  My feeling from your initial post was that the player may well have felt railroaded and acted out his anger when he was cheated out of delivering his gem to his dead friend's mother. He was obviously aiming a scene involving closure for the personal backstory, and possibly new ties between elves and dwarves - not being pressurised, imprisoned and stolen from.  Reading the play report I felt that the dwarf was played plausibly while the elven king's bandit-in-his-own-den approach jarred on me. It looks like the GM had a plan here that overrode everything else. (Whether he actually did or not is beside the point, what matters is what got across to the player.)

Your description of the ensuing scene with the PC's own king confirms my impression of a GM-override taking place.  

QuoteDuring this travel Gandalf, who had been the Dwarf's (Gralin) only friend while he (Gralin) was in exile from the Lonely Mountain, expressed great anger at Gralin for his foolishness.  This was a terrible blow as Gralin (Chuck) nearly worships Gandalf as the person who saved his life and helped restore his honor in the kingdom of the Lonely Mountain.  This may not sound like much, but when one is deep into Character such an exchange can be devastating.

The player had already stated that he didn't want his character to be responsible for the impending war, both in character (to Dain) and OOC to you folks. And the GM proceeds to hit him with the biggest hammer in his arsenal to tell him how very wrong and responsible he was? Hm. Why did that happen, do you think?  Was that the GM's way of telling the player that he'd been playing wrong? I hope not.

QuoteThe problem is that the player did not get what he was seeking, which was to expiate a death burden.  Basically his insolence was the "last great (pointless) act of defiance" before he was robbed and left for dead in the dungeons – as he understood how events were unfolding.
[...]
Nope, he rarely does this, and he has lost Characters as a result.  This is not a way for playing effectively or long term – its just plain way to unpredictable and dangerous.  For both the player's Character and the world at large (that is the Dream as a whole).

You say he does that when he doesn't trust you people to come help him out. Can a feeling of being railroaded have something to do with that, as I suggested above? When a player feels railroaded there's little point in expecting him to trust in the other players to be able to help him - if the GM overrides his wishes then surely he'll override the other players as well.  

In this case what the player wanted (scene with dead friend's mother) was made impossible by the GM.  Elves who have gone west are gone for good and a dwarf can't follow them and return. How could you other players have helped him get what he wanted at this point? I don't see how, which means that I also don't see how trust issues on his side would have played into it.  (Trust issues with the GM, possibly, although the limited evidence we have available seems to suggest that the player may have been justified in those; trust issues with you other non-GM players otoh, no.)


Regarding whether he may be gamist:  

Quote from: contracycleReading this, the view that "none of you feebs understand whats really going on here" and similar sentiments do seem to suggest to me that this player may be gamist. Certainly I have shown a propensity for similar decisions, and so I think have the most gamist of players I have gamed with. [...] I do not actually think that the observation that the player is conflict-avoidant mitigates a gamist diagnosis - thats often good strategy.

I've experienced a sim player with precisely the same mindset: he always knew he thought what was "really going on" (and was brilliant at getting other players to believe him).  He was avoiding conflicts by obsessing about planning for dealing with them, and sometimes reached very good tactical decisions.

None of which means that your player necessarily is a simulationist like the guy I know, obviously.  It merely suggests that the evidence we have so far is inconclusive.

Jay,

What Kerstin said with some expansion.  Was there any big reason that the intended recipient of the gift had gone West?  The more I think about this, the more I feel that I would be greatly upset with any GM who sprung that on me.  This was clearly something that had had multi-session build-up to closure.  There seems to have been a clear intention of what the player wanted to see, and then seemingly out of no where the GM says, "Ha!  Your plans can't happen!  Now deal with this other thing."

Part of the problem, of course, is that this is a complex situation and we only have pieces of it from you.  Anyway, my reaction is, "Wow, that GM isn't very nice.  What was he thinking depriving a player of something he clearly wanted?  He must have had a good reason, I wonder what it is."  And in reading your account I don't see a good reason.

Thoughts?

Thomas

Hey everyone,

What I find particularly interesting in all three of the previous threads is the mistaken assertion that the GM prevented the player from reaching his goal.  The GM certainly made it difficult for the player, but the player, and this is where our complaint lay, made no effort to navigate his way through the difficulty towards an equitable solution.  From the very first moment the player spoke with the King, he was haughty and rude.  Why is that important?  Because in this circumstance the one way through this situation depended almost solely on his ability to treat with the King.  However, because the player had no faith in the GM or the other players at the table, he took a bad situation, which he interpreted as hopeless, and immediately set about fanning into a devastating conflagration.

How do I know he didn't have faith in the GM, and this relates to the condemnation coming from all three posters above, because after the dwarf was released and the game stopped he said, "Well, there goes that scenario."  He explained that he figured that the Dwarf would demand to be led to/allowed to find Lisivas and deliver the gift in person.  On this journey the GM was going to weave in the rest of the PC's.  But that is merely hindsight.  However this is a typical pattern in our games where the seeking of a goal is made available by the GM, but is not guaranteed.  Strictly speaking unless the player is on his game, he is NOT going to get to his goals.  Conversely we all know that the opportunity for success is there if one is willing to put the effort in and deal with the intervening complications.  We all know that and it is a major reason for our play.  The GM's credo is "Give them what they want, just not in the form the expect it."  This means that the GM had intended for the player to deliver the gem!  On the flip side of the coin, I never said Chuck was unhappy that he was unable to complete his task.  He said that he would have happily kept the gem if she was not there, it being so beautiful and all.  All in all he was happy because he got to be "intensely emotionally involved/expressive."  

This is interesting – what bothered me was that he felt satisfied while the rest of us saw the Dream going up in flames.

Quote from: contracycleQuite possibly from the players perspective, the GM had been sufficiently informed as to the players intentions, but then shut them down.

The GM did not shut down the player's intentions; the player pulled the pin and dropped the grenade down his own shorts.  Yes, the GM made things difficult, but he always makes things difficult – but he did not make them impossible.  That was the player's choice, and from all the rest of player's reactions at the table mine included, we felt that he should have known better.  However, we all recognize this is a subjective situation so there is no "right" answer or call on this.

By the way, this whole thread was offered up to give an example of a problematic event to illustrate what is and isn't important to our style of play.  I'm not really looking for solutions so much as to show what is important to us Simmers in our game.

Quote from: contracycle...were his actions so unusual by Dwarvish standards, given the dwarf-kings response to the situation?

His complete lack of any deference to a king is a bit unusual by Dwarvish standards.  A dwarf would understand the consequences of his actions, and the way he acted would absolutely lead, under the circumstances (read – give the king no other option) to some sort of punitive actions.

Quote from: contracycleI don't think that killing characters, or NPC's, constitute hardball in and of themselves; thats too easy to accomodate under the label "enemy".

It does in Sim – certainly in our game.  Remember this is a game where players have given up Characters trying to save NPC's.

Quote from: contracycleThe player does not seem to have much impact here - it looks much more like the GM is engineering a conflict between the elves and the dwarves.  Certainly I no longer feel the player should bear any responsibility for the ensuing conflict.

Not so.  He totally derailed an entire scenario.  He basically put events into play that led to the mobilization for war.  Do things grow out of control?  Absolutely.  It happens in the real world all the time and it happens in our game world.  They're called flashpoints.  Minor or trivial events spiral out to major consequences/complications.  

The player certainly did understand that if things went wrong that it could lead to war, this was not lost on anyone at the table before he left the mountain to try and make his delivery.  IOW that he was there, and came in the "red armor," made him a representative of the Dwaven people and King Dain specifically.  Thus when he was acting rudely towards Thranduil before any demands were made to just see the gem, he was perceived as the Dwarven race being rude towards the Elves.  Yes, Thranduil was being a grabby weasely conniver, but a Dwarf should have understood the ramifications of his actions and realized that he's making a statement for his people just by being there.  That the Dwarf started off being arrogant and ungracious despite the initial circumstances would not be wise in a "geo-political" sense – and the player understands that as he plays on that level fairly often with some of his other Characters.

