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

Hello everyone,

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

[PR 27, February, session III]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there you have it. Simulationism.

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

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

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

Hey Marco,

Marco wrote: How would this have looked if "premise was involved?

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

-Marco

When the players let it? :)

Hey Marco,

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

Noon wrote: When the players let it? :)

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

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

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

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

Hey James,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silmenume wrote:

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

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

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

Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey James,

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

ffilz wrote: Sim game, gamist player?

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

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

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

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

Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heya contracycle,

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

contracycle wrote: My proposition then is to demonstrate to him that "NPC's play hardball too".

contracycle wrote: The first thing I would seek to establish firmly is that the Elvish king would have been within his rights to take his head.

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

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

Emphasis mine.

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

Lee Short wrote: It sounds like, every time Chuck has played hardball, he has gotten what he wants out of it.

Lee Short wrote: The real question is: why hasn't the GM done this, on a player level?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay,

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

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

Thoughts?

Thomas

Hey everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LordSmerf wrote: Was there any big reason that the intended recipient of the gift had gone West?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Thomas,

LordSmerf wrote: Ooooooooh... Now things make a bit more sense...

LordSmerf wrote: Have similar situations arisen in the past?

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

LordSmerf wrote: Would it have been reasonable for him to assume that his character would be treated unfairly by the king?

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

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

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

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

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

contracycle wrote: Thats why I say character deaths are not necessarily hardball, in terms of the experience of play.

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

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

contracycle wrote: So I just want to say that I am not trying to poor cold water on your game or criticise for crticisisms sake.

Jay,

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

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

Silmenume wrote: The GM did not say, “it could not be.” The GM essentially said, “the goal you seek cannot be completed here … (but if you figure it out you could do it over there)”.

Hey Gordon,

Thanks for taking the time to share your input!

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

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

Gordon C. Landis wrote: I know of no great solution to this dilemna.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: To me, the answer is simply "sometimes, you have to drop the Dream and deal with the people at the table."

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

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

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

Hi Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon

Silmenume wrote:

contracycle wrote: Thats why I say character deaths are not necessarily hardball, in terms of the experience of play.

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

Hiya Gordon,

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Anyway, that's my thoughts - hope there's something useful in there.

Jay,

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

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

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

Gordon

Hullo Gordon,

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

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

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