The midweek murder - does it belong at EC?

[Webmonkey]

So we've clearly had this come up quite often over the course of game here, and it always seems to leave a sour taste in people's mouths, and that's this: The midweek PC kill.

Obviously, PvP is a part of vampire. I'm not debating that, at all.

Let me say it again: PvP happens, and that's just fine.

------

But what I'm talking about here is specifically the week of one set of players emailing the staff about all of the things they're doing to murder other PC's while the other player does what? Most of the time probably just goes to work or school and deals with real life. Then they arrive in costume ready to play on Saturday only to be told, sorry, your character is dead, often with no tests available to the party whose character was destroyed on 'And this all happens on Monday'-time.

Now is it possible that the toasty murder would have happened the same way AT game? Likely. And it likely will even be handled fairly and all by the book.

But is it a good idea for our community to do things that way?

The 'pro' of midweek actions is immersion and realism. Vampires do things every day of the week, why shouldn't murdering rivals be included in that?

Well, perhaps because of the cons: and those may be just plain and simply, it's /super lame/ to have a PC die 'offscreen'.

You can blame the player that is pissed off at that scenario if you want, but if 9/10 players get genuinely pissed off about the 'off-screen' kill, and there's a better way to handle that, might we consider it? This is a mature game, perhaps it's time to do so.

Having all of the players present at game for a death scene assures a number of levels of fairness that an over email exchange can't quite manage. Player whose character is getting shived gets to see that the appropriate amount of blood is spent, that the Storyteller is viewing both sets of sheet stats and haven security ratings and making calls based on those, and the antagonist's player can shake the other guy's hand and look them in the eye when that last health level goes away.

This is not meant to be a rant. This is not meant to call out staff or players at all. It really has nothing to do with this current situation other than its similarity. I honestly do trust all players and staff involved to have acted as fairly as possible in every possible way.

It's really about the feelings associated with these kinds of scenarios (and in over a decade of gaming at EC I've seen and been involved in a few as victim, assassin and storyteller). There's no 'easy' way to lose a character, and often no easy way to gank one, heh, but there just might be an easier way to keep friends, friends, moving forward.

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to the dialogue.

- Chris Schetzle

[Victor Vaughn]

I am of the opinion that if my character's life is on the line, I should be given the opportunity to oppose the chops myself, even if I don't have a way to know in character what is happening. It gives a sense of control and participation that, while very possibly artificial, supplies the peace of mind that I was part of the process. As someone who has shown up to game to be told I am dead on four separate occasions over the last fifteen years, I usually just ask them to not tell me how it happened. Less incentive to go Inigo Montoya.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

I'm right there with Joh. I don't want to get a text saying I died and to roll a new PC. I want to make my own checks and all that.

However! I think that 'midweek' stuff is kinda crucial. There isn't really a point in haven security if you can't ever be attacked there. Saying that your characters are effectively immune to getting gacked if it doesn't happen between 10 and 2 IC Saturday night is silly. You always try to kill dragons in their lairs, cus that's just when they're most vulnerable.

That said, I'm pretty sure that checks were thrown shortly before game started to resolve this particular midweek scene. If I'm wrong, staff can correct me.

PvP needs to include the rest of the week, in my opinion, otherwise it's like living in a fairytale.

[Victor Vaughn]

It doesn't matter when the death happens in character, what is important is when it happens out of character. It seems so trivial, but if I had bussed to game only to be told that I had nothing to do that night, I'd be pissed.

While I think the staff handled the situation as best they could given their very recent ascension, in the future I think it would be really classy to have a dedicated ST spend as much time as needed for the rest of the night working with the deceased on getting them ready to play again ASAP.

[The Gentleman]

I actually think Joh has a pretty great idea there. I don't know that it needs to be an ST though, maybe a special narrator that is normally just a player, but is responsible for helping people who lose characters to get all set up. Help them make connections for the new character, be a sounding board for character concepts, help with points on the sheet, maybe do some light prelude stuff?

[Katie Hester]

I was prepared to do so. I had told Brendan that at the beginning of the night. People left before announcements though.