Regarding the Elven king; I leave you with this quote from the Complete Guide to Middle-Earth (which the GM does reference) -

Quote...Thranduil had a love for jewels and riches, and it may have been that this love led to excesses, especially with the Dwarves.

Hey Kerstin!

Quote from: StalkingBlue...he was cheated out of delivering his gem to his dead friend's mother.

Actually the elf was not a friend per say but a random benefactor.  As far as cheating opportunities, the player torpedoed the possibilities himself.  The way was not closed by Thranduil's/GM's design but as a reaction to the character's/player's insolence.

Quote from: StalkingBlueThe player had already stated that he didn't want his character to be responsible for the impending war, both in character (to Dain) and OOC to you folks.

He never actually said anything to us OOC saying that he didn't want war.  Several days ago I was with both the player in question and the GM and the GM asked the player if he was worried about the impending war and the player responded, "No.  Actually Gralin was looking forward to it."  To which the GM responded, "Then I guess I failed."

Quote from: StalkingBlueHe was obviously aiming a scene involving closure for the personal backstory, and possibly new ties between elves and dwarves - not being pressurised, imprisoned and stolen from.  Reading the play report I felt that the dwarf was played plausibly while the elven king's bandit-in-his-own-den approach jarred on me. It looks like the GM had a plan here that overrode everything else. (Whether he actually did or not is beside the point, what matters is what got across to the player.)

That's a telling assumption, as we don't angle for "scenes."  We have intentions that we like to fulfill, but that is never guaranteed, we just get opportunities to try and make it happen.  Trying means that there will be complications and it is up to the player to deal with them.  No one complained that the Dwarf wasn't played plausibly, I certainly did not.  We felt he was played foolishly.  Now there are foolish Characters, but the manner in which the player handled these circumstances was similar to how he handled himself in other similar circumstances and thus we saw the player showing through and not necessarily the Character.  This is open to debate, but what we saw wasn't so much a break in Character as much as a break in the Social Contract.  About not being pressured – that is a fixture and a primary element in our style of play.  Everything we do has some pressure, the more important the event and or the Characters involved, the more pressure that is applied.  Regarding the Elven King's bandit-in-his-own-den approach I refer you to the above quote.

Quote from: StalkingBlue...And the GM proceeds to hit him with the biggest hammer in his arsenal to tell him how very wrong and responsible he was? Hm. Why did that happen, do you think?  Was that the GM's way of telling the player that he'd been playing wrong? I hope not.

Gandalf did not lecture the Character, he merely said, "I am angry with you, but I do not abandon you."  Why did this happen?  Because Gandalf had to pull himself off of some very important missions to deal with what was essentially a pissing match that this Character had started.  Gandalf has his hands full dealing with Sauron's machinations and the foolishness of humans.  He doesn't have time to deal with peoples who have more wisdom than they displayed and should know better.  Remember that the GM also supported the player's actions via the support of the Dwarves as a whole.  So in one voice he tells the player he is foolish, and with another voice he is telling the player he has been unjustly victimized.  Its up to the player(s) to decide how to give meaning to the events.

Quote from: StalkingBlueYou say he does that when he doesn't trust you people to come help him out. Can a feeling of being railroaded have something to do with that, as I suggested above? When a player feels railroaded there's little point in expecting him to trust in the other players to be able to help him - if the GM overrides his wishes then surely he'll override the other players as well.

The GM did not override his wishes, and as a veteran player of the campaign, 20+ years, he should know better.  He had, granted only a very few, unexplored options open to him, but we all felt that he was not "railroaded."  He was in a tough situation, but he of his own choice and volition willfully made it much worse, not better – and nearly brought much woe to the rest of us players.  Did he not think the other player Character's would to try and aid him?  Did he not have faith in his companions to affect some sort of rescue or at least address the situation?  He torpedoed the situation as if it was some last great act of defiance where he had absolutely no other options, but he did have other choices – which included placing some faith in the other players.  Remember the Character was ultimately sent to the dungeons with his gem – it wasn't until he called the king of thief a second or third time that the king in a frothing anger (the GM said that one could almost see flames flickering off of Thranduil's brow!) snatched the gem from him.  The player baited the king and I don't know about you, but to me that is always an extremely foolish if not fatal game to play!

Hey Thomas,

Quote from: LordSmerfWas there any big reason that the intended recipient of the gift had gone West?

I don't think I had mentioned this in my original post, which I take full responsibility for, but Thranduil said that she had only recently left and could find her.  IOW she had not yet reached the Grey Haven's.  This meant that the NPC was not out of reach and if the player thought about it, that meant that he could still reach her.  So the GM had not negated the opportunity, but merely moved it away from the Character.  In game he justified it in a thoroughly reasonable manner that the mother had grown weary of the world and that her heart had grown heavy from the lost of her only born.  Out of game, from what I understand, the GM had moved the NPC so that the dwarf would be forced to follow her and in the process weave in the rest of player characters.  The GM was hoping then to play out a big emotional scene between the Elf mother and the Dwarf that would have been "paid for" by the difficulties the player dealt with in the journey itself.  Climbing Mount Everest would not be emotionally rewarding if it was easy.

We don't "play" emotions; we try and evoke real emotions.  This means the GM makes things difficult so that emotional tenor of the game is high and usually this is extremely satisfying.  However, how people react emotionally to events varies from person to person and is an inexact art.

Quote from: LordSmerf..."Wow, that GM isn't very nice.  What was he thinking depriving a player of something he clearly wanted?  He must have had a good reason, I wonder what it is."  And in reading your account I don't see a good reason.

Again, I say the GM did not "deprive" the player of something he wanted.  The player slammed the door shut, not the GM.  Also this throwing in of difficulties is something always happens.  This over coming of difficulties increases the value of the act itself.  If the hero gets the girl in the beginning with out any struggle it is both boring and not emotionally engaging.  Now if there are ups and downs, struggles and conflicts, well then that suddenly becomes very interesting – and if he wins the girl over then we have a feeling for the depth of his feelings by what he was willing to endure.  Same here.  The more we go through as players the greater our emotional payoff.  That the Character ran into difficulties came as NO surprise to the player or any of us spectators.  What surprised both us spectators AND the GM was how said player self-destructed the situation.  The GM had guessed the player would push to know the whereabouts of the Elf and had not expected said player to piss all over a king.  This was supposed to be a grand coda, not a disaster.

However – what happens is what happens and our role is to deal with how the chips fall...

Thank you everyone for your interest!

Quote from: SilmenumeI don't think I had mentioned this in my original post, which I take full responsibility for, but Thranduil said that she had only recently left and could find her. IOW she had not yet reached the Grey Haven's. This meant that the NPC was not out of reach and if the player thought about it, that meant that he could still reach her. So the GM had not negated the opportunity, but merely moved it away from the Character. In game he justified it in a thoroughly reasonable manner that the mother had grown weary of the world and that her heart had grown heavy from the lost of her only born. Out of game, from what I understand, the GM had moved the NPC so that the dwarf would be forced to follow her and in the process weave in the rest of player characters. The GM was hoping then to play out a big emotional scene between the Elf mother and the Dwarf that would have been "paid for" by the difficulties the player dealt with in the journey itself. Climbing Mount Everest would not be emotionally rewarding if it was easy.

Ooooooooh...  Now things make a bit more sense...

New round of questions (if you're not sick of them already):  Have similar situations arisen in the past?  Did they result in "hopeless" situations?  Basically: if this was a veteran player, is there any reason that he might have believed that his character was about to get screwed over from past experience?  Would it have been reasonable for him to assume that his character would be treated unfairly by the king?

Thomas

Quote from: Silmenume
What I find particularly interesting in all three of the previous threads is the mistaken assertion that the GM prevented the player from reaching his goal.  The GM certainly made it difficult for the player, but the player, and this is where our complaint lay, made no effort to navigate his way through the difficulty towards an equitable solution.

