[Middle Earth - home brew] - A really bad game night.

[Silmenume]

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.

[Silmenume]

(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...)

[CSBone]

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

C. S. Bone

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Supplanter]

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

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

[Supplanter]

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

Um, *DON'T do*.

Sheesh.

Best,


Jim

[Supplanter]

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

[Tommi Brander]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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]

[NN]

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?

[contracycle]

There 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.

[Callan S.]

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?

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Silmenume]

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.

"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.

... 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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your 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.

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.

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

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.

I intend to cover this in my next post!

[Ron Edwards]

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