[simone]

I really like the idea of a situation where even if you character is technically being killed midweek, the player is invited to be part of the deciding conversation. This could either happen on game night, before or during, or the relevant people could all agree to do it midweek. If the character does not end up dying or knowing about what happened, we need to trust the player to keep the knowledge of the attack out of character. Mistrust breeds bitterness and hurt feelings. Better to give people the benefit of the doubt and handle any situations as they come up.

Just my two cents.

- Alaina

[Webmonkey]

I'm in general agreement with the sentiments that the stated in-game timing is mostly irrelevant flavor. The key is that players are all present to throw their own chops, remind staff of powers they think are important, etc. It's tough when a plotty rival has had all week to think of contingent contingencies, and the gank-ee only gets to hear about it second hand, so at least the ability to watch the chops play out would be nice.

It's a bit like the idea of Post Mortem really, that players come together afterward to go; "Yeah that was a fun, intense game. X player's character is a right bastard for nuking my Terrence Tremere with the flaming marshmallow gun they invented with the Crafts system. They get my nom. Bastard. Much love." and etcetera.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

There is a slight problem with having them there, namely that of the player witnessing things their character would not necessarily witness in the scene. This is solved and not a problem with a game that has a trusting atmosphere, but ECC is a long way from that at the moment. Particularly if the attempt fails, that then means that the other player definitely knows you are trying to kill them, even if you got at with no evidence of your ever being there. One of the hardest things in the world to do is to investigate something you know the answer to OOC but don't know IC. It is all but impossible to keep yourself from jumping to conclusions based on your OOC knowledge, or just as bad, constantly second guessing yourself as to whether or not you would have drawn the same conclusions if you didn't know OOC. It's hard, painful, and in my opinion rather ruins the fun of anything stemming from that situation for all parties involved. Personally, I'd rather not know until it is over and decided. Definitely I want to be there running my character in any case that my character has a chance to act, but I personally feel its inappropriate for me to play witness to things involving my character that I would have no way to know IC.

I like the idea of a wrapup of exactly what happened after the fact with all players involved to clear the air of any tension. I also think the suggestion of an ST or narrator dedicated to talking with the victim's player about what they want to do going forward, or even having a cool Npc ready and waiting if they want it is a great idea.

As for the midweek kill, I think they are lame, but that trying to say you can't will cause far more realism problems than the OOC problems it solves. I agree with Rob. Mid weeks are a necessary part of the game. However I think that preparations can be made midweek, but that whenever IC the action happens, any direct action taken against a PC needs to happen at game when the player can have a chance to react if they are able. It is my understanding that this is exactly what happened in this case, that IC it happened on monday night but that all checks were thrown and actions taken just before game with the players involved getting every chance to react that the situation allowed. I have no direct knowledge of this so I may be wrong but that is my understanding from what I have heard. It sucks that that means they have come to game in costume all ready to play only to then be told they can't, but it is far better than the alternative.

[Webmonkey]

In the joint narrative that we're involved in, collaborative storytelling-wise, Juliet's feigned death is so convincing that Romeo can't tell that Juliet's death was feigned, and so kills himself for realsies. Then Juliet wakes from her false sleep to find him dead and plunges a dagger into her own heart to lie down with her love. Missing half of the story takes away a bit of the bite - especially in a character ending moment. If the audience is only aware of the death of Romeo, it's sad, but hardly as tragic as Juliet joining her love. And the actors have that context to draw upon to make the end scene all the more poignant.

As a storyteller I always tried to give characters their 'last words' during an impending death, even if it stretched the bounds of the specific round of their demise a little. It just allowed players to help affix the final period to the end of that last paragraph of their character's story, and I think that's worth something.

Bottom line, I think the OOC problems are just as important if not more important than the realism ones. We wave our hands at the idea that we only play in person four hours out of the week for example. Nobody gives it a second thought. It's just the time we have available to all merge our schedules. But friendships are why we're here, (as Nick Bergeron noted in his very fine post in that other thread), so we should weigh them with appropriate importance.

A simple 'Inigo Montoya Clause' has solved so many problems before they happened that it's just plain common sense now. I feel like we could come up with something similar that would govern the OOC presentation of midweek haven burning.

[Skir]

I'd like to weigh in here a little. Part of this is going to sound like defending myself because I'm going to explain some of the steps I took and why, but it's actually because the actions and their motivations are the apt part of the discussion going on.

