The Forge Archives

A couple of weeks ago, in my regular game I had one the crappiest times – ever.  The post mortem, however, was utterly fascinating.

But first, some background.

The game system we use is a "home brew" that is a mix of a level based system and a skill based system.  We use attributes that follow a pretty traditional line; most anyone who plays D&D would recognize all but one of the attributes right off.  The "raw" attributes are rolled by the players using either best three out of five dice and the numbers are placed into attributes in a linear fashion or best three out of four and the player can place them where they choose.  Any stat below an eight is automatically re-rolled until the number is greater than or equal to eight.  At the time of roll up there is also one other number created called simply enough re-roll.  That number may be placed in any attribute the player wishes.  Two sets of "raw" attributes are rolled and they are then "passed forward" to the GM.  At this point the GM reviews the numbers and makes a determination regarding the "playability" of the numbers.  If the numbers are too low to be considered "playable" another set of "raw attributes" are rolled up.  This continues until a "playable" set of numbers is rolled-up.  A player may choose to stay with the numbers, but in my nearly ten years at the table I don't think this has happened even once.

At this stage the GM references some charts and looks up the modifiers for the race or human culture the player will be playing.  Depending on the "cultural" stock the player is walked through certain attributes rolling a d20 trying roll higher than his current attribute score.  If the player does not roll higher they go to the next attribute.  If the player does roll higher than the attribute the attribute is raised by one point and the player now rolls against the higher attribute.  If an attribute goes above human maximum then some serious "horse trading" begins between the GM and the player as to how the player will be "compensated" for having to bring down a supra-human attribute.  (This is quite fun!)  Non-human characters do not get rolls against their attributes but instead get straight pluses, which are rather substantial, and their attributes can and frequently do exceed human maximums.

After the random attributes are finalized the player chooses a height and weight.  From here the GM calculates the "defense percentage" (read – Armor class), the total "body points" and their distribution in the frame of the body.  Stamina and Social Status is rolled.  The Stamina value gives much authority to the dice while the Social Status is much more negotiable depending on character concept.  The choice of weapons is made by the player and the GM (with the GM having final authority) taking into account cultural norms, social status, character concept and any other negotiable factors.  The GM again refers to some tables and calculates the base weapon skill of the Character taking into account the attributes and the difficulty of learning/using the weapon.  At this point any player input is taken into consideration as the GM also takes into account social status and any other historical considerations.

At this point all the "crunchy" mechanics of roll up are concluded.  The GM now gives far more authority to player concepts about the character as he records values for the secondary skills on the character sheet.  This section is all judgment with no mechanics involved in the determination of the level of skill in the secondary skill yet does take in account social status, cultural norms and any player concepts regarding the character and its history (if any).  For the players, it is here that the character starts to "come alive" in his uniqueness and the fleshing out of concepts.  The sheet is returned to the player with the instructions that he can add 2x, 3x or 4x the characters wisdom attribute value in "checks" to his secondaries with no more than the character's intelligence attribute value in any one category.  Also the player may negotiate for "special secondary" skills (with input on the skill level) with the GM as based upon the character concept.  The aforementioned multiplier is also a judgment call and takes into account the circumstances and the nature of the character.  So as we get closer and closer to finalizing the character the player has more and more influence on the character.

However, even this process in not fixed as much discussion about the character can and does frequently happen between game sessions as many ideas are tossed around that do have a profound impact on this process.  Conversely, one can literally start in a session with a blank character sheet – and that is how this particular game session started for me.

We've been calling this particular grouping of characters "Team Evil," or "The Evil Scenario."  It has been years in the making with the primary push coming from the player who has a Dunedain that has been turned into a vampire – breaking an oath in the process.  Becoming a vampire is a dangerous game as the Master Vampire is capricious, extremely powerful and evil through and through.  Many times snippets were played of the master humiliating this fallen Dunedain who had given up free will to allow himself to be enslaved all in the pursuit of "power."  Brutal and degrading was the treatment of this character by the Master – however, the character did rocket up in levels.  He left as soon as he could to make his own way in the world and found that as badly the Master had treated him the truly evil denizens of the rest of the world were looking to do much worse.  At one point he even "flirted" with the idea of "allying" with Sauron which ended in near disaster for the character.  Sauron doesn't have allies – he has slaves.  Only by burning a "tomahawk 20" was he able to keep from losing his character to total domination/enslavement to Sauron.  In between he has been hunted and nearly captured on the ethereal plane when he "misted" and has had a couple of run-ins with vampire hunters.  The very land revolts against his being.  He cannot abide fresh running water and Ulmo will not allow him onto the oceans.  At any rate Sauron became away of the player's character and proclaimed, "I covet this one."  The player has already had to escape to attempts at capture by Nazgul.  The player has determined that he needs allies if he is to "survive."  Hence this scenario – An all evil group which could ally together to survive through increasing their power base.

Finally about 4-6 months ago two more players were convinced to play evil characters by this player.  I'll call the vampire player M, and the two other players C and D.  C is typically open to trying different things but was extremely leery for a couple of reasons.  The first being that he did not want to become an insta-slave to M's very high-level vampire.  Second he was concerned that if the dynamics were set up just so, that every one (the players of all the evil characters) would just fall on each other in the first few minutes of play.  D loves epic (with an emphasis on the "good" implied in) heroic and has nil interest in playing anything evil.  However, between M, C and the GM a workable concept was hit upon.  D would play a Numenorean that had been betrayed and his family murdered by Sauron at the end of the second age on the isle of Númenór.  D's character would be a Numenorean that Sauron had turned into a lich so that he could not die and then imprisoned him in an ensorcelled sarcophagus to suffer in anguish and pain throughout all eternity.  Cut to the present day - roughly 4000 thousand years later.

C's character is simply a dark mage seeking power.  I forget the details but essentially the player/character made a pact with "something" that existed beyond the void that had grown weary with the foot dragging of his servant.  The character was given 7 "knowledges" he could ask for.  The first he chose was to learn the "high black-speech" the knowledge of which was seared into his flesh in dark "magical" runes.

The GM basically arranged matters such that the Lich and the dark mage would "need" each other to prosper.  The Lich (D's character) needed to be able to bind flesh to his bones so that he could go out into the world of light, the skill of which lay in C's dark mage.  I forget what the reverse need was, but the two needed each and these needs helped prevent the immediate-falling-upon-each-other outcome.  Even still it was not assured that these two would cement an alliance until it had happened.

Now M is really excited because "team-evil" is coming together which means his character starts having more options than just "lay low" and "hide."  It also means he gets to play his vampire character more often.  As other players at the table now have characters that can run with his vampire it makes it easier for the GM to construct scenarios for M to play his vampire in.  Yay!  Except...

...evil really creeps me out – bad.  These characters are not "bad men," they are either essentially demons or have truck with them.  This is evil that transcends the mere material world.  So I was caught in a quandary of how to support the players while not having to play wretched evil.

I talked some ideas over with the GM, listened to some ideas he had and we ultimately settled on me playing a "Black Numenorean" from Umbar.  The kick was that I seen what enslaving one's self in worship to Sauron wrought upon the worshiper.  While my character hungered after power, kingship, as was his birthright he had no stomach for enslavement.  So, finally(!) that brings us to that really crappy day of role-play.

This particular day only five players were present including the GM and myself.  Given the shock and the emotional roller coaster I endured my memory of that day is sketchy at best.  (At this point in the post I had to call player D to refresh my memory of that night because it was soooo spotty.)

The night started with player C playing his dark mage "Nicodemis," player D playing his Lich "Durizon" and player M playing a low level character by the name of "Arathon."  The last time Nicodemis was played he had hired out a company of men to help him enter into the site of a reputed cave said to have "some interesting happenings."  In that group was "Arathon" and the NPC "body guard" that I had mentioned above.  I don't remember how the NPC (who was actually a PC who was being run by the GM in the absence of the player) was bonded to "Arathon" but the bond was very, very strong.  At the end of that night Nicodemis and Arathon had penetrated the cave and made contact with Durizon.

So the night began with Arathon, the NPC in attendance while Nicodemis was talking with Durizon.  Nicodemis let fall that Sauron was not only still around, but that he had proclaimed himself!  Durizon, of a line close to Elros, went ballistic finding out his tormentor was not only still around but that he claimed kingship of middle earth – a right that had been reserved for the kings of Numenor!  Durizon gathered up his honor guard of 6 "death knights" and immediately set out to find the remains of his father so that he may set them to rest and then headed further down into the cave complex to find the heirlooms of his house.  Nicodemis and train followed. 

Not long later the party was beset by a pack of "dungeon jackals."  If I recall correctly, Durizon wss able to drive them off by threats and proclaiming himself.  An powerful display of "Charisma."  As the moved on they encountered a spider's lair with many large spiders plus a descendant of Ungoliant.  Nicodemis used magics to ignite the webs and drive the spiders back while Durizon challenged the spider queen to make him an offering for having set up lair in his house!  (The spider did not speak, nor was it expected that it would.  Such is the pride of the Númenóreans with a smidge of insanity from some 4000 years of internment.)  I mention this as Arathon is but a man who has neither seen magic nor "giant spiders" before.  Plus there is this creepy "presence" coming from this Durizon person.

Some how, I can't recall how, Arathon was separated from Durizon and Nicodemis and foundered into a lair of "black flies" which proceeded to eat him alive.  Some how, again I don't recall how, Durizon came upon Arathon and rescued him by literally sucking all the flies into himself.  (Visually something like what happened in the Green Mile.)  This weirded out but as he was pretty close to death he couldn't act on that.  Nicodemis, seeing how bad off Arathon was, requested that Durizon "heal" Arathon.  This was a "dark" healing, while effective, really set off Arathon.  He was just about out of his mind in fear.  Thus Nicodemis sent Arathon back to the surface with the NPC "body guard."  ... and this is where I came in some hours into the session.

The GM pulled me aside and we had a quick discussion about the character I was to play.  We both sat back down, a blank sheet came over the screen and I got a quick thumbnail description of who I was, what I had on me and why I was there.  Enough to start playing!  I was a Black Numenorean from Umbar in the caves searching for purported Numenorean relics as part of a larger party.  At the moment I was scouting ahead by myself when Arathon and the NPC came around a corner pursued by "dungeon jackals."  Arathon demanded(!) passage without deference or respect.  Not that Arathon would know, but to a Numenorean such an offense death could be dealt out.  We're a**holes with an overweening pride.  I stood there, some six-foot and a couple of inches in a world of 5'6", long sword in my hand fighting knife upon my hip black cloak draped over my shoulders.  Built like a linebacker yet with speed to spare.  The NPC quickly squared up with me and bore a fell look in his eyes!  I admonished Arathon for his insolence, delaying just long enough for the jackals to close on them forcing the NPC to have to deal with the dogs while I quietly slipped away to leave them with the jackals.  I knew the NPC was in a bad way because he was a bare handed warrior type and thus he would not do well against a pack of "jackals."  He knew it too and shot me a look of pure liquid hate as I withdrew.  I waited a few moments while the GM said something about how the two might be useful or something like that – I can't recall.  I didn't respond right away and so the dogs started attacking.  It was then I stepped around the corned and killed a "dungeon jackal" on my first blow!  This bought the player and the NPC a few seconds to retreat.  I squared off in a defensive posture as the two went by.  A quick note was tossed to the GM, at this moment, by the player of Arathon as I prepared a fighting retreat.  The GM had me roll a 20 sided.  I rolled poorly but was expecting that to be indicative of the situation with the jackals. 

It wasn't.  The player had written a note saying that he hamstrung me after he went by and the poor roll was the equivalent of a failed "perception" check on my part.  I didn't notice what he was doing until his had knife plunged deep into the back of my character's thigh.

I, as a player, was absolutely flat lined.  I was so stunned that I just blanked.  The GM, however, did not "stop" the game.  If I was stunned – the character was stunned.  I made some effort to fight on but I just couldn't "get it up" and was quickly over run.  My character was dead within a minute.

(Woo-hoo!  A two parter... yay...)

That really blew ass.  I had sat around some 3-4 hours until this point in the game arrived and it was all over in about ten minutes.  I wasn't angry at the player for what he did.  I had f*cked him not a couple minutes before when I wouldn't let him pass and basically fed him up to the dungeon jackals.  I only had the sheet in my hand maybe fifteen minutes, had no numbers, only a couple of quickly scribbled notes and was just starting the merest of processes of building the character mentally.  I sat down and mumbled something like, "It's amazing how much it sucks to lose a character - even one you haven't even really started to create yet..." 

Play had to continue on as Arathon was still in immanent danger.  Not long after he got into a fix when Nicodemis showed up.  Again more magics were involved and Durizon was "unveiled" a bit as Lich.  This time Arathon lost it and folded.  His sense of reality had been completely shredded and he turtled into a fetal position.  Since Nicodemis could not make use of him any more, he slew Arathon and used his flesh for Durizon.  Now M was down an old character – one of at least 6 years.  M obviously wasn't too happy and said something like, "It was being in a Call of Cthulu scenario.  What else could I have done?"  I felt bad for him because I know what losing a character feels like.

Somehow, I don't remember how, again, Nicodemis made a mental/psychic/etc. call out to M's vampire Eglambar, who appeared in short order.  It wasn't too long before M was feeling his legs under himself emotionally and was reasonably "happy" once again.  Not long after this the GM had the "team evil" party encounter the rest of the party my now dead character was with.

Again a blank sheet came over the top of the GM's screen towards me and a description was made about the main character.  He was the brother to my freshly dead character thus he too was a "Black Numenorean."  This time the GM included many more traits in this character that we had discussed previously.  One aspect that I thought would be pretty cool would be if his eyes were milky like he had cataracts and he could not see very clearly, however, he could see into the spiritual world and be able to read the "souls" of others.  I don't remember too much else about him other than he was a "shadow" level of about 8 or 9 and that he had a pretty beefy party with him.  This new character of mine had an NPC "Black Numenorean" was of even higher level among this troupe.  Another very important NPC was a "Kabalist."  I'm not sure exactly what that meant, but it sounded pretty cool and I felt he was probably some sort of dark cleric.  A spell caster(!) in a world that, other than the evil party, is virtually unheard of!  Quick back-story includes that I'm pretty tough, bordering on unnaturally fast and nearly fearless (almost reckless).

OK.  I'm still kinda shaky from the earlier character death, but I've got a pretty solid party with me, including a rare spell caster and my character in particular is not a push over.  Cool, at least I shouldn't get bulldozed out right if things go sour.


Team evil and my side start to parlay.  Again I'm playing arrogant, as per the "Black Numenoreans," but I keep mostly quiet as it turns out that my second does most of the talking.  My second tells him that we had come to retrieve the heirlooms of Númenór so that they would not fall into lesser hands.  Durizon the lich started making these outlandish claims about a lineage, his lineage, that I knew from my "ancient history" that was not on the nine ships that escaped sailing from the destruction of Númenór.  Eventually, I get a little ticked by the Lich and I tell him that I am in charge and if wishes to speak to any one then he can talk to me.  He got a little ganked, but I expected that.  However, I relinquished my claims to any relics here as we had apparently, though unknowingly, "broken into his house like thieves in the night."  At this point I wasn't quite sure if his claims were true or not, but there was "something" about him that just screamed charisma.  Maybe?  (Tough I cannot see Durizon clearly, in my second sight he's reading blacker than black.  Oi!)  Eglambar (who doesn't show up, at all, in my second sight – double oi!!) interjected that he had been in the citadel of the Black Númenóreans in Umbar and asked if we recognized him.  I chose not to, probably because I was still smarting from the earlier death.  Words were exchanged when Eglambar raised his arm pointing at my second and hissed.  This caused my second, who was more seasoned (read higher level) than my character to take a step back in fear.  Then...

...the player of Nicodemis detected that the Kabalist on my side was a spell caster and thought it would be fun to engage in a (mental) "wizard's duel."  The Kabalist was quickly dominated.  All this happened mentally and without visible magics so I didn't know anything was going on until the Kabalist walked half way between the two groups and kneeled facing "team evil."  I called to him but he ignored as if I wasn't there.  Given my character's background, though I was no spell caster, I could sure tell that someone had just done something to my "big gun."  I realized that I just lost the initiative and my tactical situation just took a huge belly flop into the dumper.

• 1.  My "big gun" just evaporated from my arsenal.
• 2.  There was a "dweomer crafter" or something of the like on the other side.
• 3.  That "dweomer crafter" just took hostile action against me.
• 4.  The kabalist knew that there was Numenorean citadel and where it was hidden – and he was now dominated by a hostile power.
• 5.  The – toughest - guy on my side was just intimidated by the one known as Eglambar who, in my second site, doesn't appear to have a soul!

Things start moving pretty fast here and yet again I don't recall all that happened.

As nothing transpired in the following few seconds to convince me to stick around, I ordered a retreat until I could figure out what to do and to see if I could at least try and even the scales a bit, relative situation wise.

I ordered a bowman to "deal with the traitor."  Durizon made one last effort to parlay but I wasn't buying – at least not under those circumstances.  Again I ordered the bowman to "deal with the traitor" as we slowly retreated out of the chamber.  He fired and the GM had me roll for the bowman.  Eglambar saw the bow come up and moved at superhuman speed to try and kill the bowman before he can fire.  The GM said that while Eglambar moved very fast he could not cover that distance in only two or three seconds.  I rolled the die.

"1"

A fletching flew off the arrow sending it careening into the direction of the other party.  Durizon called for darkness upon my party.  At nearly the same instant Eglambar came crashing through my party sending a number of us to the ground.  Given that my character was nearly fearless, my situation was utterly destroyed and that he is viciously arrogant I decided that I will stand to the death as I will NOT grovel nor flee in fear.  I pulled my sword as Durizon marched forward.  Meanwhile there was panicked screaming coming from the darkness at my back.  Now, I, as the player was really f*ucking pissed at what was going down.  We were some five hours into the game session, that time maybe 20-25 minutes into the period after I had started playing my new character and he was virtually helpless as well as utterly humiliated.  When Durizon was within 20 feet I sprang out at him like a coiled snake driving my sword through his mid-section up to the hilt.

Problem was – he's undead.  He has no vitals to pierce.  No blood to spill.  At least not in his belly which is exactly where I aimed the blow.  I as a player suspected fairly strongly that the manner of my attack would do no real harm, but my character had no reason to believe otherwise.  I rolled an enormous amount of damage – to no avail – as I expected given the nature of the game world.  With one(!) arm Durizon picked me up by the throat.  I was in too tight to use my sword again thus my hands flew to my knife.  In and out of character I knew that only had one or two (in and out of game) seconds at the most.  In the chaos that was unfolding at the table I yelled at the GM, "I serve myself up if I have to to drive my knife though his f*ucking head!"  I was reaaaaaaaly steamed.  I was told to roll.  I rolled a –

"1"

Oh, I served myself up all right.  Durizon sucked the life right out of the character killing him dead instantly.

