The midweek murder - does it belong at EC?

[Sethron]

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

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."

This couldn't have happened in this situation, because Sean and Paul didn't want to antagonize Aaron. It would have been more like "Hey, I've been trying to get a hold of you for weeks and someone keeps literally telling me I'm gonna die if I do gonna die if I don't."

Which still applies the same situation, but I just want to point out, Sean and Paul didn't come to be antagonists.

Aaron saw them as a threat because they never spoke to him. Sean saw Aaron as a threat because others were not letting him see the Prince and telling him the Prince hated him. This is a big part of the fantastic WOD setting--but I don't disagree that a few words behind the scenes with some trust could go a hell of a long way.

[Styx]

Sept 11, 2013 4:08:41 GMT -8 Ascanio Giovanni said:

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.

I have to agree with Jaron here on this point, if someone is planning on killing my character/ending him/destroying his plans etc, I'd rather not know about it ahead of time; one of the reasons i enjoy playing characters is to be surprised when my character does something i didn't plan ahead of time (which happens more often than you'd think).if i knew ahead if time my brain might plan out reactions that David would have instead of my character, and the joy of surprise would be lost. I much prefer that, when the attempt is happening, the other person just say something reassuring like "its just IC, its nothing personal" in sincere fashion. Plus, im a big boy, i play a game where the characters ruin reach other... I don't actually Need A heads up, i have that heads up Every time i walk into game.

[Kevin K]

Here's what I fear about midweek death scenes. It stems from the fact that they involve being found in one's haven, or on the street feeding, etc. So my big fear is:

Avoiding being found in that way doesn't involve roleplay, it involves paperwork.

So this leads to characters dying because they spent less time at the paperwork table, or in offline email conversations with staff.

I like that there are more detailed rules about how to secure your haven, but maybe we need to work on the defaults a little. Right now, the default is the vampire equivalent of your parent's basement, with a chainsaw in one hand and a soft pack of GPC cigarettes in the other. Maybe we need to give folks a leg up here rules-wise, and help our default time be spent in scenes.

[Ikon]

Sept 11, 2013 4:08:41 GMT -8 Ascanio Giovanni said:

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.

Perhaps what is missing here is the 'What' of the Conversation. It doesn't have to be ' So, Buddy, I think you Character is going to Die, want a beer? Let's make it happen.' Because yes, everyone want themselves and their opponent to fight like hell, that's what makes it fun. However there is the complication that not everyone will see this in a good light and and may or may not use the information in their favor. We hope not, and we want to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but I can see the 'Let's work out a cool story' approach to be a hit or miss method.

What if instead we approached it in a way similar to, but with whatever flavor we wish, to the Def-con system. Def-con 1 lowest readiness (Being in a trusted Coterie) to A situation like last week being a Def-con 5. This would allow some discourse. Some conversation in which both parties would know what danger/drama level is coming their way while giving them a chance to throw their own twists into the story...

So I had written this thinking this was a good way to go, then I re read it and wondered if this did anything but encourage Meta-gaming. Maybe something like this would only cause someone to look for stuff going on that they never would have before.

Is this just a bad idea? Or is it salvageable somehow? Please weigh in.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

I see where you are going with this but really think that particularly that language is encouraging meta gaming.

I really believe that the answer for this doesn't lie in new things being added or new policies adopted here. Because at the end of the day we can bend over backwards to make sure no one's feelings ever get hurt. We can make everyone give advance warning when a character gets killed. Hell we can have grief councilors on standby, but I keep coming back to this being a game. Being disappointed when you lose is part of a game, but I have never seen another gaming community so obsessed that these kind of explosions happen every time someone loses a character. Let us all remember that the game is not the community. Our characters are not us. And an attack on our character does not constitute a personal attack on the player.

Here is a quote from page 14 of Laws of the Night I find quite applicable here.

IT'S ONLY A GAME
If a character dies, if a plot falls apart, if a rival gets the upper hand, it's just a game. You and the other players are doing this for fun. Taking things too seriously or taking character issues into real life will only spoil everyone's enjoyment, including yours. Remember, playing a game should be fun - if you're not having fun, it's time for a reassessment.

If you lose your character, absolutely be upset over it. That is natural and expected. But if days later you are still enraged or depressed, it may be time to take a break from game. I've had to before, and I am better for it. But the very fact wee are having a discussion about not allowing certain IC actions because they may uh another player's feelings baffles me. If any player is so invested in their character and in this game that another character's IC actions could actually hurt them in real life, I say that player should be stepping away from game for a while to reassess their priorities.

And no stigma on those who do need to take a break because they feel they are getting too invested. Most of us are passionate people and this is certainly an understandable phenomenon. As I said, I've had to step away before, and didn't come back until I remembered the most important rule of gaming: remember that it is a game.

[Katie Hester]

The issue is not that people are going to be hurt about a character dying, but hurt because no one took the time to explain why or just touch base to ensure all parties were okay.

