Thoughts on Vampire HST position

[Styx]

This isn't really a rant, but I thought I'd post it here rather than clutter up the important boards with non-important stuff.
On the one hand, I'm surprised that no-one other than Aaron has thrown a hat into the ring to run for HST. But after I thought about it for a while, I realized that I can totally understand why. You see, I've considered it for awhile; I've been asked by several different staffs to be an AST, and while each time I've respectfully declined, it hasn't been without some careful consideration.
Ultimately though, I've had to turn it down; there are very good reasons for it, of course: my job, my second job (trying to film when and how we can). The same for running for HST.
But when I analyze my reasons, the strongest one that comes to the foreground is: it's a hellish , thankless job.
And it would be even more hellish if I were to attempt to take the reigns, because I would want to take it in a very different direction than it has been going in for some time now(hell, forever). And while I would want to do it for the good of the game, and the community, the truth is that too many people would fight me on every change I wanted to make.

For instance, I think that the Prince should a PC/NPC negotiable position; I don't feel that it MUST be a PC position, but I do feel that it should be POSSIBLE to be a PC position, should PC's so choose to attempt to claim it. I've heard the arguments brought up against, including the often-quoted "Prince -of-the-week" syndrome, and I don't feel that argument holds up at all. If you try to put a puzzle together and you can't find matching pieces right away, you don't just throw the whole thing in the trash.

I think that the game should be run as fairly as possible, and to me, fair does not mean that everyone has to abide by exactly the same rules. Fair, to me, means that people who EARN the right to not be held to the same standards as others are given the freedom to do so. Fair, (again, to me personally) means that John Q Player who proves himself to be a responsible and mature roleplayer, is given far more leeway on playing a 'restricted' clan than Jack W Player, who is known for being shallow, metagaming, and having tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
Fair, to me, means that you, as an individual, are judged and treated based on how you compare to the 'statistic'. This would not be a popular definition.

Speaking of restricted clans, I would also open up the possibility of playing a wide assortment of clans; I like variety. This also would likely not be popular.

I would probably offend the players who feel that certain things should be run the way they always have been, or that a certain amount of time spent at game automatically qualifies their opinions and voices to be more valued (this is not an attack on anyone, and I am not naming names, but I do see and hear things that go on 'behind the scenes'). I do not feel that a rule should be held a rule because "it's always been that way"; this makes me think of the Weird Al Yankovic song "Weasel Stomping Day" where the line says "It's tradition, that makes it okay". Times change, and if we are not able to change as well, we become archaic and outdated. I also do not feel that if you've spent ten years at this game, your opinions automatically have more worth than someone who's spent two. Just because someone is older does not mean they are wiser or more experienced. Essentially, it's saying "I've spent ten years being a geek, and you've only spent two: HA! My geekdom is bigger!".

One more thing I would change: the apparent reluctance to allow PC's to succeed. I've heard a lot of views on how no matter what you do to achieve a certain goal of your characters, you can never really accomplish anything because there is a fear to let you do it/achieve it/create it/find it. While I have not experienced this personally, when I've heard more than ten people mention it over a period of time, I tend to feel it may have some truth to it.
((I also want to point out that I am not speaking about any particular Staff, current or otherwise; they all try their hardest, and they are all human and make mistakes, and we need to remember that and cut them slack for it.))

I don't say this out of my ass without any experience; I've 'run' many Vampire larps, and some of them lasted for years. And just as there will be people who will always remember those games fondly and congratulate me on how fun they were, there will be people who remember them and don't wish to play in games like that again. That's par for the course, and it's something I've gotten used to. There will always be good players, and troublesome players, in every larp, and this one is no different.

I'm getting off-track here. My point is, the HST position LOOKS like a gleaming opportunity to actually get into the meat of the game and really run some AWESOME storylines for people; thrill them, chill them, make them twitchy for the next saturday. But more often than not, what it really ends up being is an endless series of by-the-book arguments with unreasonable people who want the ruling to be the way they want it, debates that center around things as ridiculous as defining what the word "Is" means, and a stressfull, headache-inducing parasite that sucks out the joy and excitement you had at the prospect of helping people breath life into their characters.

A good larp is not "run" by the staff; the staff are there to encourage it, guide it, and give it direction. But the larp is really run by the players. Someday, perhaps there will be enough players who would be ready for a change, who will be willing to work WITH the staff, instead of seeing each set of staff members as the Gestapo sent in to break their toys and ruin their fun. Then, I might strongly consider stepping up.