...and that was the last thing I did the whole rest of the remaining 6 hours of that night.  I was soooo blown out that I actually got sleepy and had to lie down on the floor and nap for an hour or so.  When I got up I was incapable of playing anymore that night.  One of the WORST times I've ever had gaming.

I did feel that it was important to make sure that no "fences needed tending" so I did spend the day following the game talking to all the players involved about what happened.  The post mortem that day was actually quite fascinating, but I'll save that for another post as this grew to this monstrously ginormous size.

(As a quick addition - I would like to note that when I got into writing the second character disaster I kept shifting into first person and the present tense.  Wow...)

I can't wait for the post mortem on this session.

C. S. Bone

Hi Jay,

Question: is Cary the GM?

First thing I'm seeing is that C didn't play an evil character, he played a hero who happened to be lumped in unfairly with a couple of evil characters. This isn't good or bad, but we should acknowledge it right away. "Not really evil, I just wear black and play evil on TV." Whether this went against M's desires for his "team evil" sessions is totally a matter of personal interpretation.

Another thing I'm seeing is that the players' relative commitment to the "team evil" thing, ranging from enthusiastic to entirely reluctant, seems to be paralleled in part by their characters' actual power in the game.

And the third thing I'm seeing is that you didn't really play. Not like you've described playing before, in which your typical process of character creation slips into "olden-tymey" prose and you start getting dizzy with romantic identification of your character. By the character-creation standards you've described previously, and summarized in this thread as well, you were basically moving an NPC's arms and legs around at the behest of the GM, and a not-very-interesting NPC at that.

Fourth thing I'm seeing: all the conflicts during play were utterly irrelevant to anything imaginably called "evil." Two monster fights and a pissing match over who gets to pass through a tunnel first? A lot of blackness and bug-ish color, but that's no big deal; I can scrawl with a black crayon too. So "team evil" as I'm using it here, throughout this post, must be referring to something other than thematic or even setting-based evil.

Fifth thing I'm seeing is that the GM and M are basically the primary authors/contributors for any aspect of any of this "team evil" play. Everyone else is window dressing, there to bolster what the two of them came to the table for. Notes and quick 20-checks (which are really GM-fiat Drama resolutions; you realize this, right?) seem to be the primary elements of resolution, and that means the two of them are going to improvise out a story which suits them, and the rest of you are there to support that. Period. This seems to run counter to what I've seen you describe in the past, in which feeling any given character's experience of the story is considered the top priority.

Sixth thing I'm seeing is that you utterly missed the cue the GM tossed you to "team up, dammit" with the other characters when you met them. If you'd been playing a hero, who'd come upon other heroic characters in duress, I have absolutely no doubt that you'd have thrown in with them at the drop of a hat, regardless of what the character did or did not know. In fact, I bet you've done that when playing a new character, probably more than once.

So! This is a classic situation whose principles apply no matter whether "evil" is involved or not.

1. You (a player) are not confident that the small-p premise for play (jargon = Situation) is going to yield anything of conceivable interest to you. This is not a Creative Agenda thing, it's a content-thing. So you go into this with no sense of orientation, especially not your favorite one - the integrity of the faux-Tolkien setting history. You were, effectively, not only uncommitted, but also deaf and blind.

2. The system in question favors verbal cues signalling the right thing to do and a hell of a lot of Drama resolution. Consequences for failing to "move with the groove" are severe. In your regular game, the degree of identification you guys foster, and the attention to one another's characters, tends to make any death (or even severe risk) a moving tragedy.

3. The people playing have no idea what to do if they are not "heroes cooperating against evil," and so when they play other sorts of characters, the only thing they can imagine doing is squabbling among one another and gaming the limitations of the resolution system as aggressively as possible, to take one another down via "not really cheating." In other words, they think, if they're playing Evill Guyz, then they have to play using seven-year-old values of "me first" ... as players. See what I mean. As players. That's key.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Well, now for your second post ... and you know, sometimes your throwaway comments about your sessions floor me. "Play had to continue as Arathon was still in imminent danger." What? That is ... just bizarre. Makes no sense. Martian logic. But never mind, carry on.

Actually, now that I review that second post, it's all just a grim repeat of your first. Again, you played the GM's NPC, and again, not a very interesting one - you do realize, right, that "your guy died? OK, play his brother who just shows up" is grotesquely lame, right? To your credit, you did attempt to internalize the character better this time, knowing that in the past, that was the key to gaining more story-impact during play itself.

But again, you were up against pure and simple "do your job" GMing. Your role was to ally with M's character - period. Again, you missed your cue. (Bear in mind this is not me, Ron, telling you that you "played wrong," but rather my paraphrase of the at-the-table expectations I think you were facing.) The consequences are predictable, and bingo, there they are.

I am curious to know whether the post-mortem of the next day touched on any of the above issues, or whether it degenerated into a whole bunch of typical denial-piffle. I'll give you a hint - any discussion of what "evil" is or what it means to play an "evil guy," is evidence of the latter.

Best,
Ron

Man this takes me back. I had two experiences with "evil sessions." The first time was when I came back to visit my old college the year after I left it. One of my frat brother/gaming buddies was GMing an AD&D1 "evil campaign" on campus and invited me to sit in. I didn't know anyone else in the group. I rolled up an Illusionist. Vert early in the session I had that Illusionist say something snarky to one of the other PCs. He passed a note to the GM, so artfully I don't recall seeing it, and the GM, Phred, narrated that my swift weakening to the point of inability to do much of anything. Some kind of attribute drain, I think, plus an inability to cast spells. It was 25 years ago and the memory is not complete. I do know that pretty much immediately I was unable to *play*. I had come 400 miles for this visit, and while the visit wasn't gaming-centric I used to enjoy playing with Phred and looked forward to it, only to have it dissolve out from under me. In those days I didn't have the self-respect to walk out, though I did have a clear if unvoiced understanding that this was something one real person had done to another and not something to be pawned off onto the fiction.

The second time was a couple of years later, at the then-regular open gaming evenings at our FLGS back home. The GM decided to do "evil Runequest" and I rolled up an Ogre. IIRC there was no PK activity in the short session. We went into Pavis, found some Trollkin and kicked their ass. We ended up with a couple of prisoners. At this point I'm thinking, it's an "evil campaign," I'm a flesh-eating monster and to this point *we've done nothing that standard-issue "heroic" parties do* in RPGs of that type.

So I had my Ogre bugger a Trollkin.

THEN, I narrated him sinking his teeth into the Trollkin's neck at the moment of climax. (Not the Trollkin's, needless to say.) The other players were grossed out, but in a generally appreciative way. We did ditch "evil sessions" after that, but at least that session was socially functional: nobody came away from it with hurt feelings. (I daresay that if I'd had my Ogre rape another PC - all-male; all-declared straight play group - that wouldn't have been the case.)

In neither case did any of us have anything particularly interesting or urgent to *say* about Eee-vill, which is in line with Ron's point above. *Jerkhood*, maybe. "Let's play a jerkhood campaign!" we might have said. It might be that the problem in your game, Jay, was that up to two people at the table had genuine interest in Doing Something with "Evil" - the vampire player and the GM - and the rest didn't, so they fell back on "jerkhood." There wasn't a clear social contract that "this is M's vampire's 'spotlight' episode" and our job is to fit ourselves around him."

Now let me take a wild stab at why the PK business really bothered you. About the death of your first character, you write

Quote from: Silmenume on January 23, 2006, 07:07:08 AM
The GM pulled me aside and we had a quick discussion about the character I was to play.  We both sat back down, a blank sheet came over the screen and I got a quick thumbnail description of who I was, what I had on me and why I was there.  Enough to start playing!  I was a Black Numenorean from Umbar in the caves searching for purported Numenorean relics as part of a larger party.  At the moment I was scouting ahead by myself when Arathon and the NPC came around a corner pursued by "dungeon jackals."  Arathon demanded(!) passage without deference or respect.  Not that Arathon would know, but to a Numenorean such an offense death could be dealt out.  We're a**holes with an overweening pride.  I stood there, some six-foot and a couple of inches in a world of 5'6", long sword in my hand fighting knife upon my hip black cloak draped over my shoulders.  Built like a linebacker yet with speed to spare.  The NPC quickly squared up with me and bore a fell look in his eyes!  I admonished Arathon for his insolence, delaying just long enough for the jackals to close on them forcing the NPC to have to deal with the dogs while I quietly slipped away to leave them with the jackals.  I knew the NPC was in a bad way because he was a bare handed warrior type and thus he would not do well against a pack of "jackals."  He knew it too and shot me a look of pure liquid hate as I withdrew.  I waited a few moments while the GM said something about how the two might be useful or something like that – I can't recall.  I didn't respond right away and so the dogs started attacking.  It was then I stepped around the corned and killed a "dungeon jackal" on my first blow!  This bought the player and the NPC a few seconds to retreat.  I squared off in a defensive posture as the two went by.  A quick note was tossed to the GM, at this moment, by the player of Arathon as I prepared a fighting retreat.  The GM had me roll a 20 sided.  I rolled poorly but was expecting that to be indicative of the situation with the jackals. 

It wasn't.  The player had written a note saying that he hamstrung me after he went by and the poor roll was the equivalent of a failed "perception" check on my part.  I didn't notice what he was doing until his had knife plunged deep into the back of my character's thigh.

I, as a player, was absolutely flat lined.  I was so stunned that I just blanked.  The GM, however, did not "stop" the game.  If I was stunned – the character was stunned.  I made some effort to fight on but I just couldn't "get it up" and was quickly over run.  My character was dead within a minute.

As I read this, you made an unreciprocated social concession to spare Arathon.

Your PC has Arathon dead to rights. You've "evilly" set him up to die for sleighting your honor. You recognize Arathon's player's upset, and you, Jay, act to mitigate it. There is, as I read it, no IC reason for your character to bail him out. You did it to be nice.

Then he screws you for it.

I'm thinking that leaves you seething against two things: Arathon's player for slapping you in the face, however unwittingly; yourself for *breaking the integrity of the fiction in the first place*. (From a hardcore Sim perspective it's hard to find justification for your PC driving the jackals away from Arathon once you've set them on him.)

So, ganz meshuggah all around. I can see various ways to "save" the evil campaign, but it's only worth doing that if people think there's fun to be had from it.

Best,


Jim

*we've done nothing that standard-issue "heroic" parties do*

Um, *DON'T do*.

Sheesh.

Best,


Jim

Quote from: Supplanter on January 25, 2006, 11:29:25 AM

Quote from: Silmenume on January 23, 2006, 07:07:08 AM
He knew it too and shot me a look of pure liquid hate as I withdrew.  I waited a few moments while the GM said something about how the two might be useful or something like that – I can't recall.  I didn't respond right away and so the dogs started attacking.  It was then I stepped around the corned and killed a "dungeon jackal" on my first blow!

{SNIP}

I'm thinking that leaves you seething against two things: Arathon's player for slapping you in the face, however unwittingly; yourself for *breaking the integrity of the fiction in the first place*. (From a hardcore Sim perspective it's hard to find justification for your PC driving the jackals away from Arathon once you've set them on him.)

One more input I should have mentioned: at least as you describe it, the GM exerted social influence on YOU to save Arathon and the PC, but none on M (Arathon's player) to save you. Was Arathon the vampire in disguise? That part's not clear. Because if Arathon was "a low-level character" M was playing until the vampire who was the whole point of all this could get into the action, the GM's conduct is particularly inexplicable, based on the account provided.

Best,


Jim

A few general notes;

Generally, other PCs shouldn't be fought with when system that doesn't support it is used. Like most standard systems. It is all too easy to get emotional about it. And with the lack of conflict resolution (to be more specific: setting stakes) someone will end up feeling screwed. I shudder at the thought of using secret notes in such an environment.
Another generalisation: In games with objective Evil, do not play an all-evil game without a long and throughout discussion of what it means and what is accepted. IOW: Social contract and in-game fiction should be negotiated before play. Latter more as a subset of the former, to stop "this is what y Guy would do" arguments.

Quote from: RonIn other words, they think, if they're playing Evill Guyz, then they have to play using seven-year-old values of "me first" ... as players. See what I mean. As players. That's key.

I think Ron made alot of strong points and this is the strongest amongst them, IMO.

During a particular discussion on RPG.net I once said that both sides of a sporting team actually are co-operating with each other, as one scores a goal against the other. One responce that flawed me was something like "Ask the team that's losing, whether they think the other side is co-operating with them!"

There may be a widespread identification that non co-op or evil play, means absolutely no co-operation between both sides at any level.

I think Tommi brought this next point up with his system support comment. To a fair degree, I think the above identification is right - if there is a rule missing at just the wrong spot, there isn't anything there for both sides to co-operate about. So co-operation at the SC level these rules are at, is impossible. You really can't co-operate/both do the same thing, when you don't know what that thing is.

[personal rant]This is what pisses me off about game systems that refer to "oh, use common sense" or "player X should give rewards for what he/she liked" or even stuff like "Oh, draw a card interpret the art on it to resolve the conflict". It kills any healthy competition driven creativity at all rule levels below it, since the currency this 'non rule' uses outmatches the currency of those below and isn't based at all on co-operation. Well, doesn't kill it off straight away if players assume 'certain unstated rules on how to handle it' are being followed by both parties (which they don't actually have any good reason to assume).[/rant]

I think in a traditional, all hero/chums for life group the SIS itself ends up substituting (however successfully) for the rules that are missing at a higher level. Eg, the PC's all discuss their differences with each other, then so too the players all discuss their differences. In this case that's missing in the sis and thus it's not substituting for a missing rule higher in the social contract. And the players are left to the "me first" tactics described by Ron.

[tangental]In fact, I wonder if this is what 'hardcore' gamism revolves around. Eg, my old example where I took a spider bite in D&D 3.0, but left it to the GM to bring up the need for a second poison save on my part. It was described as hardcore when I gave an AP account, because basically I didn't let the SIS "spider venom gets in your system and hurts you a minute latter" causality subsitute for a missing rule higher in the social contract (the missing rule being, which real life player takes responsiblity for book keeping this?). Rules interfacing directly with social contract, like the essay describes. Although really their interfacing with a gap in the social contract. Hmm, I should probably start a new thread on this, since the idea is (probably) that the gap is an ideal place for the SIS causality to take charge and become mechanically important. I'd differ on that, along the lines of how "I paid for our characters meal, so equally Tim has to pay for our real life pizza" doesn't work. Lower levels in the social contract can't command/resolve a higher level.[/end of overly long tangent]

Is there such a thing as an incoherent setting?

I cant imagine Middle Earth as a good setting for a "Team Evil" game, regardless of creative agenda.

Theres this one overwhelming source of Evil: Sauron.

This limits Gamist ambitions, restricts Narrativist exploration of theme, and seems outside the source material for Sim.

Sil: what were you hoping play might be like?

QuoteThere may be a widespread identification that non co-op or evil play, means absolutely no co-operation between both sides at any level.

Well, I think the term "evil" is essentially meaningless, and that "selfishness" has filled the gap.

Not least because of Judea-Christian and democratic value systems in the west, you know, loving your neighbour, tolerating the different, charity as a virtue, etc.  So I think that "evil" comes to mean " a breakdown of cooperation", becuase cooperation is tagged as morally good.

But this is problematic for several reasons.  Firstly, it doesn't really match up to evil as a metaphysical entity in an imaginary world, where things like physical decay might be linked to metaphysical evil.  It doesn't capture any of the sense of evil as a violation of natural law, nor even of evil as the art of the Deceiver.  And ignores, although perhaps understandably, the tendency of people to label their enemies evil merely becuase they are enemies.

Anyway, I do think that the way the "evil game" is widely understood is that it is the release of the conventional restrictions to play nice, help your buddies etc, and thus in essence is a paraphrase of Player-versus-Player.

I agree contra, but what do you think about the SIS substituting for gaps at higher levels in the SIS?

Here's an example were there isn't a gap about negotiation.
Player A "Hey, what if my character hamstrung yours at he went past, to show how vile he is to kill you even as you save him? But I guess it'd be pretty dangerous to do in this system. But think of the revenge story possibility!"
Player B "Hmmm, no, but it's a great idea. Perhaps we could work in latter?"
Player A "Okay, cool!"

Now, imagine there isn't any SC agreement on how to negotiate like that, but the group is playing a bunch of heroes.
Player A *Sees player B's PC (and all his gold) vulnerable to a hamstring attack. But decides not to do it  because 'My characters a hero!'"

Would you agree that in this example, the SIS substitutes for a social contract agreement that's missing. Atleast in terms of play that continues without any painful issues?

Although I'm likin' all the input so far, I'm wondering if we're not piling too much on Jay for his reply. He does have a tendency to try to answer each and every point.

Whaddaya think, guys, should we give it a rest to see what he says next, then work from here? I'm thinking that's best for purposes of discourse, helping, all that good stuff.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

The GM was Cary.

I really enjoyed reading your post.  It was like having a mirror held up where I've been never had one available before!  Overall your observations were fairly spot on, but there were a few discrepancies detail that may effect the overall assessment.  I'll list the "corrections" as I think them to be and will move on from there to your 3 "summations."

1.   Re: player C who played Nicodemis.  I'm not sure if I'm not following your logic or if there is some sort of mixing of identities.  Nicodemis was a man who made a Faustian bargain with who we think is Melkor.  In return for "dealing with" with his patron's vassal "who has tarried over long" (e.g. what we players believe to mean that Sauron has been dragging his feet trying to release Melkor) Nicodemis would be given seven "gifts" of knowledge.  Seven being a recurrent number in Tolkien's mythology especially with matters where the Valar are concerned.  Nicodemis came across his future patron to be while contemplating and searching in the "void between the stars."  Upon their agreement an intermediary (what could be best described as a lesser demon) was sent to gather and then return with an answer the first request for knowledge.  Nicodemis' first request was the "High Black Speech" – IOW dark words of power.  Words of "binding and pain."  Given the above perhaps you can see my confusion regarding the assessment that, "C played a hero who happened to be lumped in unfairly with a couple of evil characters."  If it is important to your future posts could you clarify please?  (I should note that even before this meeting Nicodemis was already engaging is such dubious activities as, "Flesh Crafting."  The mere sound of that just makes my skin crawl.  If I recall I think he was basically trying to create Old Testament style golems.)

2.   This is interesting and something that I am going to have to ponder.  I certainly know that M – Eglambar the Vampires' player, was seeking power when this character came into being about 8 years ago.  C's Nicodemis and D's Durizon were both "created" in December of 2005.  Prior to the game I had posted about, Nicodemis and Durizon were played about 4-5 times as 2-3 hours vignettes.  This was done oh so very carefully so that they could and would need each other.

