*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 22, 2014, 09:45:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 70 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: [D&D 3.0] Illusionist sim all the way through  (Read 2527 times)
John Burdick
Member

Posts: 105


« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2005, 06:45:32 AM »

Callan,

Most of the time I'm an easy-going player. As long as I feel validated, I don't cause problems. I even enjoy extended subplots that don't involve me.

One time we were playing D&D. While travelling, we come across the remains of another group of travellers that were killed. We track down and attack the goblin bandits. In their tunnels we go past the goblin area and find skeletons. My suggestion was to resume our travels. We had dealt with the problem at hand already. One of the other players strongly wanted to press the attack, so I agreed to follow through to the end. At the end of the lair, we're surprised by the necromancer while searching her office. The other players respected the plot aura telling them they mustn't fight. I insisted on attacking no matter how strongly everyone hinted I shouldn't. "You just can't do that" counts as a strong hint. None of the others helped my character.

There's a scene in a comic book where the author wants to introduce a new character. The new character will be a cute, confident girl that the readers will not sympathize with. Her first scene, she's watching the male lead play a video game in an arcade. After he ignores her instructions, she pushes him aside and takes over his game, which she promptly botches. An authors note later in the series mentions how she was more successful than expected in making readers prefer the main character to the game stealer.

That feeling of having my right to play taken will bring out a variety of disruptive behaviors from me, including some associated with hardcore (especially rules lawyer). Also generic sulking behavior like being passive aggressive. I don't want you to think I do those things regularly. When I was about 11, I ruined more than one game by being a classic case of juvenile wimp. I've matured since then. I don't play with people that I don't enjoy. I talk to the ones I do play with. I reached an understanding with GM in the D&D game I just mentioned.

I don't think you are normally a hardcore player. That's a different question than whether you were playing hardcore at the described time. I consider exploiting imperfect rules knowledge, confidence, or concentration to be a strategy one could exploit to break a game.

John
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2005, 05:26:22 PM »

Quote from: James Holloway
And in particular, if we're talking about players with any kind of commitment to a consistently envisioned SIS,

Well, no, not much commitment really.

He said the soldier was on my horse, and didn't check with me for my commitment of credibility.

If you want to call me a baby for escalating the situation, go for it. But did I start the tear in the SIS, by acting like I don't need others credibility for my statements? No. Should I have helped stop that tear when it started? Yes.

I mean, next time you play, if someone else says your PC goes over and does X, without even looking at you and treating it as a done deal, like they'd just said what their own PC had done, how do you feel? If you'd stop that right there, good for you. This is a honest play log...that's what I did.
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
James Holloway
Member

Posts: 372


« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2005, 05:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Noon

If you'd stop that right there, good for you.

That's exactly what I would do; if someone says "James's character does such-and-such" I would either say "the hell he does" or be assumed to have agreed. Now, in my group, if something like that ever came up, I'm sure the GM would then look for a confirming nod or something, but maybe the GM can be excused in this case because the question of where in the caravan the soldier guy rides is basically irrelevant.  

Silence implies consent. You described your own behavior as "passive-aggressive," and it was.

It's clear throughout your description of play that you're angry during much of the game and trying to start something. I don't think you're Breakin' per se, because you're not using the rules to subvert the game, but you definitely acted in a way likely to cause bad feelings with that is-he-or-isn't-he bit with the soldier. And I think this is related to the core of the problem right here, namely, that you're trying to precipitate some kind of argument so that you can resolve the real, important issues you have with the progress of the game...

because somehow you feel like you can't talk about these issues with the other players under normal circumstances. I suspect this is because you know that they don't want to play the way you do, or maybe they do but they're just not very good at it, or that they're getting something completely different out of the game experience than you are. So instead of talking about it, you do petty, passive-aggressive things to them and they do them to you.

Additionally, it's clear throughout your post that you don't give a hang about the adventure as presented. For instance, you regard the owlbear clue as detracting from your victory over the critter, which makes sense only if you already think that the scenario is lame (which it may very well be; it sure doesn't sound like my kind of thing, anyway).

I don't want to be one of those guys who's always saying "oh, it's the SC, it's the SC," but in your case I think it's pretty clear that there's some resentment among the players. I think your brutally honest depiction of what you were thinking during play is laudable, but it's only the first step. You can't have written the stuff you did in your first post and think that you were totally in the right.

But the one thing that comes across most clearly in your post is that you're unhappy with the game and unhappy with the other players. That means you've got two options:

1) talk about it as friends

2) walk.

And, at the risk of sounding doctrinaire, if you find that you can't do 1) with a group, then 2) was probably a good idea anyway.

edit: and I'm serious about the "real, important" thing. Your concerns are valid. It's just that being a pain in the butt about them is not likely to help, I don't think.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2005, 06:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Hiya,

Callan, this is textbook. It's almost-total denial - and I suspect that denial simply mirrors what you'd tell (or are telling) the other people about how you play.

Let me put it to you this way: I totally don't care whether you think you are or aren't in the Hard Core. I have seen hundreds of players who are doing what you do, especially the point that James emphasized ("no, he's not; he's been doing X all along"). You might want to consider that universally such players are despised and complained about by all Sim-ish-preferring other players.