Well, I just cannot see how that makes sense on the situation as it has been given at the moment.  I mean here's this guy, he has this tremendously valuable and desirable thing, and he volunteers to give it away.  That does not look like selfish or disrespectful play; it looks thematic and colourful.  And then he goes on this journey, and divests himself of his important armour, and so presents himself vulnerable and almost in sackcloth and ashes to the elvish king all to answer a personally felt debt.  And the GM says "you can't - she's gone".

This is why I don't understand the allegation that the player pulled the pin.  Are you saying that actually she was NOT gone, and that if the player had been sufficiently diplomatic that king would have eventually relented and allowed him to deliver his gift?

It looks to me that this act on the GM's part is essentially de-protagonising.  The player has exposed himself to unneccessary risk, and the GM immediately kicked him in the nads.  If that happened to me, I'd be very wary of letting my guard down ever again.

Secondly there were a number of ways, it seems to me, to resolve this situation without casting blame on the player.  Given, as it seems, that player death is not that big a deal, it might arguably have been more elegant to simply kill the dwarf and send the body back with his companions (sans gem).  The Elvish king could stand on wounded pride, and the dwarves seek revenge, and none of it would have required major dispute at the table, because it is manifestly an unfair and brutal act by an NPC.

QuoteBut that is merely hindsight. However this is a typical pattern in our games where the seeking of a goal is made available by the GM, but is not guaranteed. Strictly speaking unless the player is on his game, he is NOT going to get to his goals. Conversely we all know that the opportunity for success is there if one is willing to put the effort in and deal with the intervening complications. We all know that and it is a major reason for our play. The GM's credo is "Give them what they want, just not in the form the expect it." This means that the GM had intended for the player to deliver the gem!

But in the event, the GM seems to have taken careful aim and blown his own foot off.  The GM wanted the stone to be delivered, but told the character it could not be, in the voice of an NPC who could not be challenged?  How can the player be blamed for acting on the information given to them by the GM?

But there was another point I wanted to make here.  At one point, my players virtually grabbed my be the lapels and screamed into my face "can't we just have one plan work once for gods sake!"  I had been too busy generating complications and conflict for them to develop any satisfaction in a well executed idea, and this left them constantly frustrated.  So, I warn that it is possible for the GMing style you describe here to get a bit carried away and become counterproductive.

QuoteIt does in Sim – certainly in our game. Remember this is a game where players have given up Characters trying to save NPC's.

This was regarding hardball.  I know what you mean, but as the GM I can burn down whole cities and slaughter thousands of NPC's in a single declarative statement.  And a PC dying to save an NPC might be construed as a victory, rather than a defeat.  Theres a big difference between going down heroically before overwhelming odds and being beaten on the field by a better opponent.  Thats why I say character deaths are not necessarily  hardball, in terms of the experience of play.

QuoteNot so. He totally derailed an entire scenario. He basically put events into play that led to the mobilization for war. Do things grow out of control? Absolutely. It happens in the real world all the time and it happens in our game world. They're called flashpoints. Minor or trivial events spiral out to major consequences/complications.

But from the play as described, it would seem to me that the Elf king put events into play that lead to war, not the player.  The PC looks like patsy used by the elf king for a provocation.

Quote...Thranduil had a love for jewels and riches, and it may have been that this love led to excesses, especially with the Dwarves.

Right.  But the way this played out, it appears more like the dwarves are culpable of rudeness than that the elf  king is guilty of greed.  Thats the whole basis for blame being layed on the players head.

--

I know you only posted this to illustrate what your group cares about in terms of CA.  But the interpretation appears sufficiently dubious to me that it reinforces my perception that you and the player may in fact have different CA's.  This would certainly explains the radically different views, and their irreconcilability.  So I just want to say that I am not trying to poor cold water on your game or criticise for crticisisms sake.

Hey Thomas,

Quote from: LordSmerfOoooooooh...  Now things make a bit more sense...

You have no idea how red faced I am about that minor omission!  Sorry about that.  Onward to new, and hopefully, ever more fruitful questions and answers!

Quote from: LordSmerfHave similar situations arisen in the past?

I'm a little uncertain what you mean by "similar" Situations.  By similar do you mean Situations that are as difficult to navigate (with all sorts of "social dynamics" in play) and are as laden with enormous potential for disaster?  If so then, yes, all the time.  Typically speaking, this is kinda where we like the game.  This tense, bring all your faculties to bear, intense and nearly impossible Situation really submerses one into the Dream. The GM refers to them as Kobayashi Marus – tests of Character (player) where there is no "real right answer."  If you mean "similar" Situations as in the conditions are "physically" similar then I require more clarification on your part, please.

Quote from: LordSmerfBasically: if this was a veteran player, is there any reason that he might have believed that his character was about to get screwed over from past experience?

It depends on what you mean by "screwed over."  If you mean "screwed over" as in the player would be raped of his goods and he would have essentially no input?  Then the answer is primarily no.  If your definition of "screwed over" means that the GM makes it extremely difficult for a player to easily and directly execute his plan, then that happens all the time.  However, none of us players view this as "screwing over."  We view it as the difficulties inherent in the game process – i.e., conflict.  This conflict, or I should more accurately say, the potential fallout from how one deals with conflict is one of the primary activities that makes the game so exciting.

Quote from: LordSmerfWould it have been reasonable for him to assume that his character would be treated unfairly by the king?

Again, this comes down to definition.  What do you mean by "unfairly."  Strictly speaking, Kings in this game have tremendous authority, especially one in charge of such an important realm as the Mirkwood Elves.  Do all kings just throw their authority around in our game?  No.  Elrond and Galadriel are very powerful, but are wise and gentle as well.  Adrahil was a "good" king.  Thranduil is "not so good."  He is not in league with "evil," but he is vain.

In the Hobbit, Thranduil demanded payment for their allies the Men of Lake Town as well as their own economic losses as a result of the Dwarven actions provoking Smaug.  They almost went to war over that matter twice until Bilbo intervened.  Long is the memory of Dwarves, especially where gold is concerned.  Conversely the Elves has perfect memory and Thranduil is both vain and does have a weakness for gems and jewelry.  Both the Dwarves and the specific player know these facts.  Thus, in answering your question, did the player have reason to believe that he would be "treated unfairly" by the king?  Well, he certainly was wary.  He brought a company of 23 addition Dwarves with him.  My guess is that he did feel the king would try and pull "something," but whether the player felt that Thranduil would try something that would end up in war, I don't know.  My feeling, and apparently the feeling of all the rest of the players at the table, was that while we felt that Thranduil would try and "manipulate events" and "pressure" the Dwarf we did not feel that he would nakedly assault the Dwarf in question.  Even kings have to deal with consequences – i.e., war.

So whether or not the player felt he would be treated "unfairly" depends on whether there is a basis for him to believe that the world is "fair."  The player was certainly cautious and there was a palpable concern at the table as he set off.  We "knew" that there would be trouble of some sort.  So that the player did indeed run into "trouble" was itself neither "unfair" nor unexpected.  In the whole discourse between the Dwarf and the Elven king, the king never threatened the Dwarf until the Dwarf baited the king by calling him thief.  Was the king acting "innocently" or honorably?  No.  Did the king force or threaten the Dwarf to give up his gem until the Dwarf disrespected the king in his own hall?  No.  Did the GM place the player in a difficult Situation?  You bet.  Was that unusual or unexpected?  No.

Hey contracycle,

Quote from: contracycleThis is why I don't understand the allegation that the player pulled the pin.  Are you saying that actually she was NOT gone, and that if the player had been sufficiently diplomatic that king would have eventually relented and allowed him to deliver his gift?

She was no longer in his realm, but Thranduil intimated that she was still in Middle Earth traveling to the Gray Havens and that he could find her whereabouts readily.  To your question about being sufficiently diplomatic, the answer is most likely yes.  Certainly antagonizing and being rude are not ways to win over a vain and powerful king.  But more than that, the player's actions recklessly pushed the situation from local to "global" and the player is well more than savvy enough to know that.