First, I want to be clear that with this last week's event, the players were given the chops in person that they could make (even if they were just the soak rolls in some of the cases), but I would have been horrified if the staff had thrown the soak rolls in their stead and they had arrived to be told their character was already dead. I don't even consider that an option in any way or form, and I wouldn't have participated in such a thing.

The particular plan we used had a lot of pre-planning and setup actions to ensure a smooth run and to allow for contingency plans if things went bananas. All of that took a little while so I requested that staff be there early to help me run that because I wanted to make sure that the players were sitting out of game for the minimum amount of time necessary. I had a bad vision of them all sitting on the concrete bench bored watching me throw chops with an ST for 45 minutes or longer while I fuss about with their security system or something. Win or lose, I didn't want to waste anyone's time OOC more than necesary, but if I finished early, I would have called a hold to make sure that they got their own wake up chops, soak chops, dodges, etc in person. Everyone should have that kind of agency over their character's fate.

That said, there's a sort of conflicting ideal here in the idea mentioned above of "If I came all the way to game to be told I'm dead, I'd be pissed" to paraphrase. I don't know that coming to game to throw one soak roll is that much better. Certainly there's some aftercare that can be done to assure people that everything was on the up and up, no important security feature was missed, your ghouled leopard got a chance to act, and that everyone is cool ooc and offer help with new characters or NPCs, etc. All that stuff to minimize hurt or maximize remaining fun. All that is great, and should happen as best as staff and players are able.

A balance needs to be struck between "Don't make me come to game just to die" and "I deserve to be present for my own death," both of which are important ideas. It's a matter of determining which ideal is more important. I prefer the latter, personally, but that is only my personal opinion.

That said, screw midweek killing. I hate it. I only did it because that is how these things are done but I find it really lame and I wouldn't mind if it magically weren't allowed, the way explosives aren't allowed, and for the same reason.

You know why explosives aren't allowed? Because they're awesome. Because explosives are so awesome that they are better and easier to use than disciplines in many cases, but dont cost exp and can be activated remotely. The most undramatic and easy way to kill people ever, and since they are so great, every murder would be done with explosives. No more sword fights to the death, no more cat and mouse or waiting for the right moment. Car bomb, that's it. And because it encourages a really lame sort of behavior that is ultimately destructive to the drama of the game, they aren't allowed and for no good IC reason. I upheld that ruling on my staff because I believe in the principle that however realistic, they are bad for game as weapons. I wouldn't cry if PCs could only be killed on Saturday in real time, when their friends and allies could complicate your plan, and they get to have their sweet death speech soliloquy. It makes a better game.

Because I CAN kill people midweek in their house, I was obligated to if I wanted the best chances to succeed, but I would have prefered to have the best chances to succeed been something cooler for everyone involved that required more smarts and risk than what that was.

[user/874]

I am with Shaun here, at the end of the day. Mid-week scenes are extraordinarily lame for one huge reason. They completely strip one side of the equation of any sort of player agency.

To me, personally, the most important factor in any storytelling environment is player agency. Having a say in how your story ends, for good or ill, is enormously important to us as people. That is the factor that I see getting overlooked most often at game in my admittedly short tenure. We, myself included, forget that there are real, emotional creatures on the otherside of those characters.

The statement that infuriates me most is, "It is what my character would do." As if that were some sort of blanket pardon for thoughtless and sometimes downright cruel actions, when considered OOC. In my mind, that is utter bullshit. Your character does exactly what you, as a person, decide it is going to do. I urge each and every single one of you to consider the human beings behind all of the actions that happen at game.

Now, does this mean I think we should all be some hippy communist utopia? Absolutely not. I think PvP in a vampire game is aces and quite neccesary. However, I think it can be handled like reasonable adults. We do all fit into that category, yes? We are all, for the most part, pretty good at sorting out the difference between OOC /IC interactions. So be a reasonable adult. Grab the player you want to tell an antagonistic story with and work it out. Sot down over dinner and work out some terms. "This is the story I wpuld like to tell, are you willing to play this out, for good or ill?" I am not saying we need to plot the whole thing out and choreograph it, just set a general framework and then play within what you agreed to, as people.