You are breaking the game, because you're using the rules to find ways to disrupt the others' SIS, as a tactic toward getting what you want. And you're doing it over and over, same thing, different components of the SIS at different times.

I don't get the denial statement. Okay, it piques my interest, one can always be in denial so one should listen to this sort of stuff. So I look to what your refering me to, which is the previous posts I've responded to, but no actual furthering of those discussion points is produced.

Fair enough, maybe all my arguements are moot (I'm serious, I'm not discounting the chance) and it is there for me to see, if I trust you and others that I can accept it verbatim. Problem is, I don't trust you enough to just do that...I go into arguement with you all so I can scrutinise your responces until I feel I've done enough analysis to trust this stuff you give. So "Your in denial...just accept these responces without further arguement!!" wont work. And I'll find it a little creepy if you do expect me to just trust what you, as relative strangers, say. Hopefully that's actually a shared perception between us...if not...hey, can I have your credit card number!? ;)

Personally I'd skip the 'YOUR IN DENIAL!' and start suggesting I just need to work over these ideas in the long term (so I can come to trust them, through analysis in RL experiment). That'd be more realistic and you probably already mean that as well, right?

Quote
As per my essay, you are "lurking like Grendel" in the Sim group, winning in your own mind as you go, and simply being tolerated.
Yes, it's starting to look like I'm just winning in my own mind. Writing out this log is helping me to understand that.

On the social contract: No, I realised this as I wrote it out the log how I was using it this way so much. I'm coming to realise it here and now...see my notes on denial above. Your an amazing guy, but I'm not just going to believe you without interrogating your input.

I'll understand if you don't have the time for that, what you've contributed so far is useful(and isn't leaving my mind any time soon), thank you.
Quote


I suggest you stop using line-by-line thinking, re-read some of the recent responses, and see the overall points instead.

Best,
Ron

Out of a three hour log, an incidental soldier transporting issue and a posion rule thing seem to have great spot light on them in previous posts. You said I was being atomist before. As much as I see these things as speed bumps or even tank traps to play, they are two examples along a lot of road I didn't mention because it floated along fine.


Anyway, I got a call last night from Daniel, inviting me to come finish the module. If he was hating the idea of my presence he must be a wicked pokerer play now, with a friendly tone of optimisim that I'd come along. I'll outright ask about the two incidents, and try and read behind any 'Nah, it didn't matter' BS and see how much they hated it. I'm prepared to believe I've got unpleasant habits...but I'll leave it more to them to find out how much.
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2005, 06:52:05 PM »

Hiya,

I think John puts it a lot better than me. I agree with everything he's posted, so just go with that.

If you consider the Grendel comment to have been helpful, then I figure you and I are in the black.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2005, 06:55:51 PM »

Quote from: James Holloway
Silence implies consent. You described your own behavior as "passive-aggressive," and it was.

It's clear throughout your description of play that you're angry during much of the game and trying to start something.

I don't think it was that concious. It was "EWWW, I don't like this non consent thing...I'm kicking in my heels on this until they finally ask me about my consent."

It's similar, but it's like being pinched on the bum when you don't want to be. You might make a fuss, but you didn't intend to when you came here...it's just that a line has been crossed.

I mean, lots of people don't act rationally after a non consenting act is performed on them. Your proper frame of mind is put off a little, if you can understand.

Atleast for the soldier thing, it feel's like I'm being called an SIS cockteaser, when I didn't want to consent. I didn't do it elegantly...at the time, not giving consent at all mattered more than elegance.
Quote

Additionally, it's clear throughout your post that you don't give a hang about the adventure as presented. For instance, you regard the owlbear clue as detracting from your victory over the critter, which makes sense only if you already think that the scenario is lame (which it may very well be; it sure doesn't sound like my kind of thing, anyway).

I would like the scenario, if I didn't have to put effort in, or my efforts were appreciated in the way I intended them to be. So either the GM just says he's going to narrate the fight, no dice/tactics required from me, or it goes all gamist.

This was illusionist simulationism. It wasn't ENOUGH illusionist simulationist...if it was, I'd sit there, adding color if I wanted, and giving Mat the limelight by focusing on him as he told the story. It's not a bad way to play, if I don't have to put in wasted effort.
Quote

I think your brutally honest depiction of what you were thinking during play is laudable, but it's only the first step.

Damn right! Should have written up one of these sooner!
Quote

You can't have written the stuff you did in your first post and think that you were totally in the right.
Dude, just coming to see that. As long as you don't hang it on me that really I knew I wasn't in the right all along, I'll be able to come to see if fully. Because I didn't know I wasn't in the right...but now...EWWW. I can start to see it. I really did need a big picture perspective.
Quote


2) walk.

And, at the risk of sounding doctrinaire, if you find that you can't do 1) with a group, then 2) was probably a good idea anyway.

But their my friends! I can't walk!

Sorry, just some forge humour! Just joking! I know I can walk and will if nothing is sorted. Well, 'walk' in the sense of playing time splitters or champions of norrath or other video games, or the pub, or whatever with them...walk off to another activity with them, on nights I'd otherwise game.
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!