What does this mean?  In game we as players have to accept what he does and play on it as it unfolds without comment.  After the game, though, it is not uncommon for a player to say something like, "I didn't mean to ruin X, but I was playing what I felt was appropriate."  And that's very cool.  What he is saying is that he understands the ramifications of his actions and they did have a negative impact on the other players and that he did not purposefully/intend to poop on the players' Dream via the SIS.

Our problem is that he is utterly unyielding on the possibility that he could have damaged or put into jeopardy the Dream for the other players.

Quote from: contracycleIt looks to me that this act on the GM's part is essentially de-protagonising.  The player has exposed himself to unneccessary risk, and the GM immediately kicked him in the nads.  If that happened to me, I'd be very wary of letting my guard down ever again.

See, here is the red letter difference between Sim and Gamism and especially Narrativism.  Player input during the game is limited to their Character.  The only way to a GM can deprotagonize a player's decision in Sim is either to prevent/withhold a decision or vacate one already made.  The types of decisions available to a player during a game are strictly limited to the events unfolding within the SIS.  Thus the GM making matters difficult for the player to deliver the gem is not deprotagonizing, but actually an essential and integral aspect of our play.  We don't play conflict resolution but task resolution (as I understand the terms to mean – which can be completely incorrect.)  A player has no say during a game about "where he wants the story to go."  Also our input is understood to be the form of an Intention, not an Execution.  Well, we may intend a lot of things as players, but as the hoary old adage goes, "no plan stands up to contact with the enemy."  Actually, this is a truism for us and something that is celebrated in the sense that the game really "picks up" precisely when dealing with these difficulties.

Quote from: contracycleSecondly there were a number of ways, it seems to me, to resolve this situation without casting blame on the player.  Given, as it seems, that player death is not that big a deal, it might arguably have been more elegant to simply kill the dwarf and send the body back with his companions (sans gem).  The Elvish king could stand on wounded pride, and the dwarves seek revenge, and none of it would have required major dispute at the table, because it is manifestly an unfair and brutal act by an NPC.

Regarding your assertion that Character death "not that big a deal"; I don't believe that to be sound.  In Sim the loss of a Character is always a major event.  Sometimes it can be made less painful in the knowledge or hope that some "good" will come of it, but Character loss always diminishes the player's ability to Bricole.  That is all those objects contained within the object known as "the Character", the attendant meanings created within and thus that particular worldview are removed from the player's "shed".  In a sense you lose a part of yourself in as much as the Character was partly you as wished yourself to be.  But also remember all those in game friendships are gone, all those hopes contained with that Character will never be realized, etc.

However, I am fascinated by your thought that there was an intention by anybody, especially the GM, to create a "fall guy."  This scenario was not structured to create a Situation so that "blame" could be laid at the feet of a player, nor was there a "story" already waiting to be played out a head of time.  The GM creates or shall I say frames the beginning events, motivates the NPC's, and takes an educated guess as to which direction or how the players will handle events.  IOW he creates vectors – pushes events into motion (creates conflicts), but all that requires a starting place.  Once the foundation is laid and the events are put into motion, then what happens from there is pretty much based upon what unfolds from within the SIS and not primarily by some outside guiding force.  I would say the GM frames aggressively at the start and then more or less surrenders "control" to the players as the game progresses.  Remember the GM too must adhere to the strictures of bricolage.  Yes, he can introduce new elements to the shed, but those objects must "fit into the shed" and how he puts the objects together must also follow (or at least give a nod to) the "myth" already extant.

There is another notion above that is interesting in how it highlights how Sim works.  You described a possible scene whereby the GM could have accomplished setting up the circumstances for a war – IOW your suggestion is basically a GM created plot or story point.  The assumption here is that the GM could/should have been willing to off a Character just to push a story element so that the GM could control the unfolding of his "story" and in this way avoid controversy at the table while moving events where he wanted them to go.  However, let me tell you, this solution would have us rioting at the table!

As I indicated above, neither the GM nor the players take PC loss lightly.  Second to just kill a PC outright for story control is deprotagonization.  Third, as I indicated before, the GM did not start the scenario angling to create a war between the two kingdoms.  Forth, its not the playing out of "plot" that matters, it's the players interactions with (the decision making about) the "setting elements" (which includes everything in the SIS that is not that particular player/character) that matters.  To remove that necessary interaction by killing the PC outright so that the GM could forward his goals is an absolute violation of our Social Contract and Sim in general as that does totally deprotagonize/nullify the player's input.  IOW no matter what the Character did within the SIS nothing would change the outcome – the GM was still going to kill him.  That is verbotin.  Even in Situations that do become extremely desperate, there was always some out before they got there.  Even then the GM gives a player a hero's saving throw, in which some other event might transpire to hold off incipient death.  However, what he isn't allowed to do is give the player absolutely no opportunity for effective input.

Quote from: contracycleBut in the event, the GM seems to have taken careful aim and blown his own foot off.  The GM wanted the stone to be delivered, but told the character it could not be, in the voice of an NPC who could not be challenged?  How can the player be blamed for acting on the information given to them by the GM?

The GM did not say, "it could not be."  The GM essentially said, "the goal you seek cannot be completed here ... (but if you figure it out you could do it over there)".  The player interpreted it as "it could not be."  Even if the GM said, "it could not be", that does not absolve him of all responsibility for jeopardizing the Dream for the rest of us players.  I should also note that the GM did not "want" the stone to be delivered per say, but rather that was the objective by which the main Character in this event was motivated and thus the rest of the scenario was going to be built around.  However, that he was "going" to do something does not mean it "must" be so.  These motivations are merely vectors; they put events into motion they are not goals that must be reached.  In fact these motivations/frames/vectors are most certainly not the point of play as they are merely the foundations upon which the sessions begins.  What is important is our decisions/reactions to what happens in game, not necessarily that we end up someplace.  For all the negative things that happened to this Character, afterwards the player said he had a great time, because he really got emotionally involved for the first time in 3 games.  (He basically took himself out of the previous 2 adventures – one of those would be his Character Basil which I posted about in an earlier AP thread.)

Quote from: contracycleSo, I warn that it is possible for the GMing style you describe here to get a bit carried away and become counterproductive.

So noted!  I appreciate your input.  Just as another data point, there are times where we have "supremely heroic" moments when plans fail, but through imaginative play events turn out far better than could have been hoped for.  Also I should note that our GM does play on norms.  So while the norm is "difficulties – but usually some success" he mixes it by also occasionally go to "overwhelming number of difficulties" all the way to "nearly flawless execution."

Quote from: contracycleThats why I say character deaths are not necessarily  hardball, in terms of the experience of play.

I am a little confused by this.  Please see above.

Quote from: contracycleBut from the play as described, it would seem to me that the Elf king put events into play that lead to war, not the player.  The PC looks like patsy used by the elf king for a provocation.

Maybe, and that is certainly an interpretation that is open to you!  What you are doing above is certainly part of the fun of the game we play – the deciding of motives, the deciphering of the meanings of events, etc.  However, given that all the rest of felt that the player was certainly being provocative without ever being respectful, I am inclined to say that the player did his own self in.  Especially in the light of the GM's comments afterward that he was not looking to succeed in the "taking of the gem" from the Dwarf.

Quote from: contracycleRight.  But the way this played out, it appears more like the dwarves are culpable of rudeness than that the elf  king is guilty of greed.  Thats the whole basis for blame being layed on the players head.

Again that is certainly a plausible take, and one that the player of the Dwarf is basically taking.  However, we do not worry about the Elf's greed because that is beyond our control as players.  IOW the elf's greed is nothing more than something beyond our control that must be taken into account and dealt with.  What we do worry about is the players' response to Situation, as that is under our individual control.  It was the player's choice to play his Character extremely rude and to knowingly escalate the matter.  If the player had made an attempt to play it "diplomatically" as you described it and he was still jailed, robbed, released, returned home and a war still started, then we would have had no issues at all with the player.  In fact we would have been sympathetic towards him.  Yet, all this is open to interpretation as there is no "right" way to respond as long as it was within or close to the confines/behaviors already existing within the "myth."