For now, I congratulate Aaron for the balls to stand up and be willing to take the reigns of this monster, and I wish him the best of luck, because it's going to be a rough ride (and the same goes for anyone else who runs for HST). I"ll be here to enjoy the game and support the staff as much as I'm able.



((please ignore or disagree with this as you see fit, I'm not attacking anyone and have no ill feelings towards any player I'm simply expressing my viewpoint from an ST perspective))

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

Since this is rant, I'm just going to present my opinions as-is with no disclaimer other than that: These are my opinion. They may not be 'true' but they are what I think I know about running this and other LARPs. Take it as you will.

Dec 11, 2009 19:21:32 GMT -8 Styx said:

This isn't really a rant, but I thought I'd post it here rather than clutter up the important boards with non-important stuff.
On the one hand, I'm surprised that no-one other than Aaron has thrown a hat into the ring to run for HST. But after I thought about it for a while, I realized that I can totally understand why. You see, I've considered it for awhile; I've been asked by several different staffs to be an AST, and while each time I've respectfully declined, it hasn't been without some careful consideration.
Ultimately though, I've had to turn it down; there are very good reasons for it, of course: my job, my second job (trying to film when and how we can). The same for running for HST.
But when I analyze my reasons, the strongest one that comes to the foreground is: it's a hellish , thankless job.

It is hellish, but it is not thankless - especially that you realize that the HST and staff can't run the game at this level without players support. Player support is really what makes this game better than the average. It's mostly players at the prop shop runs picking up musty pressboard pianos for events. It's mostly players pitching in with cash or food. The staff couldn't do it without them - literally. So looked at that way, participation is the greatest thanks the STs can get. It's both for them, and even inspite of them. It's a double edged sword like that.

And it would be even more hellish if I were to attempt to take the reigns, because I would want to take it in a very different direction than it has been going in for some time now(hell, forever). And while I would want to do it for the good of the game, and the community, the truth is that too many people would fight me on every change I wanted to make.

Good of the game, good of the community - let me just say this: Every individual at this game is seeking something else. Some come to game to socialize, some to tell stories, some to dress up, some to work out weekly frustration, some to get grossed out, some to feel sexy and vampy, some to try out different builds on character sheets/dots, etc, etc, etc... There is an occasional consensus of just over half on what the community as a whole wants about once a year - when a new HST is elected.

Other than that, you don't know what the good of the community or game is. You are ignorant of that, because you must be, by the nature of the cats you seek to herd. The best you can do is ask a lot of questions, listen a lot, and try to run the kind of game each person wants when face to face with them, and what the muddy majority wants when you must make group decisions.

If you strike out on your own and try to do what you think is fun, you will get shot down, rules lawyered, bickered at, scoffed at, eye-rolled, etc by those constituents who are waiting for their version of the WoD to be shown the importance that it so deserves in their mind(s). This shooting down, bickering etc. will happen *anyway* because you can't please everyone, but it will happen the most quickly and loudly when you diverge from what passes from an established norm around here, the established norm being that as an ST, you're here to run the game your players want, not the game you want.

For instance, I think that the Prince should a PC/NPC negotiable position; I don't feel that it MUST be a PC position, but I do feel that it should be POSSIBLE to be a PC position, should PC's so choose to attempt to claim it. I've heard the arguments brought up against, including the often-quoted "Prince -of-the-week" syndrome, and I don't feel that argument holds up at all. If you try to put a puzzle together and you can't find matching pieces right away, you don't just throw the whole thing in the trash.

Firstly, there has almost always been the option of a PC Prince, just rarely has there been a PC willing to garner the support needed to create a lasting praxis. Take Diego for example. He ganked Novus, sure, but did he have the support of Archons and Justicars (NPCs) and the important PC's in the city so he could hold it? Nope. Most STs and experienced players at this game have come from that scenario being commonplace with most Larps.

You say the Prince of the week doesn't hold water, but you saw it in action. The natural state of a vampire game with a PC prince is protracted shanking of entire courts on a bi-monthly basis. If you are not aware of this, it's because either you haven't experienced it much firsthand, or you forgot. What is more annoying than the prince of the week is that there is no opening to play the long game. Elder players have no ability to take their time to set up their rivals for falls, because it all becomes about who has the most fortitude and celerity. Why develop allies abroad when your kindred would be better suited stocking up on combat disciplines? But you've heard these arguments before. They are logical, they are real results of observation, not just bluster or make-believe to keep the 'establishment' in place or anything like that, but you still think it isn't so. I don't get that personally, especially if you paid attention to the fall of Novus/Diego and the 4 assasination attempts against Jean-Lionel in four weeks following that. It's just cause and effect, and one that was easily witnessable by all. So on this one, for me personally, you lost me. Prince of the week happens, it happens here, and it leads to bush-league RP in my opinion. Seek it at your peril.