Most folks are pretty damn reasonable, and may even be excited by your master plan to betray and murder them. Provided you approach them like a human being and in a reasonable fashion.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

What you have nust described Todd is a freeform LARP. One very important problem with what you suggest Todd. If I grab the guy I'm wanting to screw over ahead of tie and plan it all out, now we have a scripted movie, not a game. It's not really PVP if both sides agree on the result. If I come after another player I want them to fight me with everything they have. It would be incredibly boring if all IC conflicts boiled down to a script agreed upon ahead of time by everyone. I have had my character completely screwed over many times at this game, and look back on some of those scenes as some of the most fun I've had at ECC specifically BECAUSE I wanted to win and was doing everything I could to fight back. If I was just going through scripted motions with the end result already determined, I'm sorry but that is what seems incredibly lame to me.

Also, I'm sorry but there is no way in the world your scenario would work for one reason. No one wants to lose their character. If I were to go up to you right now and tell you that I wanted to kill your character that your reaction would be "cool, let's work out my awesome death scene"? If you would then I think I am fairly safe in calling you the extreme minority. It's not a game and our stats mean nothing if we were to determine results in advance. It might make for better storytelling, scripts usually do, but I personally would find it a very boring game.

When did competition become an ugly word? I don't understand this mentality of needing to protect people from losing. When you go play cards or a board game orsportswith your friends someone wins and someone loses, right? Why is LARP so different. Dothe people who lost stop being friends and have huge eruptions over losing? Not usually. Now I do get that we invest far more into LARP than into a card game one night, but the principle is the same. Yes we are going to be upset and disappointed when we lose. That is ok and perfectly reasonable. But that doesn't mean we need to change the rules to keep anyone from losing. Thatis like those assinine little kids sports where they don't keep score because e erroneous should feel like a winner. This is a game. If you lost this time, make a new character and come back trying to win next time. I've certainly lost more than I've won at this game, but I really meant when I say that some of my most extreme losses have been the most fun I have had at this game. I just wish people didn't take losing so seriously.

One final thought: we go through something like this almost every time a major upheaval of some kind happens. People scream and talks like this happen. But it is important to remember that just because some people are upset at losing their characters that does not mean anything wrong happened or that things need to change. I would love an environment where I could be locked in life and death struggle with another character during game and then go out for a beer with that player after post mortem. But getting that environment doesn't require removing the conflict. It requires everyone taking a step back and remembering that this is a game, and games have winners and losers.

[user/874]

Perhaps I am not communicating what I want to say clearly enough. I did say:

Sept 10, 2013 19:22:07 GMT -8 user/874 said:

I am not saying we need to plot the whole thing out and choreograph it, just set a general framework and then play within what you agreed to, as people.

A freeform LARP is not what I am talking about. What I want to encourage (Using Shaun and Aaron as a handy example), is things like Shaun and Paul pulling Aaron aside before their story even started. Having a civil discussion to say, "Hey, here is what we would like to do. We want to play vicious antagonists to your Rule, with the strong possibility of pulling it down around your ears."

Ideally, Aaron is a cool guy about it and says, "Word, that would be pretty cool. I prefer that you don't gank the shit out of me mid-week. Can we keep it all to Saturdays?"

Hands are shaken, and then they part ways on good terms and proceed to viciously try to fuck each other over in game, within the framework they agreed to. Shaun and Paul pull off some magic woogie shit and wipe everyone out. Having been prepared for this eventuality, and actively having a part in it, because he was engaged as a rational actor before hand, Aaron is mostly cool with it. Congratulates the victor and proceeds to getting on with making the next character after some grumpy bitching.   Grumpy bitching optional.  


To address one of you other points, I am totally one of those folks who fits into the

If I were to go up to you right now and tell you that I wanted to kill your character that your reaction would be "cool, let's work out my awesome death scene"?

I did actually lose my character this week through this whole mess.  So did several other un-intended casualties like Kira.  (which may not be permanent) In my PC's situation, having been one of the Prince's loyalists, being a fresh arrival and watching his entire support network explode in a single night leaves only one option. Flight. It would have been way more awesome if I had been cut in on the whole thing and wasn't essentially an afterthought for next weeks clean up crew.