3.   More or less.  My motivation was to find a character that I could play (and not be revolted) so as to be able to support the other players at the table in this particular venture.  My character in this "scenario" was not intended to be a "prime" character in my folder, by my own choice.  That I didn't go through a hefty background creation process reflected this preference of mine to some degree – I'm guessing.  The GM knew that I didn't enjoy playing "evil" but that I was willing to try and at least support/not hinder the other players at the table in the "scenario."  At the conclusion of my second post (which was really the conclusion of my first post – a split made necessary by my long windedness and post length caps!) I was having an awful time and had to go back and edit many times changing "I" to "my Character."  At the point in the game of the second death and at the same section of my post the cognitive separation between "Jay" and "my Character" had pretty much collapsed.

4.   I don't know if this relevant or not as far as your analysis goes but I really only described the start of that night's scenario up to my 2nd wipeout.  The game continued for about 6 hours after that but I really have no clear recollection of what passed.  That nothing "Evil" seemed to have happened probably stems from that I ended my post before they got out of the caves – which they did.  This particular night was the 2nd part of the "get Nicodemis and Durizon" physically together.  The first part Nicodemis had to gather a party (which included Arathon) to go to the cave above which it was rumored that there were many "wild men" about.  He called to his "children" (snakes) and sent them in to slay all the four-legged ones (the dogs).  In return the snakes wished the children, which he granted.  He then cast sleep over the whole area and then had those with him go in and kill all but a dozen men and all the women there as the snakes were consuming the village young.  He authored the deaths of over 200 people, just so that he could be assured that no one would be at his back when he descended into the caves.  Of the dozen village males he took them below as an offering to Durizon, whom he knew needed flesh to give his body form (similar to that of the recent remake of The Mummy) and the ability to move about in daylight.  That nothing "evil" was recorded in my opening post was merely a matter of the selective "time frame" of my events.  The following time this group was played they made their way out of the caves.  Not far away they came across another village that was ruled by a shamanistic witch.  They basically entered unopposed dominated the witch and "broke" her by making her "service" (via suggestive magics {Nicodemis} and sheer plain powerful charisma {Durizon}) the top male.  Then Nicodemis set the whole village upon itself in total surrender to passions.  Eglambar then set about feasting.  To those who could see the spirit world many demons were capering about among the writhing masses.  Durizon commanded the males to make sure the females were always producing many children.  He would use them as a source for his flesh needs as well as guard animals to keep others away from his cave.  (We all felt pretty creeped out about that 'bit of business.')

5.   Actually the 4 or 5 play vignettes prior the game I posted about were specifically constructed for the explicit purpose that C and D would be fully fleshed out characters (no pun intended!) who had their own motivations, histories and directions and to make sure they had enough "power" so that they would not become mere puppets to M's desires.  M was pooping in his pants and despairing a bit watching these various vignettes of C and D unfold over the sessions because he was watching these characters growing in ways and express interests that did not converge with his own interests.  Thus by the time M's vampire, Eglambar, was physically and truly introduced to C and D he would have to do some heavy role-playing if he was going to get them to bend to his will.  By the time Eglambar made his appearance Durizon was looking to kick some Black Numenorean ass in Umbar, which was something Eglambar was not on his list of things to accomplish.  (One of the chief reasons being that this would take him much closer to Mordor where The Shadows lie – coveting him!)  On top of all this the GM most clearly did not want this to be "M's scenario" with the other players as mere window dressing or just an extension of M's will.

Quote from: Ron Edwards"Notes and quick 20-checks (which are really GM-fiat Drama resolutions; you realize this, right?) seem to be the primary elements of resolution ...

Not only do I agree with you about the resolution system really being a Drama resolution system, but I go so far as to aver that such a "drama resolution system" is really what is at work in Sim!  This is exactly what I meant when I had written in earlier posts that the "role of dice" (or any randomizer for the purposes of this argument) is to merely "add spice" to the play not to dictate its outcome.  (This is something that, while central to my general thesis about Sim, I'm guessing is something that is not appropriate to talk about in this forum.)  Please note that I don't have ANY issue with "the manner" in which it was resolved that I had been stabbed in the hamstring – it made perfect sense to me and such an event seemed perfectly reasonably plausible given all the circumstances.  What slammed me was THAT it happened, not that I was somehow peeled by the resolution process.  I was a bastard to the PC.  I had just set him up to die.  He was a scum bag.  Then I come stampeding in to "save him."  That he decided that he wasn't too happy that I had set him up to die and seized the opportunity to return the favor shouldn't have caught me off guard.  I played a treacherous character and should not have expected any less from any other person (to a thief all people are thieves) – especially when I left my back wide open to him under such dangerous circumstances.  What really frosted me was the collusion of the two odious circumstances of (1) having to waiting so long before being able to "play" and (2) getting kacked immediately upon starting "play."  The stab did not "kill the character mechanically" – my shock and the resulting flat footedness in the face of those circumstances did most of that work.

Quote... and that means the two of them are going to improvise out a story which suits them, and the rest of you are there to support that. Period. This seems to run counter to what I've seen you describe in the past, in which feeling any given character's experience of the story is considered the top priority.

Just to make sure that we are all on the same page, the Character that stabbed me in the hamstring was M's thief Arathon and not his desired character (Eglambar – Dunedain Vampire) for the "evil scenario."  Now moving on...!

Oh, the Character experience I had was quite intense. Rage!  Betrayal!  Self-recrimination!  Fool!  Fool!  Trust me, at the instant it happened I really lusted at that moment to kill that m***er f***er!  As soon as I was told that the "1" meant I got cold-bitter steel in my leg I immediately screamed, "I spin the spin the sword around and flash it at him!"  More bad numbers and equally bad circumstances didn't permit any pay out there.  From there it only got worse and I just couldn't find it within me to make the titanic effort to try and pull something, anything (!) out of the air to save my Black Númenórean hide.  The whole experience was quite, er... powerful.  Overwhelming to be truly honest.  Actually, upon reflection, I think I wouldn't have quite so, deflated (felt sooooo impotent?), if I could have taken him down with me.  Or at the very least, cut him.  You see, after my first successful swing and killing of a Dungeon Jackal I was completely ineffective – unto (character) death.  Make no mistake – the "experience" was quite powerful.  I went from the sweet headiness of competence and power in the face of "real" danger to the staggering bitterness of betrayal and death in nearly the blink of an eye.  The experience sucked as it would have sucked to actually have been in the same (real) event.  The process worked fine.  This particular experience blew ass.  Feh.

6.   You are correct in your summation regarding the "heroic" bent both in theory and in the particulars.  However, regarding the "cue" – it wasn't so much a "cue" as the express point(!) of me having that particular character!  I knew I was supposed to link up with the group!  So it wasn't "missing the cue" as much as "completely bollixing the process."  Unless characters are created at the same time and are created as bound to each other in some direct fashion in their back-stories it is still pretty much up the players to "make it work."  For example a Ranger of Ithilien sees something that represents a danger to a small village or hamlet must still convince the residents there, including PC's, that listening to him would be the smart thing to do.  We've played scenarios where we might all be functionaries or staff in a noble's castle who though we are all trying to make sure the lands are secure are all jockeying for favor and the furtherance of out particular goals – more funds requested by the Captain of Horse while another might be seeking to increase revenues through taxation to the detriment of another who is playing a farming "baron" seeking relief from banditry (which will cost the nobleman more money), etc.

Now on to your analysis, which was particularly fascinating!

Quote1. You (a player) are not confident that the small-p premise for play (jargon = Situation) is going to yield anything of conceivable interest to you. This is not a Creative Agenda thing, it's a content-thing. So you go into this with no sense of orientation, especially not your favorite one - the integrity of the faux-Tolkien setting history. You were, effectively, not only uncommitted, but also deaf and blind.

Spot on!  The "point" of the character was to both "support" the three players who were driving that scenario forward while giving me something to do during said scenario.  The compromise was that I would play a merely "bad man" and not something "demonically evil."  Nevertheless this would have been a second tier character in my folio, one in which I would try and give it my best effort though would never fill a warm or compelling spot in my heart.  I suppose it could be said that this character was nearly all meta-game and not very much more.  I was pretty much running deaf and blind.

Quote2. The system in question favors verbal cues signalling the right thing to do and a hell of a lot of Drama resolution. Consequences for failing to "move with the groove" are severe. In your regular game, the degree of identification you guys foster, and the attention to one another's characters, tends to make any death (or even severe risk) a moving tragedy.

Absolutely!  Much of the "challenge and skill" of the game is that very "signaling."  They need not only be verbal in nature!  As players get acclimated to our game those signaling cues expand beyond just the verbal.  What is not said starts becoming very telling.  Actions become tantamount – what one has their character do or not do (in this formulation I am specifically excluding "talking" and other "dialogues.) transcends, in importance and social appreciation, the spoken dialogue.  "Being brave" is infinitely more valued than saying one's character is brave.  The former has great weight while the latter is "functionally or socially" worthless.  "Being clever" is held in far more esteem than using an "intelligence" check (which really isn't even "allowed.")  Thus, literally, a player slightly nodding his head, or turning away from someone who is speaking or the prolonged holding of another's gaze can have a HUGE impact on the SIS.  When the GM has an NPC claim he is a Ranger of Ithilien and then gives a description of said NPC and leaves out any description of a Great Bow, it is up to us players to figure out that something is "missing" and hence possibly wrong.  This "abduction/deduction" cycle is a huge part of the game and is something that is highly prized mechanically and socially.  It is exactly here that our understanding and knowledge of the fictional world is both expanded and "celebrated."  However, this process inherently leads to lots of identification, as one must juggle soooooo much contextual information that it becomes nearly impossible not to begin to connect with/internally adopt our "window into the world."  Actually play becomes smoother and, ultimately, easier if one does adopt the point of view of the "window into the world."  Death sux the big one...

Quick Addendum – The Drama Resolution

Quote3. The people playing have no idea what to do if they are not "heroes cooperating against evil," and so when they play other sorts of characters, the only thing they can imagine doing is squabbling among one another and gaming the limitations of the resolution system as aggressively as possible, to take one another down via "not really cheating." In other words, they think, if they're playing Evill Guyz, then they have to play using seven-year-old values of "me first" ... as players. See what I mean. As players. That's key.

Let me drop a quote here that a player made not 3 days prior to the writing of this particular line.  He said to another player, Chuck (he of the Dwarf and Mirkwood Elf war instigator), "One reason that I enjoy playing the 'evil party' is that we as players are working so hard to cooperate.  We know that we have to band together or we will get swallowed up."  Now that Eglambar, Nicodemis and Durizon are "established" characters they are all finding reasons and ways to work and complement their efforts together.  So far there has been no squabbling at all between those three!  You see, we so highly prize the idea that we don't do troop or party play (as per old D&D) that we (players) have a tendency to go in the opposite direction and pursue our individual (good guyz) goals and choose not to bond strongly together.

Again, just to clarify, the "second post" was just a continuation of my original post, but the word count limit forced me to split it into two.  So what you read wasn't just a "grim repeat," but rather what happened latter in that same game session!  The combination of what happened in the first and second post was just a portion, but the post relevant portion, of just one single extraordinarily crappy game session.

QuoteAgain, you played the GM's NPC, and again, not a very interesting one - you do realize, right, that "your guy died? OK, play his brother who just shows up" is grotesquely lame, right? To your credit, you did attempt to internalize the character better this time, knowing that in the past, that was the key to gaining more story-impact during play itself.

Oh, I fully realize "my guy died."  When I started playing my "first" character the GM said that I was with a larger party of 11 others, but that I had gone on ahead to "scout" a bit.  So when I got kacked he gave me one of the 11 others.  Who the 11 others were at that time was left purposely ambiguously blank to be filled in as play progressed.  That there were other people in the cave complex was established, but I do agree that it was a bit weak that one was "my brother."  However, as this was a scenario that I was "being a good sport in" for the sake of the three driving players and not one that I was particularly excited about I wasn't too upset about that contrivance.  I just needed someone who was reasonably survivable, wouldn't fall apart in the presence of undead, black magics, human sacrifices and the like and wasn't "demonically evil."  This scenario was to be a "coaster" for me – which I was totally OK with.  As long as we didn't play it too often.

QuoteYour role was to ally with M's character - period.

Very close, but my role was to ally with the "evil party."  I understood (no one implied, stated or pressured anything) that if I couldn't find a "comfortable" way to support those players then they would not be able to play that scenario nearly as often.

QuoteAgain, you missed your cue. (Bear in mind this is not me, Ron, telling you that you "played wrong," but rather my paraphrase of the at-the-table expectations I think you were facing.) The consequences are predictable, and bingo, there they are.

If "missed" could be stretched to include "fumbled" then I am totally with you.

QuoteI am curious to know whether the post-mortem of the next day touched on any of the above issues, or whether it degenerated into a whole bunch of typical denial-piffle. I'll give you a hint - any discussion of what "evil" is or what it means to play an "evil guy," is evidence of the latter.

I intend to cover this in my next post!

Jay,

Instead of barrelling on to the next post, let's stick with this one for a while. You have a tendency to develop momentum while typing, often from snap reactions, which makes it really hard to communicate.

Every one of your corrections, above, is based on a mis-reading or over-hasty need to correct. For instance, my "grim repeat" phrase referred to the process, meaning that the same screwups occurred later during play. It's pretty aggravating to say X, then  have the person say, "oh, no, it wasn't Y, it was X!" Similarly, an enthusiastic rephrase of my points doesn't help us, especially when it includes these minor corrections. Barring issues like blindness, all face-to-face human verbal interaction includes visual components. When I say "verbal," and you say, "Oh, gestures and expressions count too," that's more aggravation. Yes. Gestures and expressions too. I am aware that you guys are humans.

One exception: the letters as substitutes for people's names. It doesn't work. No one can read that and follow who did what, in people terms. You confused yourself while typing, and I did my best when posting to try to stick with who was who ... but it doesn't work, logistically. Use the people's names. For what it's worth, I do understand who the characters are and what they were up to.

I despise back-and-forth clarification-posting, so I'm saying this right up front. Try to keep in mind that I understood your post fully and anything I say, although it may or may not be a 100% correct interpretation, is based on that understanding. Let's stick with content and content alone from here on out.

Here's my big point. I am amazed at how far you'll go to defend play that you despised, with constant reference to issues that are either irrelevant or were glaringly unsuccessful. Go back to the first post - Jay, you were in agony. You were mad at your fellow role-players. Don't try to pass it off as playing your character, feeling his rage, role-playing betrayal, as if this were all some glorious role-playing experience. Bullshit. "The crappiest time ever," you said. It "blew ass." For one moment, you were prepared to think critically about your role-playing experience, and now you're snapping back to your habits of coloring the whole thing with justifications for how it really, somehow, wasn't all that bad, or that everyone was doing the right thing and it just somehow didn't work. Let me give you a bit of a reality check.

These points are numbered in order to provide mental stop-points as you read them. The numbers are not there to cue your numbered replies. I want you to read this, not use it as a springboard for your fingers to reply.

1. It is indeed true that making up a secondary character is a fine and powerful technique. He serves mainly as support or foil for a more protagonistic character, played by someone else. It works really well. But that is grossly, blindingly not what happened in this case. You made up a character no one cared about, period. You and Cary made him up to be "sufficient," and that's exactly what you got.

On a related note, that whole biz about the brother? Your paragraph about the 11 other guys from whom Cary drew the character is ... crazy, Jay. This is like talking to a seven-year-old who tries to convince his dad that he didn't break the lamp, but his friend came over, broke the lamp, then just left, in the space of four minutes. You're missing the point entirely. It is irrelevant that the second character was "there" in the SIS - the new player-character was grotesquely lame, socially and creatively, period. Quit defending Cary's alleged mastery of the situation in providing for a bank of potential secondary characters. It changes nothing about my point.

2. Your quibbles about missing your cue are especially self-deceptive. Miss vs. fumble? What utter bullshit. Dude - you missed your cue. It doesn't matter whether you saw it, knew it, understood it, tried to do it, or whatever. You missed it, exactly like an outfielder who sees the pop fly, runs to stand under it, spreads his mitt, and misses the catch. And why? Because you were, in fact, "playing your character" to the best of your ability considering you were deaf and blind, as discussed. And why would "playing your character" result in absolute miserable no-fun play? Because play in your group doesn't work unless Cary takes care of you, and "playing your character" or not, if you aren't doing what Cary wants at the moment, you're flushed out of the interactions.

More, related bullshit ... "oh, my goal wasn't to ally with the character, but with the party." Fucking hell, Jay! This carping is pure emotional dishonesty, made awful to read because you are yourself trying to believe it. Only a gamer would draw such a distinction; it is meaningless. You are trying your best to clarify and defend and wriggle out of the raw and clear insight that you briefly glimpsed, previously.

I have zero confidence that you're going to understand this - that you are dealing with two things that seem synonymous to you, but are not. One of them is to please Cary, be in the story, celebrate the setting. The other is to experience the character, feel the character, emote the character, make the character do stuff. You just ran into the grim reality that if you don't accomplish the former, then the latter is worthless to the other people in the group.

3. Do you think I or anyone can possibly care that play continued for hours after the loss of your characters? I'll tell you what it indicates - that you were traumatized. You sound exactly like an accident victim who has only the haziest memory of how he ended up in the emergency room. It also indicates that the others did not care a bit about that.

4. Process vs. the experience? Nope, big buzzer. Don't tell me that the process "worked" but the experience blew ass. You consider yourself a student of the Big Model - well, use it, for once. Your play-experience sucked. The techniques failed. Your Creative Agenda was not realized. You were marginalized as a participant. All your Method 101 acting drivel won't change that.

You know, one time, I was dating this woman who took me to lunch with her friend, another woman who had won a lot of prizes for body-building. I'd seen her picture - strong, powerful, confident, in the little bikini with all the muscles gleaming. We had lunch. The friend, the bodybuilder, was wearing big-ish sunglasses, the not-very-dark kinds people sometimes wear indoors. They could not conceal the big, turning-green, day-old bruise over her cheekbone. She was submissive, depressed, meticulously polite, absolutely uncommunicative. For those not understanding my point yet, I immediately recognized her as a battered wife - a woman who routinely endured beatings from her husband.

All your justifications, clarifications, and explanations ... you sound a lot like her.

Best,
Ron

I think most cops dislike attending domestic disputes, because they know that often, when they go to split it up, the battered party will go to quite some lengths to resist that. Because they still have issues to resolve (though those issues will most likely never resolve if things remain the way they are).

But I'll just speak for myself here. I think that part of the draw of roleplay (for me), is that really great game you could imagine happening, where the game would also resolve certain long nurtured, pent up issues. That people would suddenly come to an understanding about my contributions and realise the shrug offs/ignoring/flat out applications of force they did in the past were just so foolish to do.

Thinking about it, I guess the problem with that is that the other person has to choose to try and understand you, regardless of your personal talent (unless your some sort of cult leader type personality). And rather than it being a matter of really, really applying yourself and getting through this time, the other person always has the option (for whatever reason) to simply choose to ignore you/not bother noticing. That'll block you, no matter how much you pour your heart out.

And it's hard to imagine a friend would ignore you at that heat felt level. It's much easier to imagine that you just didn't pour your heart out enough this time.