I think that the game should be run as fairly as possible, and to me, fair does not mean that everyone has to abide by exactly the same rules. Fair, to me, means that people who EARN the right to not be held to the same standards as others are given the freedom to do so. Fair, (again, to me personally) means that John Q Player who proves himself to be a responsible and mature roleplayer, is given far more leeway on playing a 'restricted' clan than Jack W Player, who is known for being shallow, metagaming, and having tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
Fair, to me, means that you, as an individual, are judged and treated based on how you compare to the 'statistic'. This would not be a popular definition.

I have no idea what statistic you are talking about above, but the bit about players that have proven they are responsible getting acess to a little more restricted fare sometimes has always been true here to my knowledge. This isn't a change you are proposing. Different staffs have different degrees of permissiveness however. This last one wiped all the rare clans of the site, making them a stronger 'taboo' to ask to play. That doesn't mean players won't ask, and it doesn't mean they won't grant rarer concepts, it just means they will feel more comfortable saying no. That speaks to some fear on the part of this staff talking straight to the players, and a desire to gain ease when saying 'no' isn't always a desired trait in a staff, but when it comes to allowing crack in the game, it's a balance that each staff has to strike.

Speaking of restricted clans, I would also open up the possibility of playing a wide assortment of clans; I like variety. This also would likely not be popular.

Depend on who you ask. I think the WoD should be cosmopolitan, with all that is out there, out there. Keeps players from complacently thinking they always know what they are going to encounter, keeps the STs minds sharp. I take very little off the table when it comes to potential antagonists and side plots when I'm running this menagerie. This offends the sensebilities of some. "A Revenant?! How dare he!?" Some of the most talked about plots involved the 'outside' of the WoD, so ask someone old school around here about the demon plot sometime.

I would probably offend the players who feel that certain things should be run the way they always have been, or that a certain amount of time spent at game automatically qualifies their opinions and voices to be more valued (this is not an attack on anyone, and I am not naming names, but I do see and hear things that go on 'behind the scenes'). I do not feel that a rule should be held a rule because "it's always been that way"; this makes me think of the Weird Al Yankovic song "Weasel Stomping Day" where the line says "It's tradition, that makes it okay". Times change, and if we are not able to change as well, we become archaic and outdated. I also do not feel that if you've spent ten years at this game, your opinions automatically have more worth than someone who's spent two. Just because someone is older does not mean they are wiser or more experienced. Essentially, it's saying "I've spent ten years being a geek, and you've only spent two: HA! My geekdom is bigger!".

Hey I'm now considered 'old school' here. There was a time I wasn't though. I was the voice of dissent saying that this game should switch to MET because it's all the rules you need in one small book. The old message board Mod Corey deleted my posts from the boards for being inflammatory and daring to question the status quo. Well the status is not quo. Feel free to try to get your points across, but something you should probably try to grasp is that things like why there is an NPC prince most of the time and why Majesty 5 is a chump power without a little boost to make it useful came from a cavelcade of corpses and players, real people throwing up their hands in frustration because the same thing happened again and again. "I attack!" "I use majesty!" "I kill you anyway!" over and over and over again. Especially when prince of the week is on the table, everything contracts game wise. Everyones PCs die quicker, there is double or sometimes triple the PC turnover, meaning there is no elder game to speak of, so there is a lot of time to sit back and watch trends like who gets killed and why. It's not traditions sake. That's retarded. It's because trial and error proved that X was silly, *most* of the time, not *all* of the time. Some of the house rules out there are because one dude abused the f*ck out of some system and the STs feared that dbag and couldn't just say no to them, so they had to create a whole house rule about it. I feel that way about a few things, but I am loath to take away someone else's security blanket.

New rules get put into place for three reasons: It's a player problem, it's an ST problem, the rule is unclear/doesn't make sense.

A player problem is when a dude jams the button down on X discipline so often and hard, or finds some loophole that nothing says you 'can't' do but also doesn't say you 'can', or just willfully chooses the most advantages interpretation of a rule no matter what. The correct solution to this IMO is to tell the player to suck it up and deal, ST is god, that's why they are there, deal.

An ST problem is fear. Fear that all player(s) will be like the one above, which leads to the shut down game, and everyone's favorite word, NO. No has it's place. No is worthy. It is a profoundly useful tool in the STs arsenal, and it sucks when it is overused, because it makes every interaction with the staff obnoxious. When the ST feels that most players are from the above camp, everybody loses.