Given the above our admittedly weak claim of "blame" is based on the notion that the player broke what we feel were several of the pre-existing confines/behaviors already existing within the myth.  We felt that Dwarves would be savvy enough to know to be deferential or at least polite with a king they knew was vain.  We felt that Dwarves would be savvy enough to know that if he let things really get out of hand that war would be the likely outcome.  When the player got back to his realm, he recounted his event accurately, but really played up the emotions and indignations – and he was certainly justified in doing so.  However, by doing so in that "manner" he again fanned the smoldering tinder of war.  Was he justified?  You bet.  Was the player capable of handling it differently?  Sure.  Was it wise?  ...  Did he consider the other players at the table?  I don't think so.

Quote from: contracycleSo I just want to say that I am not trying to poor cold water on your game or criticise for crticisisms sake.

I deeply appreciate you making the effort to say that.  However, just so that you know, I never got the feeling that you were trying to be critical for criticisms sake.

Anyhow, I hope that I have shed some additional light on the inner workings of our game!

Jay,

So, I'm going to look at this as a Sim(as I understand it)-related dispute among Sim-inclined players.  I'm going to focus on this one little snippet from your latest post, 'cause it rang major familiarity-bells for me of disputes between Sim-players that I've encountered myself.  The snippet is:

QuoteWas the player capable of handling it differently? Sure. Was it wise? ... Did he consider the other players at the table? I don't think so.

I have no way to know if and/or why the Dwarf player didn't "think of the other players" in this situation - maybe he did, and thought he was supporting the Dream.  Maybe he didn't think of the others, but legitimetly reacted as he thought appropriate.  Or maybe he was bent out of shape about something and (delibrately or inadvertantly) caused damage by flailing about.  

When dwelling in the Dream, it can be very tricky to "think about the other players at the table."  After all, the idea is to NOT think about them, right?  Rather, think about the Dream . . .   This difficulty is compounded by the fact that "I was just playing my character" can equally be either a legimate creative claim or a bullcrock excuse for childish interpersonal behavior.

I know of no great solution to this dilemna.  To me, the answer is simply "sometimes, you have to drop the Dream and deal with the people at the table."  In this case, that could look like the Dwarf player recognizing that his choices might stomp on the other players, and saying, "uh, guys, here's where I'm thiniking of going with this - can you think of reasons not to go there?"  Or the other players (GM included, perhaps especially included, depending on group taste) saying "hey, uh, sorry to interrpupt, but it looks like we're going to a very ugly place here - can we take this in another direction?  Have you thought about this (Dwarf-Elf politics/other players/whatever)?"

Interrupt the Dream and interact as real people.  If[/i] it's important enough.  Where "important enough" is a variable that can only be established locally, perhaps even situationally.  And sometimes, you'll get it wrong; interrupt inappropriately, or fail to solve the problem even with the interruption.

But unless you just want to hope you "get lucky" and don't run into such problems, I don't think there's any other answer.

Gordon

Quote from: SilmenumeThe GM did not say, "it could not be." The GM essentially said, "the goal you seek cannot be completed here ... (but if you figure it out you could do it over there)".

Oh, oh!  A question I meant to ask last post and forgot:  How clear did the GM make it that the elf was still available?  From what you said above it sounds like it was kind of hidden knowledge...  I've got some comments on that if it was, but I'll save them until I know what's going on.

Also, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on Gordon's comments.

Thomas

Hey Gordon,

Thanks for taking the time to share your input!

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI have no way to know if and/or why the Dwarf player didn't "think of the other players" in this situation - maybe he did, and thought he was supporting the Dream.  Maybe he didn't think of the others, but legitimetly reacted as he thought appropriate.  Or maybe he was bent out of shape about something and (delibrately or inadvertantly) caused damage by flailing about.

I am as certain as one can be that the player felt what he was doing was legitimate and in support of the Dream.  The GM seems to think that the player did bring in some outside baggage to the table (e.g., he was bent out of shape about something).  If that is true, that does not excuse him and he should be willing to consider that he did indeed bring in baggage to the game.  However, the player in question does not think that he did anything that was not legitimate.  Upon questioning recently, the GM said that the player via his character had expressed "some embarrassment" about how events were unfolding.  This conversation, while at the table, was quiet and not really observed.  I only remembered that there was a conversation between Gandalf/GM and Gralin/the player many days later.  It was not that the conversation was unimportant, it touched on the very topic on why I was risking one of my favorite character's life, but rather it was not played "center ring."  Thus the question remains whether he truly personally felt bad about how he handled himself and the subsequent crises, or he was merely playing the Character as remorseful as we players were never really privy to this conversation and he certainly had not spoken to us in such a manner.

Mind you, this laser like focus on this specific incident does make it seem to be a much larger issue than it functionally is at the table.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWhen dwelling in the Dream, it can be very tricky to "think about the other players at the table."  After all, the idea is to NOT think about them, right?  Rather, think about the Dream . . .   This difficulty is compounded by the fact that "I was just playing my character" can equally be either a legimate creative claim or a bullcrock excuse for childish interpersonal behavior.

I fully agree about the "just playing my character" part.  

I certainly agree that the idea is to think about the Dream, however as this is social activity with a shared imaginary space one cannot or should not utterly exclude considerations of the other players who are supporting one's own imagining process.  It is a give and take process and it is always based in trust.  IOW one does something in the expectation/hopes that someone else will (in the future – either immediate or distant) support you in that effort.  We are building the Dream.  How he bricoles effects how I bricole, so there is this ill-defined and necessarily vague commitment to each other to aid in that process.  Also, while we certainly are looking to submerge into the Dream as deeply as possible, we should never really lose sight that we are Exploring – and this is reinforced by the external-to-the-SIS resolution mechanics system which does interrupt the Dream.  I think there is always a tension here in Sim, between the SIS and mechanics, that is never fully resolvable.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI know of no great solution to this dilemna.

I don't think there is one.  There are several kluges that we employ to "get past" these issues.  The first is the often stated at the start of nearly every game is the "We are "roleplaying" and none of this stuff is to be taken personally" speech.  The second method is the post game debriefs where we find out what each of us was thinking and we hash out an inter-player issues that might have popped up.  Third we sift players very carefully to make sure everyone is basically on the same page so that the opportunities for these types of problems is minimized before hand.  Finally one of the stated understandings (and that may be the wrong term) is that the process of play is the dealing with problems as they arise.  We are not creating "a story" and we are not trying to "defeat challenges" – we are "dealing with problems from the point of view of the fictional world."  The process of dealing with problems from the point of view of the fictional world reinforces the fictional world – that is the Dream.

Ultimately, I agree there is no "great solution."  Problems such as these get hashed out outside the game on a personal level – and there is no guarantee that a solution will be reached.  Or perhaps a better way of stating this is that there is no fixed process that can be created that guarantees an equitable resolution.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisTo me, the answer is simply "sometimes, you have to drop the Dream and deal with the people at the table."

Sometimes, if it appears that emotions are moving beyond the SIS and are becoming addressed to the players directly/personally then we will drop the Dream to deal directly with the people at the table.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisIn this case, that could look like the Dwarf player recognizing that his choices might stomp on the other players, and saying, "uh, guys, here's where I'm thiniking of going with this - can you think of reasons not to go there?"

In our game – absolutely not!  It is exactly at these moments where the Dream is most intense and the player himself is most severely tested!  These intense moments are precisely what we are looking for as players!  To break the Dream to discuss the decision at hand is to completely violate the Social Contract.  We want to be riding the razor's edge – its where the umph of our game comes from!  Its squarely there that the emotional rush is derived from.  Intense Situations lead to intense emotions!  Woo Hoo!  Bring it on!  It is also where the "test" of the player lies.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisBut unless you just want to hope you "get lucky" and don't run into such problems, I don't think there's any other answer.

Actually, as I have indicated before, this thread really wasn't casting about for solutions as much as it was an effort to highlight how our game functions via "failure" as opposed to just only "successes."