Hmmm, on a selfish note, it helped me to think this out! Heh heh! >:)

[Off topic thought]I wonder how much of an industry could actually run off people returning over and over, trying to resolve issues (from small stuff, like playing the same character type over and over, to larger issues).

Jay,

Been lurking for a while on this one because I wanted to see what you response was going to be.

Short version. Listen to Ron.

Long version. I was in a game that was the same kind of thing as what you described. Different setting, homebrew version of D&D2E, blah, blah, blah. Similarity was in the play experience that DIDN'T make me wake up and walk away.

I was playing pop rocks sim because I was a new player to the group and my Characters  were 5-7 levels lower than everybody else(at one point I had three go poof in a single 12 hour gaming session), which didn't matter to me because I thought I was there for the immersion, the game. But I eventually got really into one of my Characters. I was so into it in fact that when I started pushing all of the GMs buttons from inside the Character, and choose not to notice because, "Its a Character, this is a Game", he short fused and in a circumstance that to this day gets shaking heads (32 36th-level Magic-users just hit me with 128 9th level maximized fireballs?!?! I've only got 28 hit points! You want me to roll to save?...for half?...against each ONE?!?) the GM took out his frustration with Me on my Character.

Let me be clear. GM=Person, Me=Person, NPCs involved and my Character = Proxies.

Me. Shell shocked for the evening thing and for several days later. I assure you I did not know what hit me. And then I started to try to justify what happened and when the GM "graciously" decided to let my Character be resurrected, but horribly scarred from the experience...I went along 'cause I was just playing a Character in a game, right, and I'd done something wrong enough to get kacked, right, so man didn't that suck but it was just the game, right?

Wrong. Let me repeat that, WRONG! I do not yet posses the necessary language to articulate in polite company how I was abused by the GM using the SIS and my CA against me. It should have been as clear as if he'd popped me in the eye. But it wasn't.

So, in your case it may not be the GM, it may simple be one of the Players...but...SOMETHING IS WRONG IN YOUR GROUP. Something is broken.

GROUP. Not game. PEOPLE. Not Characters. You need to address it at that level or you are going to loose some friends.

You're gut reaction was dead on. Your justifications of what happened are not. You need to rethink the whole thing from a People level.

C. S. Bone

I was planning this post to say that maybe -- just maybe -- Ron was going too far with his battered spouse analogy. That one could perhaps, instead, liken the course of events to a playground basketball game, ruthlessly but impersonally competitive, where two players go up for a rebound, collide, and one of them lands in a heap with a sprained ankle and bruised ribs -- and the rest keep playing for six hours while the injured one hangs around on the sidelines, fighting off shock. Okay, so not the nicest guys on the playground, but abusive relationship?

But on re-reading the thread, this thought struck me. Jay, you wrote:

QuoteThe GM knew that I didn't enjoy playing "evil" but that I was willing to try and at least support/not hinder the other players at the table in the "scenario."

But you did do exactly that. You might have missed your cue to support them by maneuvering your characters into joining up with their characters, but you instead supported them extremely well by having your characters get all uppity, giving their characters the opportunity to effortlessly brush them aside like vermin, thus underscoring their own evil badassitudeness.

Which glaringly brings out two very important questions:

1. Given that you did exactly what you said you intended to do, by way of supporting/not hindering the other players at the table, why did the experience suck for you?

2. Given that you did exactly what they intended you to do, by way of supporting/not hindering the other players at the table, why did you feel the need to go out and offer apologies to them afterward (which is the only way I can interpret "...important to make sure that no fences needed mending")?

I believe that honest answers to these questions -- putting aside excuses like "it sucked because you were channling the death anguish of your 15-minute-old character" -- can only lead in the direction that Ron's already pointing.

- Walt

IME, "Party Evil" has, with one exception, turned out to be a warning sign for the people involved (and the exception was a con-game with pre-gens where everyone was Lawful Evil and we discussed turning on each other before play and agreed it was a no-go). I've seen purile evil D&D that sounds a lot like this and the only way I'd want to play in a group like that is as a fellow predator--on a person-to-person level. I wouldn't consider immersive play with other players who, on a OOC level, didn't care if their behavior was abusive (or, worse, enjoyed it) to be healthy.

-Marco

Jay --

You have had a horrible experience.  It was horrible because through the game and the character you were dehumanized.  Not your character, you.

Can you learn from this experience?

There can be many lessons of empathy here, but the big one is Let's Not Do That Again.  Now, I see you have three choices (1) Play a henchman.  An Ars Magica grog.  Even play a grog-o-the-week, that gets toasted every adventure.  0 emotional investment, a lot of humor content.  Will probably drive this GM nuts. (2) Be up front with the group about why you had a bad time -- waiting hours to play, getting toasted after deciding to help the other players.  Get them to agree to Not Do That Again.  You get to play as much as the others, the players agree to not hack each other. (3) Walk.  Just tell them that this game isn't for you.

==Ed
 

This thread is disturbing, as it takes me back to my participation in some really abusive gaming sessions.  Stuff that almost made me leave role playing, that made me take a hard look at who I called friends. 

The expectation is for everyone to have a fun time when playing a game.  When that doesn't happen, something's wrong. 

Once, game night was a time for long periods of boredom mixed in with passive-aggressive abuse. 

Now game night is where I get together with people I like to have a good time.  I have a few scars from before, mostly trust issues, but I'm getting better.

My point is that I've been there, and it sucks.  I sympathize for the awful session.   Just remember that the awful session was because the people in that gaming group, not the characters, collectively turned their back on you.  Stand up for yourself, and don't put up with it.  Make it an issue. 

Some fences shouldn't be mended, they should be examined for weakness, torn down, and rebuilt.

Let's get a grip, everybody.  Jay says he had one bad game.  He's not a battered wife - although I get the point Ron's trying to make.  But I see a lot of people projecting their bad high school/college early game experiences onto Jay and I think that's mistaken - we simply don't have the data set to get this.  That said, I'd like to hear more from Jay about this topic, because there's as much to learn from gaming failures as successes and I'd hate to miss out on that perspective.

Hello,

I agree that it's Jay turn to contribute if he wants to.

However, I suggest that my posting in this thread has not been a snap judgment. If you're interested, read over the past two years of posting about this game. There are lots of theory threads and a couple of actual play ones. I'm working with an enormous amount of reports, explicit and implied. Do that before you decide whether my analogy is too hasty.

Best,
Ron

Hey everyone,

I've been wondering how to approach my response to the flurry posts here especially considering the direction they have been going/assuming.  I am nearly 8k words into this thread and I have not yet touched upon that which I had wanted to cover in the beginning and which has come back to haunt me.  I'm not good at the process overview thing, as was evidenced by my utter failure to effectively communicate in my response dated Jan 31, so I took some time to try and formulate a general and not a piecemeal reply.  Today I came across Walt's wonderful two questions as they "10 ring" a whole panoply of critical Social Contract issues that I was originally going to post about, but got lost in my trying to correct a bunch of what turned out to be minutia.

Quote from: Walt Freitag on February 01, 2006, 12:34:24 PM1. Given that you did exactly what you said you intended to do, by way of supporting/not hindering the other players at the table, why did the experience suck for you?

Aside from getting myself kacked was not really "supporting" them, I'll start off with the first issue that got me going.  It was 3-4 hours into play before I got to start having "stakes relevant" input on the SIS – that is before my character was brought into play.  I was already frustrated by my inactivity by the time I got to do "something."  Then when I started to "play," I was out of play again within 20 or so minutes via character death.  So I waited a number of hours not being able to have input only to lose that means of input shortly after gaining the very ability!  Not only that, but the manner in which it happened was made possible by a sloppy reasoning process on my part.  I was furious that I didn't see it coming – and because of that I just lost my window into play and the potential of said Character.

Blah...blah...blah...

Within the hour the character who did me in was dead too!  Gaaaah!  Not only was I did in, but I couldn't even salve my wounds with the lie that the character was big and bad!  Oh no!  He was a shmo... more salt in the wound!

Blah...blah...blah...

Total lag time between my first character getting pasted, his betrayer being pasted and the introduction of my 2nd character was about an hour, give or take.  So I'm waiting, very impatiently, to either get another character into play or just up and go.  Obviously I waited and another character was brought into play.  This one more bad ass and tougher than the first with a number of bells and whistles that I was hoping for in the first character.  In addition I'm "higher level," (read – more capable) actually have a rather large party of very competent NPC's with me and I am in command of them.  This time I, as a player, am in a rather cranky mood.  I just want to get in and play and not get pasted right off.  IOW I want to feel a bit of empowerment.  Plus I am a little embarrassed by the earlier episode...

Not 10-15 minutes after I get into play the player playing, Nicodemis, (the necromancer/black mage) dominates the mage (read - big gun, the "magic vs magic" weapon.) in my party.  In my mind I become totally unglued thinking, "What the f*** is this assh*** doing?  Can't he see what he just did is a provocative act?  I have to read this act as hostile or else I'm not playing this character right."  You see, there was no inciting incident framed into this meeting for the player to choose to act that way.  Both groups of players are supposed to finds plausible ways to integrate and this idiot just effectively "killed" a lynchpin party member of mine.  I as a player start to panic thinking I don't want to lose face – again.  The problem was that I just got slapped in the face and if I don't figure out how to make things right soon, my play experience is only going to get worse.  Circumstances being what they are in and out of game, I decide to retreat to either a better place or a better "time" where I can figure a way to demonstrate that I am capable and not a chump.  Yet, within a couple of minutes bad personal judgment, miscommunication and awful die rolls lead to another character death.  I'm thinking, "What the f***?  I have no successes in my personal life and now in my game space I have no successes with anything in there as well?"  So now we are nearing 6 hours into play, I've had maybe 40 or so minutes of "screen time" and I've suffered through the humiliation of having two characters die.

NOTE –

no one was giving me a bad time about losing my characters.  As a matter of fact as a comic would say, "the air was sucked out of the room."  However, a socially celebrated/reinforced aspect of the game and thus a matter of personal pride is the keeping of a character alive.  This does not mean we are playing "pop rocks" Sim.  Exactly the opposite, actually.  To lose a character is to fear to be tainted with the stink of incompetence.  Because of the amount of character identification that occurs in game an extremely important rule at the table is that NO ONE is permitted to haze any player over the loss of a character – and that is a rule that has never been needed to be enforced on a "regular" player.  It is a part of the ritual proclamation of the "social contract rules" that happens every couple of games before the game proper commences – i.e. no cheating on die rolls, etc.[/list]

One might ask why a game would allow character "death" if so much character identification is both encouraged and experienced.  Simple.  The "intensity" of play evaporates if there is no "real world" consequence to our actions "in game."  Just as in gamist play where "losing" wasn't permitted so it is with our game if character death wasn't a "real" possibility.  Character death is one of the singularly most powerful "stakes" in our game.  I lost 2 in the span of an hour or so.

Quote2. Given that you did exactly what they intended you to do, by way of supporting/not hindering the other players at the table, why did you feel the need to go out and offer apologies to them afterward (which is the only way I can interpret "...important to make sure that no fences needed mending")?

Wow!  This is phenomenal question that cuts to the heart of what I've been trying, but failing, to get at.

First off, I would like to note that I did not go out and offer apologies, but rather I went out to make sure that none were needed.  IOW, "Hey, is everything cool?" kind of stuff.  But that rephrasing does not answer the question of why I went through the trouble to see that no fences needed mending.

Here's the short of it.

Nobody at the table likes player character on player character killing.  No one.  That's a major convention of our contract with each other at the table.  This does not mean it cannot happen, but that we work extremely hard to avoid it as much as it is possible to do so while maintaining the integrity of our characters.

So I went out to make sure that no one thought I was purposefully trying to create conflicts that would lead directly to PC on PC death...

...and here is where I found that "fascinating" post-mortem that I had indicated in my first post.  Talking to the other players was like living the movie Rashomon.  How we read the sequence of events was very different.  The one question that came up all three times was, "Why was I (Jay) doing everything I could not to integrate into the group?"  I wasn't floored by this take but rather, given the all the theorizing I've been doing over the last couple of years, I was spellbound!  How did we come to have such differing (opposing!) "takes" on the same events?

Since I can't think of a better way to go through this I'll indicate the events and how we read them differently leading to the conclusion –

1.   Durizon, the Numenorean Lich, "picked up" strangers (my party) in "his house."  He arrays himself and his party, including the other PC's, in an arc in the middle a 4 way intersection.  He sends a "death knight" to cover each flank.

2.   I arrive with my new character and my party.  Seeing the arrangement of the other party I decide to stay within the narrower passage I had just traversed and keep my flanks protected by the walls.  I basically say, "Get out.  I have come for the heirlooms of my people."

3.   Durizon asked in return, "Who are you?"  To the GM he asked the question if anyone in my party was "of the blood of Númenór."  This was a leading question bordering on the edge of the grey zone of what could be termed "cheating."  His character had no reason to suspect that any of us were of the blood of Númenór just by looking at us.  I found out later, in the post-mortem, that this was his opening gambit at trying to find a reasonable in character way to justify "befriending/allying" my party.  I, at the time, was a uncertain why he would ask such a question of the GM and thus missed that "cue."

4.   Sometime during this first meeting and about bullet 7 my Kabalist was dominated by someone, walked to about the midpoint between our parties and kneeled before the Lich group.  As the Kabalist was walking by I called out to him, but he did not acknowledge my call.  The player of Nicodemis had asked the GM if he could detect that the Kabalist was a "spell caster."  The answer came back, "Yes," the player initiated a "wizard's combat" and subsequently crushed my Kabalist's "will" in seconds.  I, as the player, not "my character," was fuming.  This was a provocative act that had to be addressed.  I couldn't just ignore it.  Now my character was no "spell caster" but I was knowledgeable about "spell casting" and was able to surmise that "someone" had just dominated and thus stripped me of my "big gun."  I don't know who, but since no one on the other side was in the lead bit perturbed by my Kabalist's behavior I concluded that his actions were "expected."  Nicodemis' player claimed that he was going to have the Kabalist suggest that it would be mutually beneficial for both parties to "unite."  Given how the Kabalist's actions I would have given that character zero credibility to anything he said as it was plainly obvious he was not in his "right mind."  I have NO idea how Nicodemis' player could have thought that I would have reacted with anything but suspicion to outright hostility to the Kabalist at this point.  The Kabalist had disobeyed a direct command by my Black Numenorean character and the Kabalist was obviously compromised.  The player of Durizon explained that he did not have any in character reason to suspect that Nicodemis was doing "anything" untoward my character and thus could not justify any rebuke.  Though the player of Durizon was not at all happy with what the player of Nicodemis was doing.  All I know is that at this point this particular encounter has just taken the big dumper.  "I" can't read this act as anything but hostile.

5.   Durizon then asked, "Who are you to claim this birthright?"

6.   I as the player, being upset about the Kabalist just having his mind pulped, was not in the frame of mind to make something up so I just let the question hang in the air.

7.   Durizon, after the silence, proclaimed his heritage.  The problem was that my character knew that his line had perished some 3800 or so years ago.  IOW his claim was outlandish... but there was a countenance about him that strongly suggest that he was more than just a lesser man.  The player of Durizon at that moment felt that his proclamation should have resulted in an immediate capitulation by my character once I saw that he was of the line of the Kings of Númenór.  What the player of Durizon didn't understand nor account for was the impossibility of his character's claim!  We're not in the habit of dealing with 4 millennia old Lich's!  So apparently when I didn't have my character give obeisance Durizon's player read that as me, the player, making an overt act to resisting joining the party.  I ask the player during the post-mortem, how can I in character just fold at such an apparently absurd claim?

8.   My #2, Culnamo, a Black Numenorean more capable than I (read - higher level) relinquished our claim to any items in this complex.  What is going through my head at this point is that not many people have any history of my people.  Second I know that the Númenóreans at the end of the second age were dabbling in life extending magics.  Third this Durizon has one heck of a presence, something that only "kings" have.  Forth I can see with my second sight that his soul is profoundly black.  Given all the above I choose to give some credibility to Durizon's claims but I can't figure out a way to give full credibility to his claims without damaging character integrity.   

9.   Somewhere in here, I think M's Vampire, Eglambar, made the effort to smooth a path between the two groups by saying that he had been in the Númenórean citadel and that he might have met my character or my #2.  At this point I was pretty pissy about the whole Kabalist thing and refused that "cue."  I didn't say anything.  A, "Hey were all chums here," here wasn't going to cut my mood.  Upon reflection I wanted someone to acknowledge the "theft" of the Kabalist and offer an act of contrition before I was just slapping backs.  M did bring up my refusal to accept his offer during the post-mortem and did read my action as balking at joining.  In return I told him where I stood and how I read the situation and while he didn't say he agreed with my choice, he did understand where I was coming from as I explained it.  That was OK in my book!

10.   Durizon then proclaimed, "There is plenty here.  I claim all that is mine and my house, but I would not beggar my people."  During the post-mortem I come to realize that I had not even registered the player saying this.  I was quite shocked when D insisted that he made the above statement and that he was baffled as to why I did not accept his offer.  I told the player that I don't even remember his offer as I was so wound up in the loss of the Kabalist and the cowing of my #2 (who was more powerful than me) by M's vampire sometime earlier in our exchange.  At that point all I felt was that my house of crumbling and I wanted out.  I knew that there was a spell caster somewhere on his side and that he had taken hostile action against me.  I knew that my big gun was out.  We've just relinquished our claim to anything Numenorean here so I wasn't seeing any justifiable reason to stick around.  However, in the metagame I knew that we were supposed to be allying, so rather than fleeing or attacking so ... 

11.   I called out to an NPC in my party to, "take care of the traitor."  At this point I had concluded that the Kabalist was a security risk with regard to any information regarding the Black Númenóreans.  Both in game and out of game I needed the ability to affect something of mine with hindrance.  Since the Kabalist had refused to acknowledge my authority in front of both friend and foe alike I felt that given this character and his background that exercising "discipline" upon him was the out I was looking for.  I had reasoned that since the Kabalist was a little strategic importance to the other side that "doing him in" would be of little interest to them.  I would reestablish the legitimacy of my authority over my people and plug a security hole at the same time.  I would "save face" and fix a problem at the same time – I could conceivable continue the parlay.  M didn't see it that way.  A female NPC from my side stepped forward to the Kabalist.  I was staggered by this as I figured that a bowman would take care of him.  I mean why walk forward into even more danger when one could do the work from the safety of numbers.  This I found to be very disappointing as these NPC's were supposed to be competent.  Before she could raise a weapon M's vampire moved at blinding (super human) speed to move from the back of his party to stay the NPC's arm.  I have no idea what M was thinking here as his side had no stakes in this as no one knew what was going on with the Kabalist.  So not only am I prevented yet again from exercising a modicum control over the situation it is now clearly demonstrated to me that they have a person on their side that can move at super-human speed.

