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

But first, some background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Woo-hoo!  A two parter... yay...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“1”

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

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

“1”

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

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

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

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

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

C. S. Bone

Hi Jay,

Question: is Cary the GM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

So I had my Ogre bugger a Trollkin.

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

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

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

Silmenume wrote:
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.

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

Um, *DON'T do*.

Sheesh.

Best,

Jim

Supplanter wrote:

Silmenume wrote:
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.)

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.

Ron wrote: 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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

The GM was Cary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron wrote: “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.

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.

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.

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.

Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay,

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

Short version. Listen to Ron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. S. Bone

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

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

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.”

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

-Marco

Jay --

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

Can you learn from this experience?

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

==Ed
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

Best,
Ron

Hey everyone,

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

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

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

(...continued from previous post)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So now we are nearing 6 hours into play, I’ve had maybe 40 or so minutes of “screen time”

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

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

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

Hi Jon!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you help out and shed some light on that?

Thanks,
SR
--

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

Silmenume wrote:
Again, how does one resolve the one issue without diminishing “the Dream” on the other?

Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with James, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Hi Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jay,

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

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

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

- Walt

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

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

This thread should continue only if Jay wants it to.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Walt,

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.

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

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

Best,

Jim

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

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

Just a thought.

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

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

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

Silmenume wrote:

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

I 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.

Silmenume wrote:
Hi Walt,

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

…

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

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

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

Hi Jay,

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

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

Walt wrote:

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

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

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

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

Just have to echo Walt’s sentiments:

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silmenume wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

No?

Hey Walt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walt wrote: The question is, do you believe it?

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

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

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

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

Hiya,

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

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

Best,
Ron

Absolutely Ron!

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

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