Post by Webmonkey on Jan 8, 2010 2:34:53 GMT -8
That is a lot of assumptions. Since you've asked my opinion of some direct questions, I'll answer them with my opinions:
Stopping you right there, I've been taken to a back room or side-passage IC as Robert-Houdin, by NoOne, and as Scion by Nobody. I don't fault anyone for the misconception that there aren't back rooms, as it's an underground crystal room nestled in a network of tunnels with no solid write-up for the location ever publically posted, (unlike many other Elysium locations), I'm sure it's evloved based on convieniance. Sufficed to say, first assumption, and not strictly correct. By the way, it's a pet peeve of mine when players don't create write-ups for in-character locations, because it allows them to suddenly grow or lose side-rooms, secret exits and other wonky crap like that, so inconsistancies like this are a mosquito in my ear, but back to your question.
In my opinion, absolutely yes. It certainly is ok for a Storyteller to establish a character's IC location while the player is OOC, particularly when working on behalf of another antagonist PC. The antagonist PC was right to ask the ST to establish the situation of the defending character's player as well. That is the correct sequence of events. What that player was doing at the time they were OOC is completely irrelevant. They could be performing some OOC duty, coming back from the restroom, BSing about whatever with friends, it does not matter. Asking the question 'where is your character right now?' is also saying 'the world is still going on IC, and your character is needed back in play', which is entirely appropriate both in the way it was asked, and by whom it was asked. It's not unfair, and it's certainly not more unfair because Jeffrey was doing something PA related over having a smoke or using the restroom.
But I digress; At that stage, when the ST comes to the player with character-based questions, the player has choices. They may decide that they are not available for play due to some greater OOC need, (like finishing some PA duty or using the can or whatever) or they may begin to engage back with the IC world. This choice lies firmly on the shoulders of this player in my opinion, and long-term role-players are certainly capable of recognizing that choice when it arrives.
First of all, I dislike this question, because this is an assumption that you, someone neither the victim or the aggressor in the situation are making about the reason and motivation behind someone else's actions - and not just in-character, but OOC as well. In this case, since it is the aggressor's thought process you are making an assumption about, it would be most useful to have that person's perspective on their thought proccess. The next assumption being made is that because service as a PA was chronologically followed by Bad Things Happening to the character, that the two things are clearly interlinked. It seems much more logical to me that just because one thing happened before the other, does not mean that one thing is the cause of the other. Would you cry foul if he'd been having a smoke instead of doing something PA related? There is no difference. OOC is OOC.
In other words:
1. The character was going to be ambushed at some point.
2. The involved characters had valid in-character reasons for such an attack. (this is a matter of easy trust in the staff backed by the OOC knowledge that JL killed some PCs related to this attack)
3. The defending character, to spite what others (not the player) has stated, is not always with an enterage, simply often. Often is not the same as always. I know this from my own observation.
4. The aggressor followed correct procedure by asking the ST to engage the PC that was OOC and whatever specifically the defender was doing ooc from pooping to PAing is irrelevant.
5. The defender indicated by reasonable engagement in the mechanics of role-play that they were available for play. If they hadn't, the only other option was a delay to finish up some OOC concern, followed again by immediately rejoining the IC world anyway.
6. If the defender was flustered, or not paying full attention to the IC situation because they were transitioning from an OOC situation, that is neither the STs fault, nor the attacking antagonist player's fault. I've seen Jeffrey turn on a dime from OOC to IC an uncountable number of times before. He's more than capable of it, and better at it than most I'll even say.
7. You can't win them all.
All of the above boils down to this in my personal opinion: Saying anything to the effect of, 'this fight never should have happened because Jeffrey was doing PA stuff and got ambushed' does not fly with me. Jeffrey is a seasoned and savvy role-player who knows that when a Storyteller comes digging for IC status, that that moment is his opportunity to state his case. If this same situation had occured to a brand new player, I can understand feelings that something was maybe snuck by without sufficient dialogue, but not Jeffrey.
Had Jeffrey said: "I'm performing PA duties right now. If you'll please wait a moment, I'll come find you and go over my character's IC actions. Generally however, JL will be in his haven with his enterage, getting ready to travel to Elysium together, or in Elysium in a side passage or back room conducting court business. I can get back to you with more details in a few minutes." ...then this would not be an argument. I've seen Jeffrey state that kind of thing to Storytellers many times, (myself included) irregardless of the OOC or IC thing he was doing at the time. That's what I mean by 'turn on a dime.'