Finally there is the 'storyteller discretion', this sh*t just don't make sense camp. There is real legitimacy her for house rules IMO. When things are unclear, clarify. Thumbs up. Then the battle is for *how* they should be unclarified.

And naturally to make things interesting, all of the above are usually mixed in at random values for every spirited rules debate.

So for you to generalize about the idea that rules are there 'just cuz' of 'that's the way it's always been', A. They aren't, and B. This iteration of the game is 5 years old. Not that old really. Just because you got here two years ago doesn't mean these things where hammered into stone tablets in the dark ages.

One more thing I would change: the apparent reluctance to allow PC's to succeed. I've heard a lot of views on how no matter what you do to achieve a certain goal of your characters, you can never really accomplish anything because there is a fear to let you do it/achieve it/create it/find it. While I have not experienced this personally, when I've heard more than ten people mention it over a period of time, I tend to feel it may have some truth to it.
((I also want to point out that I am not speaking about any particular Staff, current or otherwise; they all try their hardest, and they are all human and make mistakes, and we need to remember that and cut them slack for it.))

See the aforementioned ST fear. This staff does play the shut-down game. I hate it. I've been told no about some silly sh*t that the rules as written supported in black and white.

Tom wanted some sewer lore back in the day, because he lived in a time when the Seattle Underground was in fact above ground. Not to besiege the Nosferatu, but because it made logical sense for his backstory. The STs said no. Throughout a long conversation, they made it very clear that the Nosferatu were the only ones that should have sewer lore (at first) even though the book states it's possessed by "Sewer workers, runaways, Nosferatu, Giovanni and Malkavians". In order to justify saying yes, they've created this side system for the warrens that spends sewer lore like 'chantry points' from the mage sphere. "Ok, NOW you can have it. But you have to gather a ton of Influence to clear out the sewers, then spend your sewer lore dots etc..." Ridiculous. All could have been avoided by reading the by-the-book rules and sticking with them. And all to finally barely justify a yes - months later after innumerable hoops for a lousy secondary skill that calls out malkavians in the description by name. I could fu*king scream.

I don't say this out of my ass without any experience; I've 'run' many Vampire larps, and some of them lasted for years. And just as there will be people who will always remember those games fondly and congratulate me on how fun they were, there will be people who remember them and don't wish to play in games like that again. That's par for the course, and it's something I've gotten used to. There will always be good players, and troublesome players, in every larp, and this one is no different.

I'm getting off-track here. My point is, the HST position LOOKS like a gleaming opportunity to actually get into the meat of the game and really run some AWESOME storylines for people; thrill them, chill them, make them twitchy for the next saturday. But more often than not, what it really ends up being is an endless series of by-the-book arguments with unreasonable people who want the ruling to be the way they want it, debates that center around things as ridiculous as defining what the word "Is" means, and a stressfull, headache-inducing parasite that sucks out the joy and excitement you had at the prospect of helping people breath life into their characters.

Half of this depends on the ST, and half on the player. Players willing to trust you to take them on a good ride will get a good ride *most* of the time. STs make mistakes sometimes. They draw out a narrative too long, or reveal something too soon. Those are narrative errors that are usually forgivable by most reasonable people. Constantly saying no to the point where everything becomes a slog, or distrusting all players because of the unrelated issues of a few are all weak sauce. Saying yes so often that it seems like more a game of cowboys and indians with no real bullets is also crap. The rules add physics to the world. They exist for a reason, and that is to give the world a narrative frame. The walls must be solid, the glass has to cut, the werewolves slash and the vampires bite. Otherwise what is the point? There has to be a stable, everyone-can-agree-upon reality that doesn't change from whim to whim, or stories have no sense of immersion or reality.

A good larp is not "run" by the staff; the staff are there to encourage it, guide it, and give it direction. But the larp is really run by the players. Someday, perhaps there will be enough players who would be ready for a change, who will be willing to work WITH the staff, instead of seeing each set of staff members as the Gestapo sent in to break their toys and ruin their fun. Then, I might strongly consider stepping up.

You have to take the time and effort to inspire that by letting people know what you stand for and asking for buy-in. If you get it, you'll win an election. If you don't you won't. Then you have to maintain it, which means good listening to player needs, creativity, a good stage presence, a good diplomatic 'suit' for when tempers flare, dedication and all of the other traits that make a good administrator. Then it's just up to your ability to tell stories people enjoy. You won't make everyone happy there either. I don't blame you for not wanting to commit to this community. Some make it unsafe to tell stories here. I won't run again if this community stays as it is. But I'm notably bitter about certain people who were dispicably disrespectful of my last run, where the first time I ran for a fantastic community who supported me, and I supported them and it was great. Now it's shit, and while I hope that changes, I'm not holding my breath. Maybe you're the guy that can find the sweet soul of this game again. If you are, the rewards are amazing. They were enough for me to want to do it twice, even though the second time was kinda sucky. My staff were awesome people though. And not all players sucked, just those that refused to belive that anyone came to game for any other reasons than their own.