12.   Seeing the situation as worthless, but not looking to put everything to an instant end, I order a "measured retreat."  This would allow time for me or another PC to figure a way so that we can come to a common understanding.  As we start our retreat I command a bowman in our party to "take care of the traitor."  I'm not sending anyone in to get the Kabalist, not with a grabby mage and the flash running all about. 

(continued in next post... ->  )

(...continued from previous post)

13.   Durizon, upon hearing my command, called out, "Do not do this in my house."  At this point I read this as yet another affront to my free will as a player.  The player of Durizon claimed that he was exercising the role of a sovereign and chose to not permit violence in his "house."  If I recall properly this was a player issue where he did not like to see any "PC" on "PC" or in this case Player related NPC's killed for "no good reason."  My thoughts were, this is my person who was under my command who disobeyed a direct question was under the control of hostile forces and knew sensitive information.  Do NOT tell me how I shall exercise authority over my people.  When I told D this during the post-mortem he said he say my act as yet another attempt to block their efforts to join parties.  I related to him in great detail my fury about the whole Kabalist thing and how that really limited my responses.  His response was, "Why didn't you ask for him back."  I was stunned, but I told him that a conqueror and a people built on pride and seizing things I could not just "ask" for that which was already mine.  Upon reflection I could have "demanded" the Kabalist back, but at that time I read, through actions, that Durizon's group was very powerful, extremely quick and duplicitous/hostile.  They had humiliated my character a number of times and the last thing I was going to have him do was humble himself to ask for his "toys" back. 

14.   My bowman hesitated upon hearing the voice of Durizon.  He does have the charisma of the Kings of Old, you know!  However, I had had enough of being impotent and I commanded the bowman to fire immediately.  I mean, for crying out loud, can't I get anything accomplished here?  M via his vampire, decided that he was going to enforce Durizon's command and made like lightning towards my bowman.  F*** that and F*** you.  "FIRE!"  I WILL have one thing work out the way I want it to.

15.   I roll a '1', the arrow goes wild and flies directly toward the other group.  They justifiable see that as a direct attack upon them and commence an attack in earnest.  I am totally impotent – I can't set out and accomplish one single thing to my satisfaction.  Durizon called "darkness" upon my group just as Eglambar came crashing in.  I hear screaming and I decide that there is nothing left at all.  I was overmatched and there was no way I was going to get out alive so I lunged at Durizon who was walking towards me and plunged my sword into his belly up to the hilt.  D claimed that he cast darkness to prevent any further violence and was puzzled why I "came after him" when he had stopped his advance at 20 feet.  I told him as he was the closest visible target and that I was going to engage someone as the rest of my party was in the process of being mulched in the dark.  He was a target of opportunity.

So until I went through with all the players what had happened to make sure that we were all on the same page as to what happened and why.  So it was that we were all signaling and cuing one another, but that we completely misread each other.  They felt I had driven them into a situation where they had not choice but to kill a PC, which is something of a violation of an agreement among the players.  This is exactly what I had set out to discover and address if need be.

This had nothing to do with what it means to play an "evil character."  That is old school teenager bullshit.  A complete red herring to this whole event.  MY problems were the interminable wait and the piling on of the humiliation of losing 2 characters back to back.  IOW impotence heaped on with two more big steaming plies of impotence served up in a delightfully frustrating ensemble.

I have not yet attempted to address any of the other posts - I have not ignored them, but seeing as how so many of the issues being batted around centered on the above I felt it important to post this first.  I will address them later...

This account lends a lot to the idea that on occasion, it's good to jump out of character, and communicate how you feel about how things are going, to the other players.  This would really help to address any problems that crop up. 

"ok, fellow player, how do we keep our two characters from killing each other?  Here's my idea, let's hear yours."

Now there are two quotes here that I want to talk about.

QuoteMY problems were the interminable wait and the piling on of the humiliation of losing 2 characters back to back.  IOW impotence heaped on with two more big steaming plies of impotence served up in a delightfully frustrating ensemble.

QuoteSo now we are nearing 6 hours into play, I've had maybe 40 or so minutes of "screen time"

These problems would have been solved by stopping play about 5 minutes in and asking "where do I fit in, how do I fit in, how can I get introduced, how will I be useful, and what relationship will we all have?"  What makes me a little confused is why that didn't happen.  The concept that one player sat around for six hours and got about 40 minutes of play is mind-boggling to me.  It sounds, from what I've been given in terms of information, really dysfunctional.

The post-mortem discussion is too late.  If something like this happens again, I say interrupt play and deal with it when it's relevant.

QuoteNot 10-15 minutes after I get into play the player playing, Nicodemis, (the necromancer/black mage) dominates the mage (read - big gun, the "magic vs magic" weapon.) in my party.  In my mind I become totally unglued thinking, "What the f*** is this assh*** doing?  Can't he see what he just did is a provocative act?  I have to read this act as hostile or else I'm not playing this character right."  You see, there was no inciting incident framed into this meeting for the player to choose to act that way.

Right, but did there really need to be one, given everyone present was "evil"?

Anyway, the real issue is this:

QuoteSo until I went through with all the players what had happened to make sure that we were all on the same page as to what happened and why.  So it was that we were all signaling and cuing one another, but that we completely misread each other.

OK, so you recognise that during ther events themselves, you were not on the same page.  Which is not really that surprising - its always hard to know whats going on in another persons head, extremely hard.  And everyone is also speaking not as themselves, but as a fictional persona.  So yes, you were cueing and signalling, and it  didn't really work, because you were still not talking to each other as players.

Now I suggest the issue of "evil" is not as irrelevant as you think, inasmuch as you have probably had similar scenes in the past that worked out ok.  But probably, based on my experience, the reason those occassions worked is that the default Good Guyness of the characters served as a safety net against escalation to lethal force over trivial misunderstandings.

Absent the good guy restraint, and absent a player-to-player agreement about how play a rleationship was to be established, you defaulted to allowing the SIS to determine the outcome, in effect.  But the SIS itself is the created artifact of the players - you still have ownership of the problem, its just that now you are trying to solve it at one remove, through the proxy of the characters.

This becomes clear in item 7:

QuoteDurizon, after the silence, proclaimed his heritage.  The problem was that my character knew that his line had perished some 3800 or so years ago.  IOW his claim was outlandish...   What the player of Durizon didn't understand nor account for was the impossibility of his character's claim!   ....  I ask the player during the post-mortem, how can I in character just fold at such an apparently absurd claim?

And what was the  answer?

Certainly  your CHARACTER  "knew" the line had perished, but you the PLAYER knew that Durizon was right.  Worse, should Durizon's player really have anticipated and accounted for your characters reaction, when he was telling the simple truth as he understood it?  To construct blame here is innapropriate, but in recognising that the at the time this happened, blame was apportioned and people held to their words, we see one of the potential failures in sim - when adherence to in-character play becomes counter-productive for the game as a whole.  The tail wags the dog.

All that said though there are some other issues, such as, this conflict of perceptions, if it really was predictable, should have been predicted by the GM who constructed at least one and possibly both the characters.  Again one wonders what the real intent behind the scene was, does the GM really think that if Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan bumped into one another they would immediately strike up an alliance?  Seems implausible to me, our vampire dude here is specifically in fear of his unlife from the ultimate badguy and likely to be suspicious.  It does not seem me that the GM has much interest in whether this works out or not.

Somewhere, I think in a previous post, you said it was not necessarily the case that an alliance would occur or characters get along until it actually happened.  In play.    However, this kind of outcome is a real possibility from that practice, for the reasons outlined above about not talking to each other as players.  So you have to decide, isn this sort of furball a worthwhile price to pay for ther sake of not agreeing to get along in a player-to-player discussion?

Hi Jon!

Thanks for taking the time to wade through my verbal excesses!

Quote from: Glendower on February 08, 2006, 01:31:08 AM
This account lends a lot to the idea that on occasion, it's good to jump out of character, and communicate how you feel about how things are going, to the other players. This would really help to address any problems that crop up.

"ok, fellow player, how do we keep our two characters from killing each other? Here's my idea, let's hear yours."

This is an interesting "problem" for Sim.  You see we did spend time between game sessions acknowledging our desire to "keep from killing each other."  One problem was that the specifics of the encounter were not known to us prior to our encounter.  This would include such things as to who my character would be.  Now as to your suggestion, which is notable, I think there are some conflicts with it and the process of the Sim CA.  I believe that the very act of trying to work out problems in play is the core action of Sim.  Imagine, by analogy, in Gamist play a player saying, "Hey!  You're strategy is too effective and I can't figure out a way to address it."  This complaint which is quite valid does come into conflict with the notion of Step on Up.  It might "fix" the local problem, but it would do so ultimately at the expense of watering down Step on Up.  So the question becomes how to balance these two competing interests.

QuoteThese problems would have been solved by stopping play about 5 minutes in and asking "where do I fit in, how do I fit in, how can I get introduced, how will I be useful, and what relationship will we all have?"

That is true that it would have "solved" all the problems in about 5 minutes, but again it does so at the expense of "living" the Dream.  If this problem is solved at the meta-game level what "problems" remain to solve in play and how do we conceptually define "these types of problem can be solved at the meta-game level while these types of problems must remain in game?"  I'm not saying you're ideas are without merit, but I'm not seeing how one can reconcile this with the process of Sim play.  This would be the converse of Nar's 96%ing "which can be functional, but it tends to play safe to a degree that undercuts the process."  (Quote drawn for the essay – Narrativism: Story Now by Ron Edwards.)  Sure one could "solve" these issues out of play, but it undercuts the Sim process.

QuoteThe concept that one player sat around for six hours and got about 40 minutes of play is mind-boggling to me. It sounds, from what I've been given in terms of information, really dysfunctional.

It was terribly dysfunctional.  I had an awful time of it.  That was a central issue of this whole thread.  But how does one solve this problem without "undercutting the Sim process?"  We strive for an intense game and just like Nar and Gam that means sticking to the core processes as much as possible.  In Sim "cutting and pasting" character/events would be just as disruptive to Step on Up as "do overs" in Gamist play.  However I do recognize, that like Gamism, there are "dials" regarding the intensity of play.  In the case of Sim, that would be maintaining the integrity of the contiguous flow of events.  Frequently it works, sometimes it fails.  But again this issue is very similar to the Hardcore in Gamist play.  Big stakes sometimes means big painful losses, but the flip is really powerful rushes as a result of such play.  Again, how does one resolve the one issue without diminishing "the Dream" on the other?

Once the break and repair is made there is no repairing the damage to the other.  So are we willing to sacrifice the long term for the short term?

I'm not sure how to effectively resolve that conundrum at the moment.

Cross posted with contracycle.

Jay,
Thanks for the posts, they clear up a lot of things. Earlier I could only understand what the characters were doing, which is not enough; I know players who would have told your story of in-character events with a happy smile on their face. I think I'm now relatively clear on what the other character players were doing. I'm still completely baffled about about what the GM thought to get out of this session and befuddled beyond completely about what you thought you were going to get out of it.

I understand what you did and I understand your explanations of why you did what you did. I don't understand why you wanted to be there in the first place. Nor do I understand why the GM wanted you to be there, especially not given your protestations about playing evil.

I'm also deeply suspicious of anyone wanting to play evil in a Sim Middle Earth game. (That goes for both the GM and "M"). You're either going to break the Dream of Middle Earth, or be limited to "scrawling with a black crayon", or both. So again there's a question of motivation there.

Could you help out and shed some light on that?

Thanks,
SR
--

I really don't think I understood the issue behind this particular post until your reply.  This particular post crystallized it for me. 

Quote from: Silmenume on February 08, 2006, 04:43:26 AM
Again, how does one resolve the one issue without diminishing "the Dream" on the other?

Aha! I get it.  And I agree with you, resolving this problem without violating the precepts of "Living the Dream" is really sticky. If you do try something I said, take the 5 minutes out, it may break the social contract regarding the Sim play.

All I can think of in terms of a possible solution is to discuss this stuff before the Sim "Play" button is pressed.  I think the big problem was that for a game that focuses on "living the dream", you weren't given the tools to do this.  The Gm would have needed to hand you far more tools for you to use and developed some kind of background that complimented, or at least gave you a passing knowledge of the other characters.  You had nothing, and your character was comparatively under-powered, so he wasn't going to contribute much to the overall dream.  You sensed that, I think, and tried to do something about that lack of power.  The other two players were maintaining the Dream, and because your character had nothing to benefit their characters, well, the rest is history. 

What a mess.  My hope is that analyzing the session leads to more effective Sim play, keeping in mind some of the possible pitfalls.  I thought of saying something pithy like "you followed the dream into a nightmare", but that's just being dramatic.  *chuckle*

Regardless, these are some interesting insights into Sim play, and I thank you for being willing to share an unfortunately negative experience. 

Jay,

I've found all the threads relating to your game fascinating, and this one is no exception. I suggest going back and reading Ron's posts again, trying to avoid the perfectly understandable emotional reactions to his colorful turns of phrase. I feel like we're seeing a disconnect between the way you talk about the session itself and the way you talk about the more general issues relating to it. In a way, this is a testament to your emotional investment in the play style. Your hurt, anger and confusion come through really clearly.

But I kind of feel like the one thing that's missing is serious consideration of the role played by the other players at the table. In your recaps of the game, you often tend to naturalize things that are totally contingent -- so you'll say "well, of course, if this happened, then character X was going to do that," or "of course, rolling a 1 results in a catstrophic, humiliating failure" when there's no "of course" about it.

Now, I wasn't there, but it sounds to me like there was a lot of bullying, chest-thumping, competitive kind of play going on, with the main focus on who was dominating whom. "My character is evil" is a great excuse for that kind of behavior -- behavior we all engage in from time to time. But the conversation you had after the game makes it sound like everyone got together, with the same agenda, and with the best will in the world, you got hosed out of nowhere. And I have a hard time believing that, to be honest. It seems unlikely to me that a group of rational adults gets together under the circumstances you've described, you have a shitty time, and it's nobody's fault -- just the way things are.

I ran an Unknown Armies game a while back based on the novels of James Ellroy -- which is to say that pretty much all of the characters were mercenary, self-serving swine trying too late to be the good guys. They hosed each other over all the time, but the responses to it were very different. There was a lot of appreciative "oh, you scumbag!" kind of stuff, but I don't think people ever went away hurt. And we were playing in full-on Sim/Color mode.

And I think the difference there is in player intent, and in Techniques, rather than in CA. I think the difference between Sim and other modes may be kind of a red herring here.

I agree with James, obviously.

Jay, here's a thought, pertaining to your posts themselves, as written artifacts. I know you review your posts carefully before putting them up. But I suggest you may be doing so in a way which hampers the discussion and what you can get out of it.

It's as if someone were to say, "Clean up this room," and you do. But when the person comes back, the mess is still there - only dusted, polished, and annotated.

That's what it's like, reading your posts. You are focused on answering every person, every point, and every sentence, as clearly and with as extensive footnoting as possible. This is, as I see it, more like pouring shellac over a spilled puddle of beer on your floor and posting a dated placard over it, rather than mopping it up.

The last thing I'm interested in would be a post that walks through my last one, responding to each and every thing in it. No wonder you're exhausted by posting. And no wonder I find myself saying, again, "Nope, review your text before hitting Post." I'm now realizing that this advice is not being applied in an effective way. I need to clarify to you - don't dust and polish the wad of detailed bit-by-bit responding. Instead, respond to the overall point of a given post. If you think it's wrong, no need to back it up in debate-rhetoric detail - just say, "Hey, I see that, but I don't think it fits, thanks for suggesting it." Or, "That point fits, like this, but not this one."

I don't see any point for this thread, or any thread, to become a morass of ever-more-detailed dissection of ever-smaller points. Check out some of the basic, larger-issue points raised by others. That's why Walt's questions are serious business ... but also why, I think, your reponses to them really aren't responses. They're more like data-dump legal briefs that simply don't ask those questions of yourself at the level Walt is aiming at. Same goes for the points James made. There is literally no value to be gained by focusing on the minutiae of phrasing.

Try it out. Also, review why you posted this thread at all. Are you getting what you wanted from it? Why or why not?

Best,
Ron

Hi Jay,

I've recently re-read a lot of the other postings about your Middle Earth game sessions, and they've raised a couple of insights.  I've got two questions for you to consider (but you don't have to reply to the second one if you don't want to - it's really for your consideration).

1)  It's my understanding of your games that players are not treated equally at all times and in general.  That is, it's part of the "social contract" that more experienced and accomplished players can get special characters, voting rights, first refusal to games, etc.  And, it's also part of the social contract that at certain times you will play a character whose sole purpose is to support someone else's play in the spotlight.  Am I correct in this belief?

I have the impression that you try to level out the spotlight issues across sessions.  I.e. I played the crippled old dwarf who couldn't fight anything and mostly mumbled and napped this session, but in later sessions I'll play the pirate king with the magic hat.  (Silly example, I know).  But the idea is that you don't break the Dream in play, but when the Dream hands somebody a particularly bad hand of cards the GM might stack the deck for another game.  This leads me to question 2. 

2)  What do you want to happen in the future with this game?  I don't mean what you expect to happen, or what you think might be fair or what would be socially acceptable given the Dream and the social contract you have with the other players.  What do you want?  You can see why I'm making a reply to this question optional - I could understand you wanting to slash your GM's tires but not wanting to post about it.  Do you want some spotlight time?  A change in ground rules so this doesn't happen again?  Maybe just to be left out of the "evil party" sessions?  Was your experience so bad that it's worth breaking the dream to prevent a repeat?  Think hard about this, even if you aren't ready to post about it.

It seems like the evil scenario, coupled with a determination to stay in The Dream for as long as possible, creates a situation prime for disfunctional experiences. The PCs are evil, right? In character, they're only going to cooperate with your character as long as their perceived self-interest requires it. As long as they're in The Dream, nobody gives a damn about anyone else's feelings, do they? That might be OK if you can drop back to player-to-player interaction to say, "Hey, if you do that, it's going to ruin the fun of the game for me," but you really really don't want to do that... so what can you possibly do to protect yourself when things don't go well?

Hi Jay

I stayed out of this for awhile to allow others a chance to participate in your discourse but I've been watching with interest.  I have a few points to raise and I hope you'll find them of interest.

First thing, I agree that evil is not the problem.  Tolkien gave several interesting perspectives on evil in his work from Saruman and Wormtongue to the orcs who captured Frodo to further examples in The Silmarillion.  There is an interesting topic there about how evil interacts within Middle Earth and I dont see it as one that destroys the dream.

Ron said something earlier that I think cuts to the heart of the problem though you havent commented on it yet, you have a clash of agendas.

- You want to be free to respond to situations in a way that you feel is consistent with the character.  You want to be able to make the statement about what it means to be this character through his actions. 

- You also recognize that you fumbled at doing what was expected of you, you didnt manage to team up with the rest of the group.  There is a preset course you were expected to follow.

In this case these two agendas came into conflict.  You cant freely respond as you think the character would if that is going to take you in a different direction than you are expected to go and vice versa.  One of them is going to have to give. 