One of the most difficult choices I had to make was taking another PC's character away by attrition. Scion did not trust Arlo Braven the Malkavian, and only through Scion's say-so (according to the Prince) could he re-enter the domain. Otherwise, he'd remain exiled, and after four weeks, be permenantly retired due to the four week rule. If Scion had been a less moral creature, he'd have made Arlo drink from him three times to enter (assuming he'd even have agreed to that) and thereby resolve the worry of trust through the blood, but good'ol Scion would not cause even someone that he distrusted to become a slave. So Arlo passed out of play. To this day I feel bad when I think about it, as it wasn't a very good ending for a character, and my ST brain hated doing that to Broney, and I credit Broney for being a really good sport about it.
So sure, in my opinion, if you think your pet mortals with their bashing bullets and donut-eating junior-grade WoD detectives would best be spent setting up the biggest masquerade breach evar at the airport, good on ya, do whatever your character would do to screw someone over that had screwed with them. Go ahead and do that, and shame on the ST that doesn't think that airport bloodbath won't lead to some very interesting story later.
Again, I wasn't there. All I know is what people who aren't the people actually involved are making accusations that are not only pretty bad, but also illogical.
Please understand, that in regards to players that think 'killboxing' is a valid role-playing strategy: I believe these are not mature strategies. They are the kinds of things better suited to tabletop D&D games and teenage-level role-play troupes. I cringe when those strategies are employed here, because I think there are a lot of ways to get back at a PC without that kind of escalation. Still, once one sequence of events takes place, like the killboxing of Novus, the rest is in motion and can't be avoided if the natural path of the in-character motivation is to be followed. Setites/Lasombra kill Brujah, Brujah/Nosferatu kill Lasombra, Setites kill Nosferatu, Setites make deal to kill Brujah, etc. etc. etc. lather, rinse repeat. Makes sense, it's just boring, and the killboxing of Novus seems to me to be the result of other people's boredom in the first place, and the cycle continues. The game surrounding the court is no longer a Storytelling game of Personal Horror, it's a combat game of personal one-upmanship. Sad, because it used to be fun to play politics when it didn't inevitably lead to combat.
If I want to have fun combat, I'll go play werewolf. O wait.
Peace.
If a player (Or PA/RA) steps OOC, for an extended period of time, to do something for game (like be a witness at the polls or run a combat) and thus it is not possible for their PC to be in Elysium (particularly the Amethyst room which has been stated to have NO back rooms)...
Stopping you right there, I've been taken to a back room or side-passage IC as Robert-Houdin, by NoOne, and as Scion by Nobody. I don't fault anyone for the misconception that there aren't back rooms, as it's an underground crystal room nestled in a network of tunnels with no solid write-up for the location ever publically posted, (unlike many other Elysium locations), I'm sure it's evloved based on convieniance. Sufficed to say, first assumption, and not strictly correct. By the way, it's a pet peeve of mine when players don't create write-ups for in-character locations, because it allows them to suddenly grow or lose side-rooms, secret exits and other wonky crap like that, so inconsistancies like this are a mosquito in my ear, but back to your question.
...is it OK for an ST to come to them and say "Where is your character right now?" only to allow another PC to attack them.
In my opinion, absolutely yes. It certainly is ok for a Storyteller to establish a character's IC location while the player is OOC, particularly when working on behalf of another antagonist PC. The antagonist PC was right to ask the ST to establish the situation of the defending character's player as well. That is the correct sequence of events. What that player was doing at the time they were OOC is completely irrelevant. They could be performing some OOC duty, coming back from the restroom, BSing about whatever with friends, it does not matter. Asking the question 'where is your character right now?' is also saying 'the world is still going on IC, and your character is needed back in play', which is entirely appropriate both in the way it was asked, and by whom it was asked. It's not unfair, and it's certainly not more unfair because Jeffrey was doing something PA related over having a smoke or using the restroom.
But I digress; At that stage, when the ST comes to the player with character-based questions, the player has choices. They may decide that they are not available for play due to some greater OOC need, (like finishing some PA duty or using the can or whatever) or they may begin to engage back with the IC world. This choice lies firmly on the shoulders of this player in my opinion, and long-term role-players are certainly capable of recognizing that choice when it arrives.
Furthermore, is it acceptable for another PLAYER to utilize the OOC knowledge that because that player is doing a service to the community his PC can't possibly be in Elysium right now, and thus set up an ambush for him outside of Elysium?
First of all, I dislike this question, because this is an assumption that you, someone neither the victim or the aggressor in the situation are making about the reason and motivation behind someone else's actions - and not just in-character, but OOC as well. In this case, since it is the aggressor's thought process you are making an assumption about, it would be most useful to have that person's perspective on their thought proccess. The next assumption being made is that because service as a PA was chronologically followed by Bad Things Happening to the character, that the two things are clearly interlinked. It seems much more logical to me that just because one thing happened before the other, does not mean that one thing is the cause of the other. Would you cry foul if he'd been having a smoke instead of doing something PA related? There is no difference. OOC is OOC.