For now, I congratulate Aaron for the balls to stand up and be willing to take the reigns of this monster, and I wish him the best of luck, because it's going to be a rough ride (and the same goes for anyone else who runs for HST). I"ll be here to enjoy the game and support the staff as much as I'm able.

((please ignore or disagree with this as you see fit, I'm not attacking anyone and have no ill feelings towards any player I'm simply expressing my viewpoint from an ST perspective))

I did! And back atcha. No offence meant to anyone, just my opinions.

[Styx]

Good stuff Chris , and no offense taken We may not always agree on the game or the rules but that doesn't mean we can't get along

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

Dec 13, 2009 14:28:40 GMT -8 Styx said:

Good stuff Chris , and no offense taken We may not always agree on the game or the rules but that doesn't mean we can't get along

And have a blast playin' together.

[Styx]

HELLZ Yeah sitting at that table with you and Isaac might very well have been the highlight of my evening, cause it FELT like we were REALLY facing something big, and that even the most trivial of things could mean life or death. I'm so digging the collaboration!

[Evan]

Dec 13, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -8 Barnaby Cuthbert said:

See the aforementioned ST fear. This staff does play the shut-down game. I hate it. I've been told no about some silly sh*t that the rules as written supported in black and white.

Tom wanted some sewer lore back in the day, because he lived in a time when the Seattle Underground was in fact above ground. Not to besiege the Nosferatu, but because it made logical sense for his backstory. The STs said no. Throughout a long conversation, they made it very clear that the Nosferatu were the only ones that should have sewer lore (at first) even though the book states it's possessed by "Sewer workers, runaways, Nosferatu, Giovanni and Malkavians". In order to justify saying yes, they've created this side system for the warrens that spends sewer lore like 'chantry points' from the mage sphere. "Ok, NOW you can have it. But you have to gather a ton of Influence to clear out the sewers, then spend your sewer lore dots etc..." Ridiculous. All could have been avoided by reading the by-the-book rules and sticking with them. And all to finally barely justify a yes - months later after innumerable hoops for a lousy secondary skill that calls out malkavians in the description by name. I could fu*king scream.

While this isn't the place for a long discussion of that decision making process, since a question of the 2009 staff's call on this has been made, I'll simply say that we did not come to the conclusion we did regarding your character and Sewer Lore in the manner you have suggested here. Also, Mad Tom's having Sewer Lore or not had nothing at all to do with the rules discussion on Warrens and the suggestion of a House Rule for their operation. If you or any other player would like more details on non-Nosferatu and Sewer Lore or the current Warrens playtest, we'd be happy to discuss it over e-mail or in person (or perhaps on a non-rant thread in the Vampire boards, so long as the discussion does there does not involved a specific character).

Thanks,

-AST Evan

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

Dec 14, 2009 1:07:13 GMT -8 Evan said:

Dec 13, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -8 Barnaby Cuthbert said:

See the aforementioned ST fear. This staff does play the shut-down game. I hate it. I've been told no about some silly sh*t that the rules as written supported in black and white.

Tom wanted some sewer lore back in the day, because he lived in a time when the Seattle Underground was in fact above ground. Not to besiege the Nosferatu, but because it made logical sense for his backstory. The STs said no. Throughout a long conversation, they made it very clear that the Nosferatu were the only ones that should have sewer lore (at first) even though the book states it's possessed by "Sewer workers, runaways, Nosferatu, Giovanni and Malkavians". In order to justify saying yes, they've created this side system for the warrens that spends sewer lore like 'chantry points' from the mage sphere. "Ok, NOW you can have it. But you have to gather a ton of Influence to clear out the sewers, then spend your sewer lore dots etc..." Ridiculous. All could have been avoided by reading the by-the-book rules and sticking with them. And all to finally barely justify a yes - months later after innumerable hoops for a lousy secondary skill that calls out malkavians in the description by name. I could fu*king scream.

While this isn't the place for a long discussion of that decision making process, since a question of the 2009 staff's call on this has been made, I'll simply say that we did not come to the conclusion we did regarding your character and Sewer Lore in the manner you have suggested here. Also, Mad Tom's having Sewer Lore or not had nothing at all to do with the rules discussion on Warrens and the suggestion of a House Rule for their operation. If you or any other player would like more details on non-Nosferatu and Sewer Lore or the current Warrens playtest, we'd be happy to discuss it over e-mail or in person (or perhaps on a non-rant thread in the Vampire boards, so long as the discussion does there does not involved a specific character).