Hullo Thomas,

Quote from: LordSmerfHow clear did the GM make it that the elf was still available?  From what you said above it sounds like it was kind of hidden knowledge...

Thranduil roughly said, "Give me the gem and I will see that it gets to her as she has only recently left my realms.  She is of my people and I can readily find her and see to it that she receives it."  While this may not seem like much to go on, every player at the table, including the player in question, saw this as a statement that Lisivas (the aggrieved mother Elf) was still in Middle Earth, though traveling to the Grey Havens, and that she was reachable.  Chuck, the player of the Dwarf, at the after game debrief basically said that his Dwarf did not trust being the only Dwarf in a group of Elves on the way to find her.  IOW he acknowledged that he saw that he could get to her, but felt that he would be subject to some foul fate.  OK – fair enough.  He felt insecure and I don't fault him for that insecurity – however that is a choice he made.

Again, what we did have problems with was his "behavior" toward the King, not that he chose or refused the opportunity to try and get to Lisivas.  Bascially we felt he created an "international incident" unnecessarily which resulted in us other players having to risk other of our Character's lives to try and stave off this pending disaster and he has not acknowledged this fact.

Now "unnecessarily" is open to interpretation which is why I said early on that our footing in our complaint was not secure.  However, he has not addressed to us, on any level, that he did jeopardize the Dream for all the rest of us.  Even if he said something like, "I did what I felt my Character would do, I am sorry if it had a negative impact on you," it would have staved off much of grumbling.

Another issue at hand, which I don't think I have mentioned before, is that he is certainly capable of passing judgment on other player's decisions, but he basically acts as if his decisions are above reproach.  IOW – he came to the best possible solution and thus any discussion about its merits is more or less not worth the effort.  He will defend his choice, logically I might add, but he really does not seem to entertain any other interpretation.  This unwillingness to consider another point of view is one of the important aspects of our game.  While in game we have only our own point of view, via our Character, after the game we share our points of view with everyone else so as to enrich our current and future game experiences and to aid in the bricoling process through the cross pollination that comes from the sharing of "meanings" that the various players bring forth in the discussion.

I hope this helps – let me know if either of you have further questions!

Hi Jay,

Yup, I think your initial writeup shows "failure" and "success" as fully supportive of the Creative Agenda at hand, particularly with the clarifications in the subsequent discussion.  I'd just want to stress a slightly different emphasis to the tension between the SIS and the mechanics you mention; I'd focus more on the tension between thinking in the SIS and thinking of the other players (and/or of the Creative Agenda itself).  That, to me, is the tension between your " . . .  - absolutely not!" and your "however as this is a social activity . . "  It exists in all play, but as in Sim "thinking in the SIS" (as a full and sufficient whole purpose) is a close approximation of what the Creative Agenda is, it can be particularly problematic there.  

For Sim play, I heartily recommend making sure everyone is aware of, and agrees to the existence of, this tension.  While I certainly agree and understand that breaking the SIS at a key time (such as the dwarf player-elf king interaction) is undesireable, you gotta make a call - is it worse to have that break, or to be left with the complaints and disatisfaction that might result from not breaking it?  It's certainly fine (great, in fact) to have a preference, even one that is socially-reinforced by friendly razzing of the person who calls for the break, but (IMO) unless it is sometimes OK to make the call in the "break SIS" direction, you're setting yourself up to be dissatisfied.  It's also vital (again, IMO) that the responsibility for making the call be shared - i.e., it's not just that the dwarf-player should have the desperation-option, the other players are also responsible for speaking up (where "speaking up" could be anything from a blunt player-to-player comment to a private nudge of the GM asking him to attempt an in-SIS adjustment) if they see something that's going to disrupt the Dream for them.

After all, the truth is there is not one and only one right thing for the dwarf to have done in that situation.  What the player chose to do was certainly a valid choice, but if he's claiming it to be the one and only valid choice, I would consider that a problem.  On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say he was "wrong", either, and if folks are doing that, maybe he's getting a little defensive because of it.

As you say, it's a give and take process based in trust, and it looks to me like you've got a (possibly minor) trust-breakdown here: the other players didn't trust that the dwarf player was fully engaged with the shared, social implications as he played through that scene, and subsequent discussion hasn't reestablished that trust.  Again as you point out, it can be important that an "unwillingness to consider another point of view" be displayed through the character during play.  However, I think that if that unwillingness is seen by others to be pervasive in the actual players' thought process when choosing which points of view he's going to pick for the character, then you have an issue.  Possible minor, but valid none the less.

Anyway, that's my thoughts - hope there's something useful in there.  

Gordon

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: contracycleThats why I say character deaths are not necessarily  hardball, in terms of the experience of play.

I am a little confused by this.  Please see above.

OK.  What I meant by this is as follows: there are several boardgames in which one side if pretty much destined to lose, but the player can still demonstrate skill relative to their real-world counterparts.  I think Axis and Allies is famously one of these games.  The skill of play is in the doing well under the circumstances, not in the final victory.

Thus it is quite possible for players to be surrounded by NPC's dropping like flies and still not be in the midst of a serious crisis, themselves.  So what I meant by hardball is that the enemy pushes back, and pushes back hard - not through narration and scene framing, but actually right there and then, corps-a-corps, against the players best efforts.

Players can be on the losing side, but buffered from its significance because they have not themselves been personally defeated in a real no-holds-barred struggle.

Hiya Gordon,

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisYup, I think your initial writeup shows "failure" and "success" as fully supportive of the Creative Agenda at hand, particularly with the clarifications in the subsequent discussion.

I fear that we are not talking about the exact same thing here.  While I do agree that one can "fail" in achieving one's intentions within the SIS and that is still a completely functional Sim game, I was discussing something slightly different.  I was trying to indicate the dynamics of our group as well as our CA by trying to show what a "failure" for the group looks like.  The player's lack of success in his initial effort was not the "failure" of our group I was referring to but how he handled the Situation itself was the so called "failure."  As we have seen in this thread and as I have indicated as well, that this was a "failure" is up for interpretation, but I wanted to make sure that I was clear that the problem did not lie with the place that the Situation ultimately resolved to, but how the player handled the Situation.  The player in question said afterwards he was emotionally satisfied for having "engaged" so intensely – the player did not consider the game a "failure."  So tell me, are we on the same page?  If not let me know so we can try and come together on this!

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI'd just want to stress a slightly different emphasis to the tension between the SIS and the mechanics you mention; I'd focus more on the tension between thinking in the SIS and thinking of the other players (and/or of the Creative Agenda itself).  That, to me, is the tension between your " . . .  - absolutely not!" and your "however as this is a social activity . . "  It exists in all play, but as in Sim "thinking in the SIS" (as a full and sufficient whole purpose) is a close approximation of what the Creative Agenda is, it can be particularly problematic there.

I'll buy that – especially the conclusion.  When I said that there was a tension between the SIS and the mechanics I did not mean tension is an emotional way.  Just rather that the mechanics necessarily lie outside the SIS, thus referencing them always requires a break from the bricoling in process within the SIS.  Thus if "thinking in the SIS" is a "close approximation of the Sim CA" then the employment of mechanics (because they are a meta-SIS activity) are always somehow "at odds" with the expression of the Sim CA; yet they are indispensable to play.  This was the tension I had referenced.  However, I do agree that thinking in the SIS and thinking about the other players is also a source of tension.  This does dovetail with a statement I made, I can't remember when, that Sim is "always" in a tension.  

Regarding you notion of letting the players know or speaking about this tension ahead of time – we certainly have covered this topic a number of times and it is difficult to adjudicate.  Things happen quickly and it is functionally difficult to objectively say, "Hey you aren't playing your Character X enough!"  See, we are all making subjective judgments all the time as to what "feels" like Middle Earth and what doesn't.  Everyone is going to have a slightly different interpretation, thus unless the player is stepping well out of the bounds of the nature of the source world (light sabers and revolvers in what is an essentially medieval world) such calls are extremely difficult to make.  In this case the player's actions were certainly plausible thus making such a judgment call even more difficult and shaded in grays.  The rough conclusion from the rest of us players felt that he was "acting out" more than he was "acting."