I shrugged it off and moved on. It's a cool game, but not nearly enough to get all worked up over. I was somewhat annoyed by what looked like possible malfeasance, but I did what I am supposed to do in that situation. I quietly brought up my concerns with a PA, who then did what he was supposed to do and addressed the issue. Turns out everything was determined to be on the up and up. Cool. Lets all kiss and make up so we can get back to playing dress up and pretend.

To continue on in the original vein, competition isn't an ugly word.  I strongly encourage it.  However, I am not willing to shit all over someone and their feelings because of an in-built need to win at all costs.  You can have competition, winning and losing, and not be a colossal douche, all at the same time.  (Note: I am not accusing anyone of such, I am making a point)  We can be gentlemen (gentlefolk?)  outside of game, considerate of each other, and try to foster that much vaunted "community" everyone keeps talking about; and still have a vicious, cut-throat, hardcore, competitive game.  To think otherwise is to completely miss the point I am driving at.  If I am still not communicating properly, let me know and I will try it another way. 

It take communication and consideration.  Things like, you know, talking to people.  I know a good number of us struggle with social awkwardness and an imprecise understand of societal mores, but we can fix that by not being dicks and making the friendly gesture, you know?  

[The Gentleman]

Sept 10, 2013 22:42:33 GMT -8 Ascanio Giovanni said:

When did competition become an ugly word? I don't understand this mentality of needing to protect people from losing. When you go play cards or a board game orsportswith your friends someone wins and someone loses, right? Why is LARP so different. Dothe people who lost stop being friends and have huge eruptions over losing? Not usually. Now I do get that we invest far more into LARP than into a card game one night, but the principle is the same. Yes we are going to be upset and disappointed when we lose. That is ok and perfectly reasonable. But that doesn't mean we need to change the rules to keep anyone from losing. Thatis like those assinine little kids sports where they don't keep score because e erroneous should feel like a winner. This is a game. If you lost this time, make a new character and come back trying to win next time. I've certainly lost more than I've won at this game, but I really meant when I say that some of my most extreme losses have been the most fun I have had at this game. I just wish people didn't take losing so seriously.

Uhhhh....I highly suggest you not think of roleplaying games in terms of winning and losing, man. They're not contests.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

There totally is winning and losing, but I don't it should be this weird concept of killing another character as winning (said a pvp figure).
Winning is about achieving character goals and accomplishing things relevant to your concept. Murder is just murder, and while it has a function, it doesn't make you a better guy for having done it. A successful character is one that is true to its concept and moves forward its own plots.

[Katie Hester]

As an example of what Todd is saying:

I, as the player of Keila, went to Fiona, player of Hana, and told her that my character felt she had to kill hers. We didn't write a script or anything, but we made sure we were both okay with the reasons behind it. I didn't ask permission, but I let her know it was coming and why. It was a fun scene and she still fought like hell to live.

That's the kind of thing Todd is suggesting.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

I did not mean to say that murder is winning, though on retreading my post I can see how it was taken that way. I just meant that whenever characters come into conflict over a specified goal, one will usually succeed while the other will not (winning).

Just for me personally, I feel that advance warning OOC makes it extremely difficult to role play appropriately through the process without jumping to inappropriate conclusions and takes a lot of fun out of the game. That's not to say my views are the only views, but I'm giving my own opinion.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Todd, I'd like to talk with you more about this in person when we can get a chance because I think neither of us is effectively communicating our points in this forum. This is certainly valuable discussion though and should happen. As usual when two extreme positions are taken it seems likely that the best answer is somewhere in the middle.

[user/874]

Sept 11, 2013 4:13:46 GMT -8 Ascanio Giovanni said:

Todd, I'd like to talk with you more about this in person when we can get a chance because I think neither of us is effectively communicating our points in this forum. This is certainly valuable discussion though and should happen. As usual when two extreme positions are taken it seems likely that the best answer is somewhere in the middle.

Cool. Anytime. I am always at game super early and I leave late. I do want to clarify, I aint mad or even irritated. Sometimes my writing comes off that way when I don't mean it too. I mostly just like to hear myself talk/read what I write.