Thanks,

-AST Evan

Not gonna debate this with the staff on the rant boards. I don't agree, but that was made obvious in many communications previously in the formats you mention above. Thanks for the interest/presence/etc. however Evan.

[Styx]

I also should have mentioned, regarding the PC prince thing, In two of the LARPs I've run I had a PC prince, and both of those princeships lasted well over 9 months each (and really the only reason they stopped being prince was because in one larp, the player had to move, in the other Larp i stopped running it.)
So while I can understand the concerns of others about PC prince-of-the-week issues, I also know from firsthand experience that it can work just fine (and funnily enough, in the games where I've played the NPC Prince, those were the ones that had the most conflict against the prince). I believe the problems concerning PC princes actually stem from other sources.

[satyavati]

Dec 13, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -8 Barnaby Cuthbert said:

See the aforementioned ST fear. This staff does play the shut-down game. I hate it. I've been told no about some silly sh*t that the rules as written supported in black and white.

Tom wanted some sewer lore back in the day, because he lived in a time when the Seattle Underground was in fact above ground. Not to besiege the Nosferatu, but because it made logical sense for his backstory. The STs said no. Throughout a long conversation, they made it very clear that the Nosferatu were the only ones that should have sewer lore (at first) even though the book states it's possessed by "Sewer workers, runaways, Nosferatu, Giovanni and Malkavians". In order to justify saying yes, they've created this side system for the warrens that spends sewer lore like 'chantry points' from the mage sphere. "Ok, NOW you can have it. But you have to gather a ton of Influence to clear out the sewers, then spend your sewer lore dots etc..." Ridiculous. All could have been avoided by reading the by-the-book rules and sticking with them. And all to finally barely justify a yes - months later after innumerable hoops for a lousy secondary skill that calls out malkavians in the description by name. I could fu*king scream.

Chris-

I preface this by reminding you that you are one of my oldest friends and that I love you. You are an Awesome Dude (tm). Please remember that, and that this is my opinion of you.


That said, I am tired of hearing you publicly bash every ST staff whose HST was not a member of your original crew when you stepped up the first time. The other players do not need to see it, please keep it off the public forums, for everyone's sake. It is getting kind of old.

I for one, would prefer you to keep your Professional Mr. Awesome suit on. For you take being Mr. Awesome to a professional level when you are.

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

So simply:

1. I'm glad you are my friend and you are entitled to your opinion.

2. I think you statement about me bashing everyone who was not on my first staff is not so. Case in point, I considered a write-in campaign for Evan as HST, just because he's that darn cool. I am only sorta joking about that.

3. I'm not a PA, or an ST, and this is the rant board. It's possible that you may not wish to read rants. If they irritate/annoy you, that is your best bet. This is what the rant board is for.

[Rex Fisher]

On point two: only jokeing about a) write in campagn for Even...or b) that Even is cool?

[Jeff]

Dec 16, 2009 20:31:10 GMT -8 Rex Fisher said:

On point two: only jokeing about a) write in campagn for Even...or b) that Even is cool?

Dude, everyone knows Odd is better than Even, <Chris Farley>Come on!</Chris Farley>

[Rick]

So I've read the two posts that really got this thread going, and while I'm not the oldest player in this game I'm certainly not the youngest either. I don't have any illusions about my "position in this community" as it were and I'm completely aware that some people might read and answer the questions I have, other people will say "Oh, it's that guy," and skip this all together. The most basic, truthful reason for this is that the "popular kids" still have the loudest voices. That's cool, I can deal.

I've seen David bring up some very good points. I agree with some and disagree with others. Like Chris, and Toni and Aaron and Jeffery and a handful of others I've been coming to game for a long time, so long in fact that I remember the night that almost every Vampire died at the hands of Werewolves. I also remember when it happened again at the hands of the Sabbat and STs who didn't use the application of real world physics. I don't know if time at this game counts for anything in the community. What I do know is that reading the above two posts made me think about everything I've seen in this game as a player, the good and the bad.

My hope is that a a fair number of players, and especially those people who've had a hand in shaping this game or who've become popular through their contributions, for better or worse, will give some serious thought to these following questions, which have been inspired by things in both David and Chris's posts.

1: How would you describe the essence of the WoD? What makes it a GOOD basis for story?

2: That said, What, for you personally, Makes a good Vampire story? What makes Vampire worth playing?

3: Where do you think the "sweet soul" of ECC is? What direction do you think this game should take?