In other words:
1. The character was going to be ambushed at some point.
2. The involved characters had valid in-character reasons for such an attack. (this is a matter of easy trust in the staff backed by the OOC knowledge that JL killed some PCs related to this attack)
3. The defending character, to spite what others (not the player) has stated, is not always with an enterage, simply often. Often is not the same as always. I know this from my own observation.
4. The aggressor followed correct procedure by asking the ST to engage the PC that was OOC and whatever specifically the defender was doing ooc from pooping to PAing is irrelevant.
5. The defender indicated by reasonable engagement in the mechanics of role-play that they were available for play. If they hadn't, the only other option was a delay to finish up some OOC concern, followed again by immediately rejoining the IC world anyway.
6. If the defender was flustered, or not paying full attention to the IC situation because they were transitioning from an OOC situation, that is neither the STs fault, nor the attacking antagonist player's fault. I've seen Jeffrey turn on a dime from OOC to IC an uncountable number of times before. He's more than capable of it, and better at it than most I'll even say.
7. You can't win them all.
All of the above boils down to this in my personal opinion: Saying anything to the effect of, 'this fight never should have happened because Jeffrey was doing PA stuff and got ambushed' does not fly with me. Jeffrey is a seasoned and savvy role-player who knows that when a Storyteller comes digging for IC status, that that moment is his opportunity to state his case. If this same situation had occured to a brand new player, I can understand feelings that something was maybe snuck by without sufficient dialogue, but not Jeffrey.
Had Jeffrey said: "I'm performing PA duties right now. If you'll please wait a moment, I'll come find you and go over my character's IC actions. Generally however, JL will be in his haven with his enterage, getting ready to travel to Elysium together, or in Elysium in a side passage or back room conducting court business. I can get back to you with more details in a few minutes." ...then this would not be an argument. I've seen Jeffrey state that kind of thing to Storytellers many times, (myself included) irregardless of the OOC or IC thing he was doing at the time. That's what I mean by 'turn on a dime.'
If you're going to tell me that this is ok, then I would presume that if an ST is stepping down from being on staff and bringing back a PC that my PC doesn't like, then I can set up a transportation block, boosted with Police and have said returning PC met at the airport by a SWAT team armed w/ automatic weapons, shot guns and sniper rifles with orders to "pacify."
One of the most difficult choices I had to make was taking another PC's character away by attrition. Scion did not trust Arlo Braven the Malkavian, and only through Scion's say-so (according to the Prince) could he re-enter the domain. Otherwise, he'd remain exiled, and after four weeks, be permenantly retired due to the four week rule. If Scion had been a less moral creature, he'd have made Arlo drink from him three times to enter (assuming he'd even have agreed to that) and thereby resolve the worry of trust through the blood, but good'ol Scion would not cause even someone that he distrusted to become a slave. So Arlo passed out of play. To this day I feel bad when I think about it, as it wasn't a very good ending for a character, and my ST brain hated doing that to Broney, and I credit Broney for being a really good sport about it.
So sure, in my opinion, if you think your pet mortals with their bashing bullets and donut-eating junior-grade WoD detectives would best be spent setting up the biggest masquerade breach evar at the airport, good on ya, do whatever your character would do to screw someone over that had screwed with them. Go ahead and do that, and shame on the ST that doesn't think that airport bloodbath won't lead to some very interesting story later.
Again, I wasn't there. All I know is what people who aren't the people actually involved are making accusations that are not only pretty bad, but also illogical.
Please understand, that in regards to players that think 'killboxing' is a valid role-playing strategy: I believe these are not mature strategies. They are the kinds of things better suited to tabletop D&D games and teenage-level role-play troupes. I cringe when those strategies are employed here, because I think there are a lot of ways to get back at a PC without that kind of escalation. Still, once one sequence of events takes place, like the killboxing of Novus, the rest is in motion and can't be avoided if the natural path of the in-character motivation is to be followed. Setites/Lasombra kill Brujah, Brujah/Nosferatu kill Lasombra, Setites kill Nosferatu, Setites make deal to kill Brujah, etc. etc. etc. lather, rinse repeat. Makes sense, it's just boring, and the killboxing of Novus seems to me to be the result of other people's boredom in the first place, and the cycle continues. The game surrounding the court is no longer a Storytelling game of Personal Horror, it's a combat game of personal one-upmanship. Sad, because it used to be fun to play politics when it didn't inevitably lead to combat.
If I want to have fun combat, I'll go play werewolf. O wait.
Peace.
) and certainly a community leader for us in a lot of cases) I have to respectfully disagree. It's my opinion that if you leave play safe, you re-enter play safe. If you take further action that would put your character in an unsafe position, then by all means, you'll get yours and that's ok. But like I said earlier, you can't take actions directly related to a PC that's not in game at the time. You don't get to make investigation checks to find PCs that aren't in game. 
k i d d i ng ! - Or not. You can flame me if you want. ;D It's the rant board after all. 