This brings me to you next section.

Quote from: Gordon C. Landis...but (IMO) unless it is sometimes OK to make the call in the "break SIS" direction, you're setting yourself up to be dissatisfied.

This does happen on occasion.  But the breaks happen because someone is personally emoting or reacting badly.  IOW they are freaking out or becoming too angry or their actions are apparently becoming directed at players and not their Characters etc.  There was a player, before my time, whose face, in reaction to what was transpiring within the SIS, turned a rich purple and a vein starting throbbing on his forehead.  It was something like an NPC had gone over the wall of a keep that was being attacked by Zombies or the like and the DM was describing the rending and shrieks of this NPC.  Becoming alarmed at the player's apparent condition, the GM stopped the game and asked if he was OK.  He said he was fine and that he wished to continue.  Thus it does happen, but rarely.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisIt's also vital (again, IMO) that the responsibility for making the call be shared - i.e., it's not just that the dwarf-player should have the desperation-option...

OK, this is where we part ways – I think.  That a player is in a desperate Situation is a hard fact of this game.  It happens all the time.  It is one of the key draws for us players at the table.  If fact, one measure of whether we feel a new player is a good fit for us at the table depends very strongly on how well such a player does respond to desperate Situations.  The whole of Middle Earth and Gandalf's gambit with the one ring was one giant desperate Situation; thus desperate Situations are a pillar of our game.  We also understand that Situations don't always work out.  Bad decision-making.  Bad luck with the dice.  Bad circumstances.  Bad communication.  Bad information.  Bad advice.  It all happens and it is the noise that happens in real life as well.  We refer to it as "The Fog of War."  Not original, but it does get the idea across.  It heightens the intensity of the game thus making the Dream that much more richer/compelling.

That a player gets in over his head is understood and expected.  That a Situation goes against a player's wishes sometimes happens.  Actually it happens all the time.  Its called conflict!  (I don't mean to sound like a pedantic mallet-head, but this particular arrangement of thoughts just clicked something in my head!)  The idea is to "struggle" towards a goal – that is where the fun lies in the struggle.  In order for that "struggle" to be "real" then the possibility for failure must also be "real."  This means that there cannot be an escape hatch when things within the SIS start to go to pot in a big way – this is where the failures are felt the most intensely.  Conversely because one can and more importantly does fail (from time to time), quick thinking is highly valued and rewarded and successes are savored that much more.  I have had Character's die and it has left me heartbroken.  OTOH I really value and play for everything I've got with my higher lever/older Characters.  Our game in not for everyone.  We recognize that fact and we make a point to tell new players that as well.  IOW we say, if you don't have fun, or if this game is too intense for you then don't worry about it – it just wasn't to your taste.  And that's OK.

I'm not sure how to express it, but bailing out because the Situation appears to be "unwinnable" is not a viable option in our game.  It would be like having "do-overs" in a hardcore gamist group.  However if we do see that a player is taking events too hard the GM will either stop the game or just gently steer the game away from that player.  I should also note that when we are "off camera" we will offer support if circumstances warrant it (so as to not distract from the player who is "on camera.")  We do break out into cheers and yells of support at nearly every game.  But to have a "Situational escape hatch" as opposed to the "Emotional escape hatch" (which we do have) would gut the game of the three things we crave: Intensity, Intensity, and Intensity.  If a player can't handle intensity then they are not right for our group and we aren't right for that player.

Disrupting the Dream does not come from facing (and failing in) desperate Situations, but rather in the failure to bricole effectively.  IOW breaks in the established history, culture, character, logic or physics (etc.) in the world certainly threaten if not damage the Dream outright.  That a player fails in a desperate Situation is not so much a threat to the Dream as a player failing or succeeding in a desperate Situation in a way that breaks with the "history" of the various social structures (cultures, mores, Character history, etc.) and relationships already established within the SIS or the source material.  Our contention was that we felt that he was breaking some of these "conventions" – but that is open to interpretation.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAs you say, it's a give and take process based in trust, and it looks to me like you've got a (possibly minor) trust-breakdown here: the other players didn't trust that the dwarf player was fully engaged with the shared, social implications as he played through that scene, and subsequent discussion hasn't reestablished that trust.  Again as you point out, it can be important that an "unwillingness to consider another point of view" be displayed through the character during play.  However, I think that if that unwillingness is seen by others to be pervasive in the actual players' thought process when choosing which points of view he's going to pick for the character, then you have an issue.  Possible minor, but valid none the less.

I think you're pretty much right on all account.  I feel and some of the other players feel, to great and lesser degrees, that there is a pervasiveness in the actual player's thought process.  However, once again, we are faced with a subjective problem, as we can't get into the player's head!  Our interpretation of the player's actions was something like – I'm screwed and there's no way out of this and no one can help so what have I got to lose and I'm really steamed.  The failure in this assessment was of the Situation lay in "no one can help."  We "feel" that he either didn't trust us with being shrewd enough to be able to help him out, or he dropped us other PC's out of his assessment process entirely.  That he found the Situation hopeless speaks volumes of what he thinks about our capabilities or he didn't consider us on any level as a matter of habit.  Either way, its not good.  It also demonstrates a "certain" lack of faith in the GM as the GM does not close all opportunities for effective (Situation changing) player input.  I'll give an example.  Not too long ago I was playing one of my favorite Characters – a Dunedain.  I was with my brother, Raven, about 3 Rangers of Ithilien and a half-Dunedain.  Personally my Dunedain, Bannon (not his Elvish name) is a Character I had wanted for years.  These Characters are the iconic Race for us players in Middle Earth.  He was about 7-8 level at the time of this example and part of the back story to this Character was that I had spent 70 years searching all over Middle Earth for him.  The Character was introduced with me finding and rescuing my brother.  This bond between he and I is extremely strong as exemplified by my back-story efforts to find him.  

Here we are playing in Harrandor and there is a rebellion brewing against the Gondorian occupation.  We were all heading north back to Gondor when we came across a small town where there were about 300 males who were gathering to try and wipe out the Gondorian fort which was in the process of being raised in a nearby town.  Obviously there was no way we could directly confront these people due to their numbers, nor could we just walk away and let them massacre the Gondorian contingent in the next town.  So we decided to go in at night, steal as many horses as we can, and leave a "message" of don't be getting to big for your britches by burning a couple of buildings.  Not a great idea, but we didn't have many options.  The value of it was that the potential for loss of any life was minimized as much a possible.  We go in, my brother (a PC) got caught trying to take a hostage that would have been sent back with a verbal message and there is some miscommunication about the rally point.  In this confusion I see my brother dragged to the center of a VERY angry and large mob and the GM plays out that they are deciding that they are going to kill him.  Without a second thought I ride into the town.  I don't know what I can do against 300 armed and agitated people but I am NOT going to let them kill my brother.  (Know this, in all but the most unusual circumstances I would have died trying to cut my way to my brother against all these people)  I ride slowly and carry myself as if I was their King.  I tell the GM, "I throw my presence out."  I lock eyes with only the leader who has a sword over my brother's head.  I try to "telepathically" tell him to stay his hand, but I don't know if it works or not.  When I get as close as I can in this sea of frothing humanity I pull my King's sword out, and call in the high tongue Quenya, (which they do not speak) something like, "You are unworthy to touch a King.  Know my brother's name and fear it.  (I make up some fell sounding Elvish name knowing that while the cannot "understand" the words that the Elvish language has a way of creating images in the minds of the listeners as well as the capability (roughly) of imparting emotions.)  Any man, woman or child who touches him with malice in their hearts I now condemn to death."  I say this in the most commanding and threatening voice I have – I banged a 20.  The leader loses his sway over the crowd but they are not with me either.  I tell the leader to release my brother and he starts getting lippy with me.  I was going to argue with him when I was hit with an inspiration.  I held out my sword and pointed it toward the leader as he raised his sword to kill my brother.  I say to the GM – I crush his will.  Then I simply and quietly say aloud – "Kneel before a King."  Banged another 20!  He raised his sword up --- and fell to his knees.  As did about 20-30 of the people there.