Obviously this isn't a poll and there's nothing official to it, however, some of the best stories and games come out of players just saying "I think it'd be cool if..." or even "I've got this idea for a plot..." I've heard the screaming, the ranting, the disagreements with staffs, rules calls and other players. I get it, I get frustrated w/ the same stuff too.

Now I want to see just how much constructive output the Vampire sphere (or even other spheres) has. Don't worry, I'm not going to just suggest this and not take part. I'll put my responses up in the very near future, along with anyone else, however, at least for the time being, I work tomorrow/today, so I'm going to bed.

-Rick

[Elizabeth Winther]

I have thoughts! Can I share them, even though I'm all shiny and new and also on the wrong side of the country? Fuck it, I'll share them anyway.

okeydokie, Rick.

1. WoD is, in essence Earn Your Happy Ending. Earn it good. It's not World of Unceasing Despair And Inevitable Failure. You can "win" - by which I mean a spectrum from making lasting changes to the structure of the 'verse (positive or negative) to simply being able to settle down and live quietly until the end of your days. Whatever floats your character's boat.

But, you know, you have to work for it. You should expect to make terrible sacrifices, and you should expect to fail. It's not D&D, where the universe is basically pretty much on your side. And you should definitely expect to be put in situations where you have to choose between the right thing and the easy thing, between your goals and your ideals, and you shouldn't expect the right thing/your ideals to be the correct choice. If that makes any sense.

2. What I love about V:tM, actually, is the whole human/beast divide. 'Cause what the means to me, as a roleplayer, is that the very heart, soul and essence of the game is not politics, not the angst of immortality, not beating the crap out of the Sabbat and not the influence game - it's choices. Kindred have a choice. They really, really do. A hard one, a killing one, but a real and honest choice between monster and man. Not a choice you make once and then leave alone but a choice you have to make every single moment. And that's fucking golden to me.

The way I see it, every Kindred has a kind of "what you are in the dark" thing going on, because the way Kindred society is structure no one cares if you kill, or exploit, or hurt. Even in the Cam, as long as you maintain the Masquerade it doesn't matter what you do, or to whom. The external structures that support morality in mortal society don't exist for Kindred. So the question becomes: what will you do, when no one cares what you do? What will you become when you're alone in the dark, and no one will ever know or care?

That kind of moral crisis just gives me tingles of glee. I may be alone in this, IDK.

3. ECC is player-driven. I love that. The STs mostly just referee and play Angry Smitey Fist of God. Which means two things: one is that the players need to step it up. Try to do big things, epic things. Have ridiculous ambitions - you're immortal, for heaven's sake, you have time to do it in. Make your own trouble.

And what the means for the STs is that they need to let the players, occasionally, pull off some wacky shit. Yes, game balance and setting integrity should absolutely be maintained; but if someone sets up an intricate domino plot aimed at breaking the Masquerade for good and pulls it off? Let them. You don't even have to run a Gehenna scenario, not if you don't want to. Wouldn't it be interesting to play for a while in a world that's just discovered holy shit, vampire are real? (no True Blood jokes, please). It's just a game. If it goes too far overboard, we can hit the big red reset button.

And those were my thoughts. I feel better. You can all tell me how wrong I am now.

[Styx]

LOl, Well I agree with Alice's points, for the most part (the last one about the big red reset button I'm not so sure about). Good stuff!
And I ESPECIALLY agree with the whole "Kindred have a choice every moment" idea, that's a major part of why I play.

[Elizabeth Winther]

Dec 17, 2009 10:16:01 GMT -8 Styx said:

LOl, Well I agree with Alice's points, for the most part (the last one about the big red reset button I'm not so sure about). Good stuff!
And I ESPECIALLY agree with the whole "Kindred have a choice every moment" idea, that's a major part of why I play.

Let me clarify that I have high standards for overboard. I'm talking like, if one character gains the ability to control all of space and time and names themself Emperor of the Universe, or Caine gets diablerized: something that irrevocably breaks the setting, rather than just altering it.

[Styx]

Well I think things should never be allowed to get that far, should something like that actually happen it would be largely the fault of whoever was running the game.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to limit the character from achieving their goals, but there's a BIG difference between realistic goals and unrealistic goals. if a character wants to try to become Prince of the city, that's not unrealistic, as long as the character is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. But if a character has the goal of diablerizing Caine, that doesn't mean the ST's are obligated to bring Caine into the game and serve him up on a snack tray. That would be a VERY unrealistic goal,( not to mention it would completely destroy one of the pillars of Kindred religion and philosophy, the question of whether Caine actually exists or not.)

