[Nobilis] "So, did everyone have fun?"

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm Spring. More thought later; that example of play I just wrote tired me out.

[Vaxalon]

I most enjoy seeing the ways in which my characters interact with other characters. An enjoyable session is one where I feel like I've interacted well as the character.

I think I see some synergy here we can use.

I'm limited to running three channels simultaneously.  We have six PC's (which is a HECK of a lot for Nobilis, and could be some of the root of our problem).  The answer seems obvious to me...

Buddy system.  People don't leave each other where they can't support each other.  If we always have at least two PC's in a channel, then we can keep the number of channels to a maximum of three.

[Vaxalon]

As in, could I have just said "Next scene, I track down the Middle-Eastern lawyer who had the revelation of justice and am swirling around his house observing him... (Hopefully he doesn't have any mystical protections against ghosts or anything. :>)" Is that okay to do or not? Did anyone do anything like this last session?

Yes, that's okay, and no, they didn't.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Update:

I think that all this discussion is really getting us somewhere good. I can still sense that the group is groping around in the dark a little bit, but at the last session we seemed to be much more explicit about our intentions, and the session was a lot of fun, even though we were down to only three players (myself, Cages, and Revelation).

[Scripty]

Hey Shreyas...
Even though computer problems cut my participation in the game short by about 45 mins to an hour and even though I wasn't involved with the one scene that was being played at the time (having felt that it would be better for me to observe and catch up on where the story had gone), I was there. And attentive. Radiant Jones... Locus Ptah... Crocodile-headed guards... River of Souls needing to go through the Gates of Dusk and the Gates of Dawn.. etc. etc. To use one of Ron's analogies from his Sorcerer game, I was participating as an audience and also taking notes for when my character becomes active again. I think some of my OOC comments reflected that. I'd hoped to play a bit towards the end of the session but my computer, as it worked out, had other plans.

Although it may not have seemed like I was there... I was. I don't appreciate that my attendance and meager participation due to what I described above is being not only diminished but (gulp) ignored entirely.

Scott

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hey Scott,

You'll notice that I was identifying with IC presence above; I'm sorry I wasn't more explicit about that.

[Scripty]

Sorry I missed that distinction, Shreyas, but even going on a contextual basis I still can't derive it from what you had written. I am still in the game (unless you or Fred or the others have something to add about that) and was present, although I felt it would be presumptuous for me to jump into the game without understanding where the story had left off last session. From what I read above, it sounded like the group had whittled down to you three players and Fred. The impression given those following this thread would be that I came, I bitched and I bailed.

Which is not the case.

I am a participant in this group and an active one at that. I understand (now) that you were talking about the players who participated in the scene last Monday prior to my computer crashing multiple times. That's fine. But this is not clear in your statement.

If it were, such as including "Blades was there but lurked before having some problems with his connection or whatnot" or anything else like that, I would have felt no need to respond. I agree that these discussions have seemed to have a positive effect on the game.

As it stands, I felt excluded by your statement and, rereading it again, I don't think that's a far stretch of linguistic scrying. Blaming the context doesn't change what the post says, whether you meant it or not, it just further presses the issue back upon me because now, not only was I functionally absent by your post (which I wasn't) but now I'm too stupid to read between the lines to derive the "true" meaning of what you said in the first place.

In summary, I agree with what you said. The game did seem to have a different tone and communication between Fred and the rest of us seems much more open. I don't appreciate not being mentioned in the list of participants, although I'm not presuming that this omission was intentional. Still, your last post didn't make me feel any better about it...

I guess it all hinges on what the interpretation of players is...

Personally, I thought it an enlightened course of action to (a) not steal spotlight time from you guys by forcing myself into a scene I knew nothing about and (b) not putting any of you in a position to give me a rundown of "the plot up 'til now" and slow down play with questions that (had I not missed last session) I would've likely known the answer to. If that excludes me from the list of active participants, perhaps I should focus on being more selfish as a player??

Scott

[Shreyas Sampat]

You're right, I omitted you unintentionally. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the group had dwindled to three players! As far as I'm aware, all the original participants are still playing, and Monday was just a day when a lot of us had technical issues. I'm glad that you did stop by and hang out with us, even though you didn't feel that you wanted to bring Blades into the in-character interaction.

There was a longer post here, but it read as confrontational, and I don't really want to be having a confrontation, particularly with someone I respect and enjoy gaming with.

[Scripty]

Thanks. I didn't mean to be confrontational either. Sorry if I came across that way.

Also, sorry if I detracted attention from your main point, with which we are both in total agreement: that the game is going much better now due in no small part to the discussions on this thread.

See you next Monday.