I suspect that one of the problems here was also the fact that the problems came out via player vs player interaction.  I would hazzard a guess that your gm is more adept at reading the cues each individual player gives off and conversely you are better able to pick up the cues he gives off than the ones coming from the other players.  He is better able to read the cues and morph the situation so that you can seem to be fulfilling both agendas.  Left to your own interactions with your deeper investment in your own characters it's harder to see the way.

Hi Jay,

There are many new posts here already for you to respond to (and I hope you do; this could become the most interesting and important AP thread since hyphz had a demoralising day (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=6166.0)). So I don't want to pile on any truly new questions or observations -- perhaps just a reiteration or two of questions already asked. But mostly, I want to thank you for making the effort to address my questions. Even if you didn't do so at the "level" that Ron or I had hoped, nonetheless I see signs of progress toward understanding and addressing the issues we're trying to explore.

Specifically, in your last response, you used the phrase "I as a/the player" several times, each time reporting your emotions -- variously, panicked, cranky, miffed, upset, and fuming. That's starting to get there. But never anywhere do you report being miffed, upset, or fuming at anyone or anything other than imaginary objects: the events of the game world, the other players' characters' actions, your own characters' performance via the dice. That's one area where your response seems to fall short.

Which brings me to James' key point, that I want to reiterate, about acknowledging the responsibilities of the other people at the table. Heck, even acknowledging their existence during one of your blow-by-blow accounts would be a step (just as acknowledging your own I-as-a-player reactions and motivations was, IMO). Since you appear to prefer to focus on specifics, let me point one out that James already referred to: the interpretation of the roll of 1 for the arrow shot that resulted in the arrow flying toward the other PCs. To me, this looks like the ultimate "Lucy snatches the football away just as Charlie Brown tries to kick it" moment in the history of gaming. Yet three times you've recounted that event in detail, without the slightest indication that any human decision-making was involved between the 1 coming up on the die and the arrow whistling past Durizon's ears. It's as though Charlie Brown, interviewed after the fact, says, "As I recall, I swung my foot a little off-target, and as a result the football suddenly all by itself moved sideways out of the way." Why didn't the bowstring break, the arrow hit one of your own party, the archer (under the extreme stress of being trapped between loyalty to you and awe of the enemy) impale his own foot, or the arrow veer off into a dark corner of the cave disturbing three hitherto unnoticed irritable cave trolls? Who at the table made the decision, on what basis? And, at the risk  of my sounding like someone playing a psychiatrist on TV, how did you-as-a-player (the only "you" any of us care about here) feel about that person's decision? (And I mean the decision itself, not its imaginary ensuing repercussions in the SIS).

- Walt

Quote from: James Holloway on February 08, 2006, 11:08:03 AMBut I kind of feel like the one thing that's missing is serious consideration of the role played by the other players at the table. In your recaps of the game, you often tend to naturalize things that are totally contingent -- so you'll say "well, of course, if this happened, then character X was going to do that," or "of course, rolling a 1 results in a catstrophic, humiliating failure" when there's no "of course" about it.

Great post, James!

Hi Jay, thanks for sticking with us though the post!

Now, in relation to the above quote, I read this pulpy novel once where the protagonists get away from a gun wielding guard in a art gallery, by picking up a fine painting and holding it in front of themselves. The guard just can't bring himself to damage the highly valuable painting, thus his gun was no threat at all and they got away.

I dare say you value the dream immensely.

But what if someone is hiding behind the dream, using your heart felt desire not to damage it, to do what they want? Relying on the fact that if you said "Hey, you just made that shit up to get your own way", you'd be ripping up any belief you had in the dream at that moment. Thus, you don't say that and try and incorporate what their doing into the dream "Of course a roll of a one equals catastrophic failure".

In one game I played, the GM tried to frighten our lowly first level characters with a dragon flying low overhead. The other player had his character look up, to see the colour of the dragon. He couldn't see the colour of a low flying dragon.

If I'd really valued the game world, I'd have tried to figure out that with some sort of reasoning "Perhaps magic is involved" or such. But I'm willing to tear the dream up open and see the GM with all his control issues.

Although, I admit, I think I'm more jaded and less trusting of the game world (it's why I basically lothe rules design that are very much up to interpretation).

But what about you, how much do you value the dream? What would it take to make you rip open the dream, like I did in my dragon example?

That's enough, guys, we're dogpiling.

This thread should continue only if Jay wants it to.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

I have not been ignoring the advice in your posts as much as I have been avoiding the potent yet foul tasting medicine you've graciously offered.  I am extraordinarily thin skinned so I have been trying to put as much emotional distance between myself and the powerful "Chi" of your words.  Literally I have not summoned the courage to read any of your posts dated on or after the 31st until now.  No reflection on you at all, as I have acknowledged before I am waaaaaaay too thin skinned – to my own detriment.


As you've justly indicated you don't want piecemeal responses.  I'll try and honor that to the best of my capability.  I had an awful time; I do not deny that on any level at all.  I do think your assessment of the responsibilities at the table in not accurate.  I'm seeing way too many Nar based "tools" in the analysis to agree with both the assigning of the blame as well as what those various "blames" are.  My delving ever deeper into what you referred to as minutia was an effort to re-align the conversation into what I felt was a more direct Sim orientation.  I failed.

In your post date on the 8th you posted two things that I have actually been pondering on for a number of days.  I'll answer the question you posed directly to me first –

"Also, review why you posted this thread at all. Are you getting what you wanted from it? Why or why not?"

The short answer is an emphatic, "yes."  I started this thread for two basic reasons.  One was a cathartic working through of Social Contract issues.  The second was to bring forth an example of a "critical failure" of Sim play so that I could then examine "what" it was that Sim things indeed failed.  The obvious reason being that examining that which disappointed the most must be very indicative of what is at heart of the Sim CA.

I have discovered a number of very important data about Sim.

Unlike Nar, Sim is not concept oriented but rather context oriented.  Thus any discussion about "actual Sim play" must contain lots of context or people will misread the whole.  There is no "gist" in Sim play to discuss, no high order "concept" than can be quickly and easily summarized, just lots and lots and lots of contextually significant events which point to an ever more complex and, unfortunately, irreducible whole.

I can fully understand why people who are well versed in "conceptual" dialogues would find these types of writings infuriating – to them it is all minutia and no point.  But that is EXACTLY what Sim is and barring Chris' anthropological tools I don't see any way around that fact.  There simply is "no discussible point" in Sim – it is simply in the doing.  No more, no less.  People who complain about the endless string of useless details are not Sim oriented.  Those details ARE both the context and the product of play.  I don't mean those and they in derogatory terms on any level whatsoever.  Sim play = mythic thinking – sloppy, hard to follow, all about context which requires huge amounts of other data and extremely resistant to "engineering/concept" analysis.  To understand it you have to pull each and every Sim game apart piece by agonizing piece – there are no conceptual shortcuts.  There are no Premises upon which to hang or reference all other parts of the game.  Sim does not "obey" the hierarchal model of the model.  In Sim there is no beginning or end, top or bottom – rather its one big circular mess and no "concept based" Ocham's razor can cut to the quick simply because there is no quick to get to.  ...and this is what drives most high order analysts absolutely crazy.  They get frustrated waiting for the Sim'r to get to the point!  There is never going to be a point – its a giant heterogeneous ball of Social Contract, Techniques and Ephemera constantly morphing by the process of Exploration guided by some group supported aesthetic (color)!

Talking about Sim is really like talking about "live jazz" performance.  Unless someone has had huge amounts of training with music, looking at sheet music or listening to someone else talk about the riffs, keys or scales none of that is going to help anyone until they've heard the actual "tones" and their interactions together and over time.

On the social contract level, that has been more frustrating.  Overlooked was that I was given the option to play with the group or the GM could A and B the night with TE on the A side and cutting to me on the B side.  I could have opted out of the scenario entirely as well, I was totally OK with not playing that day at all.  I said, I would like to play but you don't have to A & B the night, just give me someone who isn't demonically evil.  I made two choices of my own free will to step up when I could have easily stepped out.  The GM did not "force" me to do anything!  I came up with the coarse outlines of a character concept.  I have posted in the past that sometimes we do start games with empty sheets and that is incredibly fun as well.  So I was neither dumped into nor coerced into anything that I didn't suspect was coming.  I had watched those characters played at least 4 or 5 times prior to that awful night.

So what went wrong was not a GM boogeyman problem but rather a situation where we kids were all given a bunch of very sharp and very dangerous objects to play with...

Does this mean I am saying we play in a panacea?  Hell no.  But the problems lie in different forms and in different areas than what has been offered up so far.  The problems that have been "identified" are based on the paradigm of "concept/engineering" thinking and are not founded in "mythic thought" processes.

I don't know what to say.  Some people get it and it's a phenomenally satisfying shared moment.  Others say, "you're doing it wrong!" and that's extremely demoralizing.  It's like a Renaissance painter berating an Impressionist painter for his sloppy use of the brush – but that misses the point!  You see, that "sloppiness" is an inseparable part of that style of painting.  No matter how well intentioned, being constantly corrected for that "sloppiness" won't make the impressionist a "better" painter nor produce "better" impressionist paintings.  I am not saying I am without flaw, but I am beginning to see that our game sensibilities are a reflection of our thinking approaches as well.  I know that you are a far more agile thinker than I, but I don't think all the problem lays with my posting style alone.

What's particularly frustrating is that many "problems" are diagnosed and run right up to the Social Contract level which are in fact Sim CA issues and that is one of many reasons this CA is soooooooo dang difficult to discuss.  Sim ain't like the other CA's – even at the very base level of its relationship to the model Sim is very different from G/N.  Given the dogma of hierarchy the argument of a theory of something cyclical is bordering on impossible.

(I grok the whole letter for a name thing – I was imagining myself being "discrete," instead I was obfuscating.)

Hi Walt,

Quote from: Walt Freitag on February 09, 2006, 11:34:51 AMSpecifically, in your last response, you used the phrase "I as a/the player" several times, each time reporting your emotions -- variously, panicked, cranky, miffed, upset, and fuming. That's starting to get there. But never anywhere do you report being miffed, upset, or fuming at anyone or anything other than imaginary objects: the events of the game world, the other players' characters' actions, your own characters' performance via the dice. That's one area where your response seems to fall short.

...

Which brings me to James' key point, that I want to reiterate, about acknowledging the responsibilities of the other people at the table. Heck, even acknowledging their existence during one of your blow-by-blow accounts would be a step (just as acknowledging your own I-as-a-player reactions and motivations was, IMO).

My fault that I was not more clear.  In the post you were referring to, all those comments and asides I made about my emotional state of mind were about the other players.  If I said I was angry it was because I was angry at the player and what said player was doing to me via the SIS.  If you get the opportunity, please re-read that post keeping in mind that all my emotive asides were directly focused on the other players.  Having done so, does this change any of your conclusions or raise new questions?  Feel free to ask anything that you feel is relevant.  I will withhold comment on the rest of your post until you get back to me!

Hi Callan,

Quote from: Callan S. on February 09, 2006, 09:28:41 PMBut what if someone is hiding behind the dream, using your heart felt desire not to damage it, to do what they want? Relying on the fact that if you said "Hey, you just made that shit up to get your own way", you'd be ripping up any belief you had in the dream at that moment. Thus, you don't say that and try and incorporate what their doing into the dream "Of course a roll of a one equals catastrophic failure".

That is a fascinating question to which there is no pat answer.  We had a player with us for many years that was a "gamist" in "sim" clothing.  We have soooooo little mechanics that it is virtually impossible to work currency, "mechanics" or just about anything else on the meta-level.  However, it did slowly become apparent in the SIS and there did eventually arise quite a ruckus when we stared to complain that the player was perpetually seeking ways to "win" (best Challenges)  He was a brilliant player and he always found ways to account for his getting possession of the "magic arrow" or survive the combat when everyone else didn't even though he did engage in a helpful manner, etc.  The key was – "always/never."  He "never" made a heroic last stand – he "always" found a reason to avoid that possibility, etc.  He took it upon himself to save Middle Earth form "the coming War of the Rings" and was busily creating as many characters as he could who would be alive at the time so that he would turn the tide of battle.

An example where this really hit home to him was when he was playing a barbarian with a party traveling through some mountains.  We had a new player at the table who discovered a very large skeleton with a "perfect untarnished" arrow lying in the middle of it – hint hint it was the remains of a dragon that was downed by an "elven arrow" that was probably thousands of years old.  Some how the barbarian, Utan, found his way to the new player and tried to hard ass the arrow from him – except that it is a fairly strong game cultural convention that that type of barbarian he played hated bows as a "boys weapon" and preferred "big steel."  IOW he was making a grab for what in all likelihood was a magic item.  Later that night we came across a colony of mountain ogres and he went off in single combat for some reason – just up and off he went.  I know he had a reason for going but it wasn't about being "heroic."  He had horrible luck and got pasted.  I was not good.  The table was quiet for a bit and then we moved on.  The player was devastated that none of the players rushed in to try and help him out.  The problem was that given how he'd been playing the lone wolf at the table for so long, not really bothering to interact or bond with any of the other player characters we surmised that he didn't want us to come along in the first place.  We were too far away to "hear the combat" and his character(s) "always" had the habit of looking after themselves so we didn't make an effort find a reason to possibly offer aide.  The player spoke to the GM after the game about why no one came to his aide and the response that he got was that since he was such an ass (read – CA conflict) for so many years that no player was willing to gamble their characters trying to find a way to help him out.

Regarding the GM hiding behind die rolls is another issue.  I can happen but if he did so regularly then the fabric of the Dream would begin to fray.  Remember we the players, via the Lumpley Principle, are the ultimate arbiters of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable during play.  Through the 10 years that I've been at this table and the thousands of "1's" I've witnessed rolled they are almost always catastrophic.  I would have more likely called foul if the "1" I rolled under the circumstances I indicated in my first post did not result in something horrid.  It would have frayed the fabric of my Dream.  You see, the narrating of entailments of an action is a key Sim skill of the GM.  For us players the ability to deal with said entailments is a key Sim skill.  The "1" did not utterly drain my character of HP's; I was still capable of being effective mechanics wise.  I got slammed because I froze up and could not deal with the entailments of that "1".  I get it that the GM ultimately narrated my demise, but such an end is not a forgone conclusion.  I have seen a number of other players extract themselves from similarly impossible situations.

Just as a quick note – the dice merely act to "indicate" the nature of the entailments to any action that is being arbitrated.  The craft/skill if Sim GMing and Player input is in the creation of interesting entailments on the one hand and the clever dealing with GM created entailments on the other.  There are no tables for looking up entailments – it is nothing less than an act of raw creativity on the spot.

Unless there is a grievous break in the Dream it is unlikely (but not impossible) that a long-term player is going to yell, "Bullshit!" at a GM call.  This is not because of some "cult of personality" but rather a long history of the GM being able to make those "long" calls weave seamlessly into the Dream without breaking causality.  IOW an explanation will come and it inevitable not only works, but works extremely well.

QuoteBut what about you, how much do you value the dream? What would it take to make you rip open the dream, like I did in my dragon example?

Actually, without going into detail in this thread here, we had something like that happen not two weeks ago.  We didn't say anything in game, but afterwards we players did confer that we felt that something had indeed caused the Dream to suffer.  (I would be more than happy to oblige posting about it if you wish me to.)  Suffice it to say we felt the GM had so many occurrences occur that were on the hairy edge of plausible that we all felt that something was "wrong."  Ultimately we felt that the GM was panicking about how to keep a scenario interesting for the players with such high level characters and threw everything but the kitchen sink at them.

James,

Quote from: James Holloway on February 08, 2006, 11:08:03 AMBut I kind of feel like the one thing that's missing is serious consideration of the role played by the other players at the table. In your recaps of the game, you often tend to naturalize things that are totally contingent -- so you'll say "well, of course, if this happened, then character X was going to do that," or "of course, rolling a 1 results in a catstrophic, humiliating failure" when there's no "of course" about it.

Bingo!  You're absolutely right in that events in the game are "totally contingent."  That totally lines up with my earlier "rant" about Sim being all about "context."  I too could go on a great deal about how this works in our games and related to the Sim process as a whole, but that too would have added yet many more words and pages (details) to my already bloated postings.  If this particular is of interest to you, I'll let you know that I am obsessed with it, then let me know!

QuoteBut the conversation you had after the game makes it sound like everyone got together, with the same agenda, and with the best will in the world, you got hosed out of nowhere. And I have a hard time believing that, to be honest. It seems unlikely to me that a group of rational adults gets together under the circumstances you've described, you have a shitty time, and it's nobody's fault -- just the way things are.

OK – Everyone decides to come together to play high stakes no gimmie poker.  Everything stands because that is exactly what makes the game so darn exhilarating.  Except one player totally washes out on the third hand, he's out of money and out of the rest of night.  Now did we set out to screw this player over?  Do we do a "take over?"  Do we forgive his debts and start again, which totally torpedoes the necessary finality of betting and thus sinks the high stakes exhilaration of making no go-back decisions?  What do you do, this player is totally upset but any changes to the "system" will torpedo the "Step on Up" (as it were.)  We know going in that such things can happen – that is part of what makes the game so darn white knuckled!  However, when they do happen (and they will happen) they really blow.

QuoteAnd I think the difference there is in player intent, and in Techniques, rather than in CA. I think the difference between Sim and other modes may be kind of a red herring here.

I'm not following you here about "other modes," but I do think the issue was "stakes."  IOW the hardcore Sim "dial" was set very, very high.  The more intense the game, the deeper the lows.  Combine that with some very overwhelming personal issues regarding self worth and you have an extremely volatile mix for an emotional disaster far in excess of what should have happened - something akin to adding Deuterium to an atomic bomb.

Thanks everyone!  I have learned much about myself personally, the Sim CA and posting here in the AP boards!  The questions I have solicited still stand if anyone is interested in the answers.

You're attributing a lot to the "Sim" part of "hardocre Sim." I think (and I may certainly be wrong) that as much of the issue being discussed here is related to the "hardcore" part of "hardcore Sim."

For instance, your poker example works as a "hardcore Gamist" example equally well.

Just a thought.

Jay, I'm still stuck on the fact that just before your first character died in the caves, the GM *made noises to you* about the merits of sparing the other guy's character (couched in terms of the fictional situation), but made no noises to the other guy about sparing yours. I don't think any of your responses ever addressed that point.

Other than that, I'd like to re-orient the thread a little bit. In your first entry, you said the session was bad, but "the post-mortem was fascinating." Possibly because of the way the thread developed, we never really got to the post-mortem, except in very summary, depersonalized fashion. Could we hear more about it? Or are you sick of the whole topic?

Best,


Jim

Quote from: dunlaing on February 14, 2006, 11:13:13 AM
You're attributing a lot to the "Sim" part of "hardocre Sim." I think (and I may certainly be wrong) that as much of the issue being discussed here is related to the "hardcore" part of "hardcore Sim."

For instance, your poker example works as a "hardcore Gamist" example equally well.

Just a thought.