Whew!  I will tell you this.  As a player my hands were shaking and it was very difficult holding my voice steady!  I could have lost my brother which would have been a terrible blow to my Character and to me as a player and I was facing the loss of my Character as well.

Two things here that I want to point out.  I trusted the GM in that if I came up with something that worked he wouldn't force his own story.  Had I not performed effectively there was a very good chance he would have killed the PC.  Second I trusted the other players at the table to try and back me up any way they could should it come down to it.  I didn't have to say anything to them, I just hoped in the back of my mind that they would do their best to aid me should it be necessary.  I felt that they were all burning grey matter trying to find a way through this, thus it helped fortify me make the difficult choices I had to make.  Remember this was a bad situation when we all together and had some tactical advantage – now we were all scattered, my brother was helpless and I was surrounded by several hundred angry and armed people.  What I did not do was to treat this Situation as hopeless and embark on some last desperate and futile symbolic act of defiance against fate.

Ultimately though, because of the adrenalin coursing through me and the anxiety brought on by the desperateness of the Situation - the successful conclusion was that much the sweeter!  I didn't know I had it within me to pull of something like that.  Not only was my brother's life on the line, as well as mine, and potentially the Rangers who were in the tree line, but the loss of any Dunedan would be a staggering loss to the struggle of Middle Earth against Sauron.  There are only 30 of them left and there will be no more.  There was a lot riding on the conclusion of this Situation.

I know that I've wandered a bit, but did I get any part of my idea across about player trust?

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAnyway, that's my thoughts - hope there's something useful in there.

Very useful and thank you for taking the time to offer them!

contracycle – it is late so I will respond to you soon.

Jay,

Thanks for the in-depth response!  I'm gonna be much quicker here, I suspect.  When I speak of "failure" and "success" I was talking about in character issues, but I do get where you're coming from with the player issues as well.  Understanding that the two are distinct - and that the player-level assesment of failure may vary by individual - is, I'd say, important.

The only thing I see about the "desperation option" that might be more than a difference of opinion is that the deperation I mean to point at is 100% about a players' desperation to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, and etc.)  That desperation needs an appropriate "out", IMO, under all agendas.  Now, a player who uses that out all the time is probably a bad fit for the group at hand, but failure to provide it at all (I say now, in retrospect) proved quite destructive to a number of games I was in years back.  And don't forget the two-way nature here - if a player isn't using the out, and the others think he or she SHOULD be, it's THEIR responsibility to offer it.

I don't know if that focus and clarification changes your response at all, but your focus on the desperation in or the "winnability" of the game Situation itself was NOT what I was meaning to look at, so the clarification seemed worthwhile.

Gordon

Hullo Gordon,

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisThe only thing I see about the "desperation option" that might be more than a difference of opinion is that the deperation I mean to point at is 100% about a players' desperation to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, and etc.)

Actually I am delighted that you brought this up!  Your phrasing has unlocked an issue that I have been worrying over for some time.  In all my ponderings, struggles and writings about Sim I have been deeply concerned about where the "variation" in Sim lay.  By analogy think of the "variation" of Gamism spanning from the Hardcore to the "Gentleman Gamist."  While both ends are Gamist, each may be unrecognizable to adherents of the other.  What does this have to do with Sim?  I think how strongly a "players' desperation (desire?) to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, [staying true to the source material] and etc.)" is exactly where the variation lies.

I have been thinking for a while that the game I play in is pretty darn extreme and is the Sim analog of Hardcore Gamism.  I have been worried for a very long while that in my blindness I may have been espousing "one-true-wayism" inadvertently.  I think the degree of freedom to have recourse to an "escape hatch/desperation out" might just be that sliding scale ("variation") of Sim play.  To me to be in a game where such recourse was common would bore me snotless, yet a player who enjoys a less intense game would probably find our game much too overwhelming and not satisfying at all.  Both styles would be Sim, though not particularly compatible with each other.

The game I play in has almost or virtually no recourse to the "escape hatch/desperation out."  I would say it is hardcore Sim.  Interesting notion...

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAnd don't forget the two-way nature here - if a player isn't using the out, and the others think he or she SHOULD be, it's THEIR responsibility to offer it.

I think you are right, but that the degree of freedom or allow ability to escape or get out of the Situation can only be defined at the local level.  The difficulty in this proposition lies in determining when to bail out another player.  I know I would be livid if someone pulled the plug on me when I (playing Bannon the Dunedain) was trying to save my brother.  Conversely at the beginning of the events in Harrandor a player Character by the name of Noone rode into town with a group of mercenaries to build the Gondorian fort.  The problem for us players was that he came off like a jack booted thug.  We all despised his Character.  He basically took over the town, conscripted the populace into labor teams and tore down their houses for source material to build his fort.  Then when we PC's (the aforementioned Rangers and Dunedain) tried to leave he had my brother clapped in irons and refused the rest of us leave.  We all felt that the player of Noone, a Gondorian agent with virtually all the authority of the Steward, was certain to drive these people into rebellion.  At one point a new Player (who was playing a man from the town) managed to escape with some horses.  In the process of stealing the horses this player found Noone's be-yooooooooooootiful black charger and in his anger and malice killed it.  Noone then commanded one of the Rangers of Ithilien to track this man down and exact justice.  This was not a happy command for this player to receive, but he set out upon it.  He found his charge but could not take him without having to kill many innocents.  Noone had by this point caught wind of a revolt brewing so sent all the Rangers to "put an end" to this nascent rebellion.  Again the PC's were not happy about this on any level whatsoever.  Yes they were playing Rangers, part of a military unit and Noone did have command authority over them, but they became Rangers to protect freedom and fight the Dark Lord not kill men seeking freedom from oppression.  The Rangers tried to "put an end" to the rebellion by trying to talk the rebels out of their designs.  They would not listen and the Players ended up having to kill all of the approximately 25 men including a player Character.  I will say again that all up player characters despised Noone and were aching to do something "bad to him," but we could not justify it.

At the end of the night I voted the player of Noone as the best roleplayer that night.  He was a despicable crap weasel and far from the type of Character that this player usually plays.  He did an awesome job of being ruthless.  Some weeks later I was talking to the player of Noone that while I that I thought he was playing a fascinating Character I wanted him dead I deplored him that much.  He took me aside and told me that he was sent down to Harrandor by the Steward to build a fort, but his primary and secret task was to find the leader of the rebellion and assassinate him.  The player by being such an ass was in effect trying to have the mountain come to Mohammad.  IOW the player was trying to flush out the rebels and have them come to him.

Now had we the authority to "escape hatch" his Character when one of us felt that he was "damaging" the Dream then this whole emotional build up and the stirring of the pot would never have occurred.  Then I would have lost the opportunity to save my brother that I wrote about in my previous post.  Why would this be bad?  Because I would have not had that intense Character defining moment and I would not have had that opportunity to push myself to the limits.  At the end of the game the GM said that in the 20+ years of gaming he had never seen a better example of what it means to be a Dunedain – and that was HUGE for me!

So can you see how the idea of this "escape hatch/desperation out" can really gut the game as well if it is not employed effectively?  I'm not saying that it should not be done, but it is a very very difficult assessment to make.  One man's mead is another man's poison.  Also much of Sim is about dealing with problems and the fallout therefrom.  Like the bricoler who needs the localized heat of an iron, but must then contend with the undesired consequence of the weight it brings.  So while what you suggest is in principle a good idea, in practice it would be very difficult to implement effectively.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI don't know if that focus and clarification changes your response at all, but your focus on the desperation in or the "winnability" of the game Situation itself was NOT what I was meaning to look at, so the clarification seemed worthwhile.

Your input was useful and I think it did change or, perhaps more accurately put, it did enlighten my understanding of Sim!  Way cool!  I'm not sure yet, but I think this is a very important piece of the Sim puzzle.