[Styx]

To answer Rick's questions:

1: How would you describe the essence of the WoD? What makes it a GOOD basis for story?

I love the WoD because of the nature of the world; it's a fantastic setting ground into a near-mirror image of reality, and when done properly, the stories can not only make you reflect on your own nature as you play the game, but make you reflect on the nature of the real world. It provokes a lot of thought on everything from basic fears of myth and legend and urban rumours, to dilemmas of morality and conscience, to philosophy and religion.

2: That said, What, for you personally, Makes a good Vampire story? What makes Vampire worth playing?

For me personally, I LOVE a game where I the player have to analyze a situation and realize that the choice I would make is the choice that my character is NOT about to make. I love the conflicts, both between characters who both believe that they are right but are diametrically opposed, and between my character's own inner struggles between what is right and what he wants. I love that with every character I've played, I find a new group to RP with that shows me completely different things than the previous group. And I REALLY love the times that my characters have to deal with grief, with rage, with hate.

With Mr. Grim, I got to experience some of the darkest emotions humanity can have, the seething rage of someone who had been a victim and had actively transformed himself into the one who would cause pain. With Troy, I got to enjoy the duck-out-of-water sensation and was able to delve deeply into understanding what it might be like to have another voice in my head constantly. With Nemesis, I've been able to experience love and life from the perspective of a creature who's only understanding of these things has been from television and the actions of those around him; his innocence and childlike fascination with things has also been challenging and fun.

3: Where do you think the "sweet soul" of ECC is? What direction do you think this game should take?

I think at the core that ECC is driven, most of all, by like-minded people who want to have an EXPERIENCE; some come for the glow of achieving a character's personal power, some may come more to hang out with friends or just alleviate Saturday night boredom, but I believe the majority come because we're looking for a glimpse into ourselves; Vampire is, at it's core, a looking glass into ourselves, into the human spirit and mind. Sure, it's just a game, but can you name a game that does not teach you something, either physically, mentally or emotionally?

As for the course it should take: well, I've never been a fan of forcing something to go a certain way. You try to bend somethng fragile, and it may very well just break instead. But I would very much like to see a continued focus on PC's personal motivations, responsibilities, successes and failures.
AD&D is great for epic world-saving plots, but I prefer Vampire to not be about saving the outer world, but more about saving your OWN world. Trying to keep your own delicately structured life from crumbling under the weight of a rival Kindred's machinations is FAR more epic than quests to find Caine or going time-travelling.

[Elizabeth Winther]

Dec 17, 2009 12:57:43 GMT -8 Styx said:

Well I think things should never be allowed to get that far, should something like that actually happen it would be largely the fault of whoever was running the game.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to limit the character from achieving their goals, but there's a BIG difference between realistic goals and unrealistic goals. if a character wants to try to become Prince of the city, that's not unrealistic, as long as the character is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. But if a character has the goal of diablerizing Caine, that doesn't mean the ST's are obligated to bring Caine into the game and serve him up on a snack tray. That would be a VERY unrealistic goal,( not to mention it would completely destroy one of the pillars of Kindred religion and philosophy, the question of whether Caine actually exists or not.)

So we pretty much agree. Though, I'm also talking about the game getting to the point where a few players have seized power and control so thoroughly that the game becomes no fun for anyone else to play. So there are two things that are grounds for a reset, and in both cases it's the STs job to see that things don't get that far.

The big red reset button is the emergency stop, essentially.

Oh, wait, there's a third valid reason for using the big red button - the game, as a collective, agrees that the current game is kinda boring and they want to start over with a new, shiny WoD classic setting and wreck that one instead.

[Styx]

LOL, you seem to be rather hung up on the reset idea

I don't think it's possible for one or two people to monopolize a game this large unless EVERYONE lets them, not just Staff. So at that point everyone would be sharing the blame.

Several things that I think should never be a NECESSITY:
A reset.

Forced Character Retirement (man this ia HUGE button too, I could go off for hours on it; in a nutshell though, I believe that Forced Character retirement should only have one valid reason for happening, and that would be if the player was using the character to do nothing but stomp all over the other pc characters all the time. I feel that a responsible player who has managed to keep his character around for that long has earned the right to keep that character around, and if a Staff feels that they are not able to properly 'handle' the character then they might not be looking at it from the most optimistic views. )

Honestly, PA's: I appreciate the job that the PA's do, and I commend them for it, but if people were just honest and respectful towards each other then we wouldn't need go-betweens.


I'm sure there are other things, but... I must retrieve my head from the clouds. The world isn't perfect, and this game can't be expected to be any more perfect than real life.