This interests me because of Jim's Beeg Horseshoe Theory (Beeg Horseshoe III?), which is that the ends of the horseshoe are narrativism and simulationism and it's *gamism* that is the connecting substrate. I hold this theory about half the time. The reason: I think there are performance - "Step Up" - components to both Nar and Sim. These can be explicit, like the "pig skills" in the homebrew Jay was talking about or the tactical intricacies of a game like Capes, or implicit (like the discipline of eschewing metagame-derived advantage in Virtuality or the guts to set hard conflict stakes in what I've called "macho nar" elsewhere). Also, it seems like both Nar and Sim games are rife with potential to drift toward Gamism, either functionally or otherwise.

Best,


Jim

Quote from: Silmenume on February 14, 2006, 06:48:51 AM
OK – Everyone decides to come together to play high stakes no gimmie poker.  Everything stands because that is exactly what makes the game so darn exhilarating.  Except one player totally washes out on the third hand, he's out of money and out of the rest of night.  Now did we set out to screw this player over?  Do we do a "take over?"  Do we forgive his debts and start again, which totally torpedoes the necessary finality of betting and thus sinks the high stakes exhilaration of making no go-back decisions?  What do you do, this player is totally upset but any changes to the "system" will torpedo the "Step on Up" (as it were.)  We know going in that such things can happen – that is part of what makes the game so darn white knuckled!  However, when they do happen (and they will happen) they really blow.

The difference is that in poker, everyone else at the table is trying to fuck you over. I mean, they may not be directly trying to hurt your feelings, but they're out for themselves and devil take the hindmost. And within the controlled environment of gambling, that's OK.

Your playing group is all male, right? You got the chance to play mean, nasty evil people competing with each other for dominance, and through random chance or the GM being pissed off at you, or pure-Sim well-these-characters-would-naturally-be-more-powerful stuff or whatever, you came out bottom dog twice. I'd hate that experience too. It'd take a very self-possessed person to treat that kind of experience lightly. I find it kind of interesting that one of the examples of a problem you cited back when you first started posting on this subject -- the bit with the Dwarf and the Elf King -- was about a player who endangered his character and everyone's by being unwilling to be humiliated.

But it's perfectly possible to avoid that kind of experience without violating verisimilitude. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to play a thousand-year-old evil mastermind with the petty mentality of the biggest kid in the schoolyard, or that an evil warrior in quest for ancient artifacts can't bide his time looking for a back to stab. And there's nothing saying that the GM couldn't have provided, logically, within the constraints of the dream, a good reason for the other baddies not to screw you over -- because as you said earlier, it was in no one's interest to have you kacked.

I think that sometimes, just sometimes, you talk as if all inputs into the SIS are overdetermined -- or rather, that given the goal of fidelity to the "dream" there is only one possible course of action. And I don't think this is true.

Now, what do you do in the long run? My immediate instinct would be to say "nothing." Everybody has an off day; every GM runs a poorly-thought-out scenario, every player plays a character off-key or lets a bad mood ruin other people's fun. But I do think that the way you play -- reducing out-of-channel communication -- might tend to prevent the normal methods of dealing with these kinds of problems. And I'm not sure what to tell you about that.

My final point was that I think you sometimes tend to conflate your own Sim play with all Sim play. That's what I mean by the difference being one of Techniques rather than CA. But I'm not sure this is a point directly related to this specific problem.

Quote from: James Holloway on February 14, 2006, 12:48:00 PMI think that sometimes, just sometimes, you talk as if all inputs into the SIS are overdetermined -- or rather, that given the goal of fidelity to the "dream" there is only one possible course of action. And I don't think this is true.

I don't know if this is Jay's perception, but it's one that I've heard very emphatically from 2 different players who describe similar play to Jay's. That in any given situation, there is always one deterministic outcome that will happen, and that sufficient knowledge of the fictional constraints of character and setting will show that outcome to the player(s), and that they are obligated to pursue that logical outcome. That's what I've heard described as 'Pinball Sim' in Mike Holmes' original formulation - where not just the world, but the characters as well are governed by pure causality.

I don't think, from Jay's previous posts, that his group really believes this hardcore - but it may be held up as an ideal to strive for. If a player really "gets" the Dream fully, their decisions should converge on this deterministic model.

Jay it sounds to me like you are looking to close the discussion and I wont be surprised if Ron comes along shortly and does so.  However I noticed you didnt respond to my earlier comments yet and I was hoping you would if not please at least consider them. 

Quote from: Silmenume on February 14, 2006, 06:48:51 AM

Unlike Nar, Sim is not concept oriented but rather context oriented.  Thus any discussion about "actual Sim play" must contain lots of context or people will misread the whole.  There is no "gist" in Sim play to discuss, no high order "concept" than can be quickly and easily summarized, just lots and lots and lots of contextually significant events which point to an ever more complex and, unfortunately, irreducible whole.

I call bullshit on this Jay.  Your play experience clearly had a conceptual base to it.  You said it yourself your part in the evening was to join with and support team evil, you screwed up by not doing so.  The other players responses afterwards clearly showed they understood what the concept for the night was, you were to join with them and they gave you plenty of opportunity to do so and in their opinion you spurned the offers.  They had set the scenario up so that the evil wouldnt immediately fall on each other and could manage to work together towards a common goal.  You came along and are resistant to that goal.  You are instead more concerned with playing your characters as arrogant, even in the face of superior magic and souless creatures it's more important to remain arrogant than to except working with them. 

I only see two possible explanations for your actions.  You either didnt understand the goal for the night, though by your explanation you seemed to understand, or you weren't committed to that goal some other goal was more important.  I'll say it again Jay you had a clash of agendas, you were clearly on the out from the rest of the group while they showed the commitment to the dream.

I look back at it now and I see Ron said the same thing so maybe I'll just quote it.

QuoteI have zero confidence that you're going to understand this - that you are dealing with two things that seem synonymous to you, but are not. One of them is to please Cary, be in the story, celebrate the setting. The other is to experience the character, feel the character, emote the character, make the character do stuff. You just ran into the grim reality that if you don't accomplish the former, then the latter is worthless to the other people in the group.

Quote from: Silmenume on February 14, 2006, 06:48:51 AM
Hi Walt,

Quote from: Walt Freitag on February 09, 2006, 11:34:51 AMSpecifically, in your last response, you used the phrase "I as a/the player" several times, each time reporting your emotions -- variously, panicked, cranky, miffed, upset, and fuming. That's starting to get there. But never anywhere do you report being miffed, upset, or fuming at anyone or anything other than imaginary objects: the events of the game world, the other players' characters' actions, your own characters' performance via the dice. That's one area where your response seems to fall short.

...

Which brings me to James' key point, that I want to reiterate, about acknowledging the responsibilities of the other people at the table. Heck, even acknowledging their existence during one of your blow-by-blow accounts would be a step (just as acknowledging your own I-as-a-player reactions and motivations was, IMO).

My fault that I was not more clear.  In the post you were referring to, all those comments and asides I made about my emotional state of mind were about the other players.  If I said I was angry it was because I was angry at the player and what said player was doing to me via the SIS.  If you get the opportunity, please re-read that post keeping in mind that all my emotive asides were directly focused on the other players.  Having done so, does this change any of your conclusions or raise new questions?  Feel free to ask anything that you feel is relevant.  I will withhold comment on the rest of your post until you get back to me!

It doesn't change my (so-far) conclusions or raise new questions about everything that was going on in that session. That's because I didn't for a moment think that you weren't upset, fuming, etc. at the other participants. I just thought it odd, and significant, that you chose not to say so directly, over and over again.

All right, let me lay my cards down on the table and I'll leave it for you to decide if I've stayed in too long with a weak hand.

I think you didn't mention that your anger and other bad feelings were directed toward the other participants because you felt that being angry etc. at them was somehow not appropriate. Because, after all, they'd done nothing wrong. They were playing exactly the way you expect and desire them to. In fact, you'd have resented if they'd done anything different because it would have been detrimental to the Dream. So instead of saying the kinds of things an angry person normally says about the person he's angry at -- "Look how that son of a bitch fucked me over!" -- you report it as "such and such happened in the SIS, and it sucked." When pressed really hard, you admit "I felt angry." When pressed even more, you admit "I felt angry at those people." Now, how hard do I have to press to get you to admit that you felt angry at them because they were sons of bitches and they fucked you over?

I'm talking mostly about whatshisletter, the GM. What you have to understand is, I have all the respect in the world for this guy. That stuff he does --- I've done it too. I'm very good at it. And I'm very proud of being very good at it. Maybe I can even do it better than him, but more likely he's way better than me. He certainly has done it longer and more intensely than I ever did. So, as one "Old Pro" talking respectfully about another... man, it sure looks like was he off his game that session. He bombed. Dropped the ball. Stunk up the joint. Screwed the pooch. Peppered the lawyer.

How? Well, first, he made you wait three fucking hours for a turn to play. There was some discussion a few pages about about "Why couldn't you break character for five minutes to tell him you were blah blah blah" and the answer was "the Dream is so important that even breaking it for five minutes blah blah blah." But why would he or any sentient creature need to be told in the first place that a player who's had nothing to do for three hours is probably getting bored and impatient? He didn't, of course; he knew perfectly well. So why the three hour wait? Well, he had to bring your character in at a plausible point. Apparently his imagination failed him rather badly here, because getting to that plausible point required him to first throw a bunch of meaningless dungeon monsters at the active PCs, while you cooled your heels. You might be under the impression that the strictures of your group's play style gave him no choices in the matter. Believe me, that's not true. Conclusion: he was off his game.

Then a bunch of stuff happened that to me forms a recognizable pattern of continued GM off-game-ness, but the specific incidents are individually ambiguous, unclear, no proof. So I skip ahead to the fumble roll on the arrow shot.

A roll of one means devastating failure. You expect, nay, you outright demand that a roll of one causes devastating failure. But in this case, you have to ask, devastating failure at what?

You-the-player were trying to do, essentially, two different things at that point.

1. You were trying to maneuver your character into alliance with the active PCs.

2. You were trying to establish as much in-game status for your character as possible, relative to the group he was joining.

Number 2 was a legitimate in-game and in-character goal that you chose to pursue because it followed naturally from your character's nature that he would attempt to do so, for all sorts of good in-game reasons. As such, that goal's success was and should have been contingent on the fortunes of play.

But what was Number 1? That was a bullshit goal, having nothing to do with the pre-existing state of the SIS or anything in it. It was a necessary bit of business, a housekeeping chore, dictated by the external circumstances of the play session - -specifically, the need to get your character into the group. It was, not to put too fine a point on it, a stinking turd of Dream-killing external necessity, to be gotten rid of while smelling it as little as possible and for God's sake not touching it. The common task you all faced was to get it done, and to conceal, as much as possible, the fact that you were doing so.

Making the success or failure of that goal contingent on the die rolls just makes no sense. It's a category error. It's like making a Monopoly player pay a $200 fine for insulting the banker. It's like a hockey player putting a hard body check on the Zamboni driver. It's like making you make a percentile roll to take a bathroom break.

Under the circumstances, "you rolled a 1 so you have to do jumping jacks for 10 minutes" or "you rolled a 1 so you have to pay me $2 for a new die" would have made at least as much sense as "you rolled a 1 so something happens in-game that makes goal #1 impossible." (And obviously, an errant arrow appearing to be a direct physical attack against the party you were trying to join made goal #1 impossible, regardless of the details of what happened succss- or failure-wise thereafter.) You were all supposed to be pretending that goal #1 didn't even exist! Having it instead blow up in your face and cover everyone with the consequences of having a stinking turd blow up in your face was not just too severe a consequence, it was entirely the wrong kind of consequence, for a 1-in-20-chance fumble roll.

That's where the Lucy and Charlie Brown football kicking analogy comes in.(1) The GM was supposed to be helping you to achieve goal #1 while also helping to pretend it wasn't being manipulated into happening. It was supposed to be a cooperative effort, the way the holder and the kicker cooperate to make a field goal kick. But when you rolled a 1, the GM took it as requiring him to sabotage the effort instead, snatching the ball away rather than holding it for you.

Instead, the roll should have caused a devastating setback to goal #2, the legitimate and openly acknowledgeable in-game goal. Which would have been easy; several of the alternative consequences that I already suggested would have done it. The GM missed this. Because, as I said, he was badly off his game.

There it is, as best I can present it: a plausible scenario of a GM having a bad day, screwing up in various ways, some obvious and some subtle, the subtle failures more devastating than the obvious ones

The question is, do you believe it?

Because I don't.

I don't think the sonofabitch was off his game at all. And, if I'm interpreting their posts correctly, neither do others here who also recognize and share (if not, as I do, admire) an Old Pro's expertise at this general style of play.

Because we've all seen this same story before. Different details, same story.

It's the story of what inevitably happens when Mom says the group has to let the GM's little sister play.

"Okay, but you have to wait until we get back to town so your character can join."

"Don't get all upset, we're just playing our characters. That's how the game works."

"But Mom, she rolled a 1. That's what happens when you roll a 1! The rules say so! It's not our fault she ran away crying. I told you she was too much of a baby to play in our game."

So, here's my real theory. You became Little Sister when you balked at playing a character as evil as the characters they wanted to play. They pretended to respect your limits by allowing a character that was a workable compromise for you, but they treated you as Little Sister, a second-class player not to be allowed to get in the way of their agenda, for the rest of the session. It's all as simple as that.

I don't think they always treat you that way. From what he's written, I suspect that Ron (another "Old Pro," remember) thinks otherwise.

- Walt


(1) I sometimes forget how fucking old I am, and how international this forum has become. Here's the basics: Lucy and Charlie Brown are comic strip characters They're children. Charlie Brown is a likeable but not very bright perpetual loser. Lucy acts a bit older and is often derisive and mean. Lucy sometimes offers to hold a football while Charlie Brown runs up and kicks it, in the manner of a field goal attempt in American football (the ball is elongated and is held by one tip on end, with the other end against the ground). Charlie Brown is suspecious because on past occasions, Lucy has invariably snatched the football away just as he tries to kick it, which causes Charlie Brown to fly into the air and land flat on his back. Lucy convinces Charlie Brown that this time, for some particular reason, he can trust her not to pull the ball away. Charlie Brown believes her and goes to make the kick. Lucy pulls it away. Charlie lands flat on his back, and remains there, too stunned to stand up, from a combination of physical pain, shocked betrayal, and self-loathing for having fallen for it. Lucy stands over him and reveals a loophole in the reason he thought he could trust her.

*I PM'ed Jay to ensure I wasn't 'dog piling' with another question*

Hi Jay,

I'm getting you more. But I'd like to ask something about your responce to James.

QuoteOK – Everyone decides to come together to play high stakes no gimmie poker.  Everything stands because that is exactly what makes the game so darn exhilarating.  Except one player totally washes out on the third hand, he's out of money and out of the rest of night.  Now did we set out to screw this player over?

In your roleplay, what if someone is cheating/trying to screw over another player?

Do you expect cheating would be detected, because the dream would fray (either immediately, or in the near future)? Could you answer with an affirmative or a negative - I'm afraid anything longer would obscure the answer. :)

Walt wrote:

QuoteIt's the story of what inevitably happens when Mom says the group has to let the GM's little sister play.

Quote

Thats a plausible scenario, although I have had similar instances which didn't have that particular dynamic.  It's just you have these hard, moody antio-heroes and on meeting each other they posture like dogs, baring their teeth and staking out territory.  Whole gaming sessions have been 'wasted', never moving onto the planned game because the "introduction" turned into a fight or huge negotiation.  This is usually diagnosed as deprotagonised players being walked through someone elses plot and thus seizing control of the action when they can, which I do not dispute.

However, I think the problem is endemic to all games in which sim sensibilities prevent 'spawning' a new character out of thin air.  Its often implausible, and its also implausible that the characters strike up an intimate relationship on such a flimsy basis.  This is precisely one of the reasons I simply abolished character death, and why I'm likely to impose a coerced or dependant relationship between characters, or have an open discussion on how best to proceed.  And these were decisions taken in the recognition that they were compromises in regards the SIS for better game play.

I do think the GM didn't put enough purposeful intent into getting the players cooperating, and it may be that the motives you describe were the basis for that failure.  But I think precisely because it its recognisable, the GM's specific motivation is only part of the problem.

Just have to echo Walt's sentiments:

As a guy who was once a terrible Typhoid Mary in the old days, I've got to say it seems like the perfect situation. You've got a guy buying into the SIM dream to the point of masochism. The GM gets to hose the character(s) occasionally to:

a)   Show how "dangerous" the simulated dream can be
b)   Up the adrenaline for the other players
c)   Give other players a chance to act out long standing "evil" storylines that the GM considers more "worthy" of exploration (for whatever reason)

You suck up the punishment in the name of being a good "sim" trooper. Other players feed the justification. You end up feeling impotent in what should be a "fun for everyone" hobby.  The principles actors of this little troupe get to tell their stories. The illusion is perpetuated.

All I can see missing is the GM to have a favorite, recurring NPC character to come in and help with the hose job...to act as a proxy extension of the GM's ego and help shape the story. But I guess that might not fly in this illusion depending on how hardcore the Sim.

(depending on the ego of the GM & his relationship with the others, the player that gets hosed may vary from session to session, but you got the brunt of it this time, in my opinion)

Greetings Jim,

Quote from: Supplanter on February 14, 2006, 11:57:20 AM
Jay, I'm still stuck on the fact that just before your first character died in the caves, the GM *made noises to you* about the merits of sparing the other guy's character (couched in terms of the fictional situation), but made no noises to the other guy about sparing yours. I don't think any of your responses ever addressed that point.

That is a fascinating question and one that I am now pondering, as a matter of assumed Social Contract provisions, both why it didn't happen and why I didn't consider it an issue at all.

Regarding the first part, as the action was handled by note and I was in the middle of a ("real time) combat situation I was not paying a great of attention to any interactions between the other player and the GM.  If I sift my memories hard enough, and I would certainly be better served by actually asking the player and the GM, I think I recall the GM shooting the player a grim look (A sort of "are you really sure you want to do this?).  I will talk to both and get back to you with any information that I pick up.

So there was some sort of nonverbal communication, but that still does not address the issue of why there wasn't a more extensive verbal effort.

The guess that I will hazard, but do not consider it definitive, is that once combat starts in earnest the pace of play not only accelerates enormously but the game becomes ever more focused/limited to communications via the SIS to near exclusivity.  This raises the intensity of play, really driving the players to be creative in their efforts under extreme circumstances to effectively signify ideas through the manipulation of the "objects" of the SIS.  Thus the difference I read between the GM trying to cajole me into partnering up with the other player character and the absence of overt effort to cajole the other player into reconsidering his choices was that in the former we were not in a combat situation (where lots of meta-game dialogues and other GM "steering" efforts are typically made) while in the latter we were in combat (where all such dialogues are severely curtailed almost to extinction.)  Upon review I see a pattern where as the pace of play picks up the meta-communication plummets.

Regarding your post immediately following your first I'll have to read the thread you mentioned.  However, I think I remember a thread between Clinton and Ron a long time ago where a similar issue was raised and which Ron responded that the desire to be "good" at what we are doing is not Gamist.  IOW the desire to address Premise effectively and powerfully is not in and of itself a Gamist tell.  I spent an hour searching for the post to no avail, so if I am in error I apologize as I did the best I could to cite the original source.

However I do believe that both Nar and Gam inclinations can more easily creep into the other 2 opposing modes of play while Sim is something that cannot survive on its own.  IOW it is far easier for N/G sensibilities to creep into each other or Sim, but not Sim into G/N games.  I am not saying such "invasionary" play is necessarily functional, but it is less difficult to express G/N in a hostile environment than Sim is.

I am not certain exactly what more you are looking for in the "post-mortem." I thought I had covered much of what was intriguing to me in my post here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18460.msg196491#msg196491).  I found the disparate points of view as to what happened, what the other players were attempting and what they thought I was trying to accomplish fascinating.

The results of these dialogues basically broke down as such.  The most successful conversation was with Montana, the player of Eglambar, who understood my point of view and successfully explained his to me.  We both agreed the outcome sucked badly, and we saw how we misinterpreted each other's actions as well.  This was a satisfying outcome in my book and I think Montana saw that I wasn't driving to avoid allying the two parties.  He was frustrated at first but after the talk all was well or at least that's how I read it.

Dave, the player of Durizon, was a different matter.  His approach was "paternalistic."  He did not take the implosion of the scenario as personally as Montana had, but he more or less refused to acknowledge that he had even a small hand in its destruction.  His sticking point was essentially, "Well you knew that Durizon was a Numenorean of the line of Kings..."  I kept saying, that I didn't know that he was a Numenorean of the line of Kings but that I gave a small amount of credibility to his claim as evidenced by my surrendering of my claim to the relics in his "house."  He kept on saying I had pulled a "small Chuck."  Chuck was the player whom I had posted about in The Creation and Birth of a Character (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15393.0) who had aggressively self-destructed a number of times the ended with other player characters getting killed and in his worst exploit started a war between the Elves of the Mirkwood and the entire race of Dwarves.  His basic bug is that he is so paranoid that he places no faith in the other player characters and then self-destructs when he is in a position where he perceives that has no other option than to rely on others for his survival.  This has been a serious source of contention at the table and one all us other players are working to remedy.  Dave felt that I put no stock in the other players at the table and "self-destructed."  This was a frustrating conversation as he was unwilling to concede anything at all.  He felt that his offer to anything in his lair that was not directly of his house was his obvious invitation to join the parties and that my not taking him up on it was my issue.  The upshot was that there were no hard feelings.  A middling result but not great.

Chris, the player of Nicodemis couldn't fathom why I read his domination of my NPC kabalist as aggressive.  His intention was to have the kabalist try and smooth the way for party integration.  While I laud his intentions he felt that my conclusions about his actions in game were faulty.  This was the shortest of the three conversations I had.  As he tends to be very passionate and as he has in the past years been extraordinarily supportive added to his well meaning intentions I felt it was best to treat this as water under the bridge.

Does this answer your questions?  Feel free to ask more if need be...

Hi James,

Quote from: James Holloway on February 14, 2006, 12:48:00 PMBut it's perfectly possible to avoid that kind of experience without violating verisimilitude. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to play a thousand-year-old evil mastermind with the petty mentality of the biggest kid in the schoolyard, or that an evil warrior in quest for ancient artifacts can't bide his time looking for a back to stab. And there's nothing saying that the GM couldn't have provided, logically, within the constraints of the dream, a good reason for the other baddies not to screw you over -- because as you said earlier, it was in no one's interest to have you kacked.

Other than the verisimilitude part, I do agree with everything else.  The player of the Lich did make ovations, within character, via his offer of the gifts of his lair for my party to join; excepting family heirlooms.  I am not pointing a finger at you James, but I do find it interesting that nearly all the posters here keep missing the part where I say that Montana (Eglamber) and Dave (Durizon) both made invitations, within the SIS and the scope of their characters, for me to exploit as reasons to trust and join.

QuoteI think that sometimes, just sometimes, you talk as if all inputs into the SIS are overdetermined -- or rather, that given the goal of fidelity to the "dream" there is only one possible course of action. And I don't think this is true.

Again I fully agree with you.  If I gave the impression that this outcome was somehow inevitable given the circumstances (Character and Setting) then I have misrepresented myself.  Ultimately, after the post-mortem, we all agreed at the beginning that it was possible and desirable for the parties to unite.  Bad decisions all around, not predetermined conditions, coupled with bad luck led to this outcome.  No one at the start of play was seeking or wanting to screw with my character and me as a player by extension.

QuoteBut I do think that the way you play -- reducing out-of-channel communication -- might tend to prevent the normal methods of dealing with these kinds of problems.

I agree.  The trade off is less intense gaming.  That is a choice freely made, but it does bear its own consequences.  I fully concede that.  It is one of the reasons why we do frequently adjourn to a Denny's or the like immediately after a game to debrief.  It's lots of fun as interplayer gaming tends to continue, intentions are revealed, consequences to the Dream are discussed and is also a great opportunity to smooth any ruffled feathers.

QuoteMy final point was that I think you sometimes tend to conflate your own Sim play with all Sim play.

Right now I treat prioritized bricolage the same as prioritized Address of Premise/Challenge.  How that is implemented is, as you say, a matter of Techniques.

Hey Caldis,

Quote from: Caldis on February 14, 2006, 09:11:18 PMYou said it yourself your part in the evening was to join with and support team evil, you screwed up by not doing so.  The other players responses afterwards clearly showed they understood what the concept for the night was, you were to join with them and they gave you plenty of opportunity to do so and in their opinion you spurned the offers.

Yes supporting the other players was an important goal, but it most certainly was not "the goal of the night."  The reason that this post focused on that was because my involvement in the game ended at that point.  The other players continued to pursue their own evolving manifold goals, which evolved as a result of play, for the rest of that night.  One might start off the night with the "goal" to rescue a loved one from a gaggle of orcs and the "goal" might shift to appraising a weapon that seems to be "magical."  There is no one driving "goal" through a game session.  Even in my case I initially desired to mesh but at the same time I was also trying to effectively portray a character in the support of the Dream.  Usually an opening "goal" is presented to start events moving along, but is just and only that – a kick off for the night.  "Where" things go, including goals, is totally unscripted and very unpredictable.  Given that play can and is left to find its own way and in keeping with "causality" such things as I had posted in this thread can happen – and they can suck.

What is important, then, is the process not the destination.  As there is no central concept (Premise, Step on Up) to serve as the guiding North Star driving the course of play then that leaves the aesthetic of naked process, which is gauged in terms of context.

Yes I failed to mesh with "Team Evil," but the destructive part of the night was not in that failing, but in the long wait to play and in the losing of two characters back to back and the subsequent feelings that went along with it.  Not meshing does not equal failure of the Dream.  I could have not meshed and still had a great time.  If the failure in achieving a goal does not reduce the vividness of the Dream then one might argue that goals (concepts) are indeed not only not the driving forces of play but are not good instruments for describing such play.  Myth is already "densely structured;" it does not further compact into reductionist, easily portable concepts without loss of important information.

QuoteI only see two possible explanations for your actions.  You either didn't understand the goal for the night, though by your explanation you seemed to understand, or you weren't committed to that goal some other goal was more important. ...

I'll agree that chose to make other goals/motives ascendant, dignity over survival over befriending, but that is the nature of Sim play.  Now, in light of the above, you make a fundamental error.  I had many interests that night, as did all the other players.  Getting together was one of many and it was presented as a problem that, as we were committed to trying to get together at that moment, needed to be resolved.  "Working problems out" is the primary process of play.  This was but one of many that would be encountered and would need to be addressed throughout the night.  This particular problem not only did not resolve well, but ended in spectacular failure.

Expanding the whole of the Dream, as a product of play, was not harmed any more than having all the Dogs dying in a DITV game.  The experience sucked due to a looong wait prior to play, the social embarrassment of losing two characters in a row and the grief that comes from losing something that I had started to invest in.  I felt that I had failed to adequately portray my Character, that I had failed in problem solving, I felt an utter betrayal by fate/life (dice) yet again and that I had failed to show my skillz as a player.

Callan -

Quote from: Callan S. on February 15, 2006, 09:44:19 PMIn your roleplay, what if someone is cheating/trying to screw over another player?

Do you expect cheating would be detected, because the dream would fray (either immediately, or in the near future)? Could you answer with an affirmative or a negative - I'm afraid anything longer would obscure the answer. :)

Yes.

How's that for brief?  =oD

I'm going to post this now.  Walt, et al, I will address your posts next.

Quote from: Silmenume on February 21, 2006, 03:20:57 AM

Yes I failed to mesh with "Team Evil," but the destructive part of the night was not in that failing, but in the long wait to play and in the losing of two characters back to back and the subsequent feelings that went along with it.  Not meshing does not equal failure of the Dream.  I could have not meshed and still had a great time.  If the failure in achieving a goal does not reduce the vividness of the Dream then one might argue that goals (concepts) are indeed not only not the driving forces of play but are not good instruments for describing such play.  Myth is already "densely structured;" it does not further compact into reductionist, easily portable concepts without loss of important information.

The question then becomes why the long wait?  Why did your gm choose to leave you out for four hours?  What view did he have of the dream that precluded your inclusion until the rest of the group was ready to meet up with your character(s)?  As Walt said I dont think this was a mistake on his part, it was coldly calculated there was a reason for it.  I think your GM had a plan for the game which he was working towards.  I think he uses an 'all roads lead to Rome approach' letting the players thrash about for a bit until they eventually find their way to where he was leading them, that may have been why you were left out for 4 hours.  It still doesnt change the fact that the group was working towards a larger goal, it's just one you cant see from your perspective.

QuoteI'll agree that chose to make other goals/motives ascendant, dignity over survival over befriending, but that is the nature of Sim play.

No it's not Jay.  I think we've had this discussion before so I'll make it simple this is not an inherent part of sim.  Making those choices is the heart of narrativism and if you dont understand that then it's really hard to have a discussion with you using the GNS terms.  Making those choices may be a part of your play and it may be a big part, if so I dont think you are playing sim as defined here.   Your stance in the past is that Sim has been badly defined, but if we all see it as a valuable distinction then I have to think that it is your definition that is in error.

Maybe I don't understand the Nar/Sim division, either.

Just as a frame of reference, if we get together and play a game in which a character is forced to make a hard choice, are we automatically playing Nar?

I guess I see it as Narrative is about putting forward hard choices and then making them, and Simulation is about simulating the character's response to such a situation. So, seeing what your guy (and Jim's guy, and Nate's guy, etc.) would do in a "hard choice" situation is something that should jazz a Simulationist, as opposed to the Narrativist who is jazzed by the hard choice situation itself and seeing what choice he makes (and Jim makes, and Nate makes).

No?

Hey Walt,

I do want to say that you most certainly have not over stayed your place here in this thread.

(I have reviewed this post and found it to be extremely snarky.  I should have spent time rewriting it, but I was at work and did not have the luxury.  I deeply apologize in advance.)

I do appreciate the disentanglement I've been able to make due to the constant probing that has gone on.  I did review my first and second post and indeed I did not make mention of my frustration with the other players at the table.  I do wonder why I avoided that topic on these forums as I do talk about such things with the players between the games.  Though from my own emotional makeup I'm not the kind to say, "You f***ed me over," as much as, "What were you thinking when you did X, didn't you consider that resulted in Y to me?"  So if one were to say, "Hey, you sound emotionally constipated," I'm going to have to agree.  I like, no, absolutely revel in role-play because I can be emotional – full tilt.  This is probably why I find every other game I play so disastrously dissatisfying.  If I'm not bouncing off the walls emotionally, if I don't feel I'm in a safe environment to do so, then I'm not getting what I want out of play.  Dead stop.

I think part of the reason I am reluctant to discuss such matters as my personal feelings of dissatisfaction on these boards is that I most certainly do not feel safe doing so.  People frequently hare off making snap and frequently highly erroneous generalizations about life long relationships based upon a tiny slice of life.  One either lets the error lie, which leads to erroneous analysis or attempts to bring in the totality of the history to create a greater, more complex and subtle context.

Regarding the GM's performance that night, I will agree with you on that as well.  This is another example of why I am leery of posting such things.  Posters go stampeding off screaming, "Bastard," and crying for blood whereas your summary is far closer to the mark.  I agree fully that the GM was off his game, badly.  I do dispute very strongly that he was purposefully acting out some malfeasance.  At the after game warm down he was distracted and appeared stressed.  He worries after every game that the players didn't have fun.  It is a major concern of his.  Obviously I didn't enjoy the night and he felt bad about that.

Nor am I trying to imply that this group is without its problems as you'll note in earlier threads.

Quote(And obviously, an errant arrow appearing to be a direct physical attack against the party you were trying to join made goal #1 impossible, regardless of the details of what happened succss- or failure-wise thereafter.)

Its not so obvious as you feel it is.  Montana via his vampire launched an attack on my bowman the instant I ordered the "execution."  This was before I had rolled my die, not after.  It would not have mattered to the scenario if the bowman had feathered the kabalist or not.  The assault began with my order, not the resolution.  The purpose for my action, on a player level, not a character or a scenario level, was to try and exercise some force.  Even if I had rolled a perfect "20" Montana still would have attacked the bowman, due to Dave the Lich's order to me, "Do not do this," as Montana was already in motion.  I would have attacked Montana's Vampire in return and so on.  So I am not seeing how the GM screwed me over with his narration of the effect of the '1.'  Since your in the position not to give any credit to my excuses, you explain to me how this was GM's fault.

I gave the order.  Another player drove into an attack.  I rolled a "1" and missed the kabalist yet any another result would not have affected Montana's course of action he was already committed to.  Dave called darkness to try and prevent the conflict from escalating just as Montana reached our side – the intention was not apparent to me at the time (I read it as hostile).  I hear screaming in the dark and say, "To hell with that, I'm going down in flames but I'm going to take someone with me."  So can you explain to me how the onus of this particular sequence of events was the fault of the GM's narration of the effect of the "1" I rolled; because he sure screwed me by protagonizing Montana and protagonizing Dave.  But isn't that the whole point of role-play?  To let the players attempt to express their CA's – which means facing CA appropriate conflicts as constrained by Social Contract?

Regarding the continuation of the analysis -

Quote from: Walt Freitag on February 15, 2006, 07:33:50 PMThe question is, do you believe it?

Every last gilded word with unimpeachable clarity.  I've been playing in this game for eight years and your conclusions do not match my experiences.  But I'm a victim, so I can't possibly know any better.

What staggers me about your final analysis is the same mistake made time and again in sloppy news analysis – the imputation of motives without solid evidence to support it.  This is a sterling example of the shakiness of abductive logic.

You look at the result, a crappy night.  You use your own personal experiences to predict how you believe people as whole act (induction) to produce a case (abduction) that the GM is a cast iron bastard.  The problem is that this backward march to case is fraught with errors and frequently leads to self-supporting but circular and false logic.

To whit –

1.  I had a really shitty game experience.  (Result)
2.  There is no way such a shitty experience can happen without malicious intent in the GM.  (Rule)
3.  Therefore the GM must have acted maliciously.  (Case)

Leading to –

1.  The GM is a malicious bastard.  (Case)
2. Such a GM will run a game according to his personality inclinations.  (Rule)
3.  I had a shitty game therefore we have proven the GM is a bastard.  (Result)

The major problem is that it's entirely circular and does neatly sidestep any evidence to the contrary.  But that doesn't matter, right, because any evidence I present to the contrary is easily explained away as nothing more than rationalization.  It's so very nice neat and tidy and makes it very easy to categorize the event and file it away.

Given the way you've structured this argument it is impossible for me to have any viable input.  The circular nature of the logic employed and the automatic dismissal (which is plainly due to my unreliability as a witness) of any evidence that I bring that is contrary to your conclusions.  The irony here is that somehow I am reliable enough to provide evidence of a bad game and that is taken as gospel, yet somehow my reliability as a witness regarding the people there is zero.  I am locked out of this argument.  Either I agree and am enlightened or I disagree and am self-deluded. 

A fascinating case of arguing conclusions.  It's a whole lot like a conspiracy theory.  And like a conspiracy theory I'll wager there is no evidence I can present, ever, that will alter your conclusions.

I say the bad game is due to the hardcore nature we play and a bad night of judgments calls for all around.

You say the GM is a prick and I'm a victim.

I present evidence to the contrary and that's dismissed with the wave of a hand as, "Oh he's so victimized he's incapable of seeing his own victim hood."

Now I am both a reliable witness and an unreliable witness...

...is there any question remaining as to why I keep arguing that context is absolutely vital to understanding Sim and I keep bringing in more, apparently, useless data?

Context.

Context.

Context.

I'll pony up one more piece of "inconsequential contextual datum."

QuoteIt's the story of what inevitably happens when Mom says the group has to let the GM's little sister play.

"Okay, but you have to wait until we get back to town so your character can join."

"Don't get all upset, we're just playing our characters. That's how the game works."

"But Mom, she rolled a 1. That's what happens when you roll a 1! The rules say so! It's not our fault she ran away crying. I told you she was too much of a baby to play in our game."

That's a fascinating summary, but one that does not fit the data presented.  The GM did not "force" me into the scenario against the wishes the will of other players or myself.  Out of game we all worked with me to find a way in and I found it appealing that they were making such an effort to find a comfortable way for me to play in that scenario.  I could have played that night not involved with that party at all as a separate scenario.  That is not an uncommon event in our game, though we do tend to find the games more satisfying when we are all in the same scenario.

Thus I am at a loss as to how one could pull this idea out of the ether that I was "forced" into anything and then treated as red-headed step child.  The players were unhappy about what they perceived as me maneuvering the scenario to the point where there was PC on PC violence.  They did not want that to happen.  I didn't want that to happen.  Yes it was not a scenario that I was particularly excited about, but my part in it was workable and a choice I made without coercion.  This was to be a third tier character in my folder much like PTA has its 1-3 numberings as to who has what level of importance in the scenario.  I wanted this to be a "3" character and no higher.

"Lucy did not pull the ball away – I got tackled by Schroeder as I was kicking the ball."  One might question why the official (GM) allowed Schroeder on the field in the first place, but that did not mean he knew that Schroeder was going to pull such a stunt.

contracycle,

Great summary on all accounts and an awesome example of Techniques used to implement a Social Contract agreement.

Hiya,

We may have reached a point where further breakdown isn't going to yield much. Individual conclusions may have to be let vary.

What do you think, Jay? Time to call it?

Best,
Ron

Absolutely Ron!

For the first time in my time at the Forge, I was coming to that very conclusion. 

Thank you everyone for staying with me for so long and providing so many points of view to digest!  I certainly gained many new insights as a result of all your input!