If the only thing you ever say before or after an attack IC is, "It's what my character would do," or , "No hard feelings," you're not doing yourself or anyone else a favor. You've just made it cheap. You may have had good intentions, but you haven't taken the time to actually talk to the person and ensure that everyone is okay.

There is a difference between the game and the community and if no one makes the effort to ensure the community is okay, the game will always suffer.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

And I fully support talking to them afterwards and hashing out any lingering tension. It's the equivalent of sports teams saying good game to each other whatever the result. But when that isn't enough and someone really needs a support structure beforehand to ensure they won't be emotionally damaged by the loss of a character, that send warning flags up for me as to whether that player has gotten a bit too close to the game and their character for their own health.

[Katie Hester]

*blink* No one has said that a emotional support structure is needed before character death. There is a huge difference between that and working with an individual to make a fun scene. There are some people who don't want to know. Some who know that they shouldn't know, and some that are totally willing to work with another to ensure a really awesome scene takes place. There was no mention of holding hands and making sure people don't cry about a character. It's about the player, not the character.

[user/874]

Let me boil my message down to as few words as possible. This isn't aimed at anyone, or being cast as an accusation. It is a general statement regarding how you keep communities together.

Ready?

Don't be a jerk.

For another laborious example. Shaun and Paul had Aaron cold. No question about it at this point. So how about dinner on Friday to be cool friends and discuss what is going down on Saturday. The actions are locked in, pre-warning is irrelevant. Wont change a damn thing. What it will do is foster good feels instead of hostility. Everyone can be grown ups and we don't have massive reactions at game.

If that is what you are looking for, those massive emotional, uncontrollable reactions, if that is what you feed on and aim for; I don't want to play with you. (Again, a general statement to make a point, not aimed specifically at anyone)

[Ascanio Giovanni]

It isn't about being a jerk. Who among us with advanced warning that an attack is coming wouldn't have it in the back of their mind when the scene comes? Who wouldn't be thinking about their haven security a bit more than they probably would have otherwise? Who wouldn't double check to make sure everything is in place that might have been forgotten about initially? Advance warning kills the scene. And what if you fail but manage to get away unidentified? You have just put the other player in a really awkward situation where (hopefully) he doesn't want to meta game but at the same time he knows, and there is no real way to keep that knowledge from influencing his role play afterwards, whether by leaping to conclusions he probably wouldn't have made in the investigation after the fact, or by holding himself back from logical conclusions out of fear of meta gaming. Either way you have now ruined all subsequent scenes that might occur afterwards out of sentiment that really shouldn't be necessary if we can all act like adults and remember that we are playing a game.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

And the actions are not locked in on Friday night. Nothing is decided until the scene is over. I've seen some truly ridiculous things come out of left field to surprise everyone at this game. Advanced warning should never be necessary. If you are the kind of person who feels they need advanced warning when your friend is going to beat you in a game, I seriously question whether you should be playing that game.

[Sethron]

So, Guys, can we stop talking about whether or not certain people with certain feelings are not acceptable at game?

The discussion is about putting everyone's opinion out there.. and TBH, nobody's opinion is right or wrong in this scenario.

It IS just a game. This is really important. No matter what, there are 80 people here and not everyone will agree that they want a heads-up warning. At least 2 players who have weighed in on this thread disagree that they want ahead-of-time notice. Ahead of time notice is difficult, because there is no way to know how a scene will go down. In hindsight, you can say, 'they couldn't have lost', but that is not true.

But a few minutes of time to ease the tension is also important. How to deliver that time is what we are at a crossroads for here. Each person has a different comfort zone--regardless, effort should be made. I would love a heads up if I was going to die, or a shot across the bow, but David and Jaron would feel uncomfortable giving or receiving that--it is okay to be uncomfortable with that level of trust. Styles are different. We must accommodate for that.

I will point out one more time that the parties involved in killing the others brought wine and apologies to ease the tension, though. The illusion that no attempt was made to make this go over well is incorrect and should stop being perpetuated, please. It is unfair to all parties involved.

[Styx]

Just to clear up anything i may have muddied, i think it's Awesome to bring wine or otherwise try to sooth the person who's character is ending, I'm quite in love with that idea. I also try to find alternate ways of dealing with characters rather than just ending them. Car in point, Tiberius was tired if hearing about Ileana constantly tattling on him to anyone who would listen,. I told the sys i felt like he needed to end her, but that i didn't want to upset Kaine by killing her character And i was going to try one last threat to make her stop. I came up with a way of using a mortal to drive home my point, and it was very effective. Instead of being an upsetting end to one of our characters, it became a fantastic roleplay scene, and one of my favorites I've had with her.
But it hinged on me taking the route that didn't kill her, at the risk of my own life. Naturally this can't always happen, but i was ready to tell her "Kaine, I'm sorry but Tiberius feels he has to kill Ileana" and then going through with the attempt if the mortal thing didn't work. I would have tried to console her afterwards, if there were any hard feelings, but i didn't intend to tell her everything i was thinking ahead of time. I Think the scene came out much better for it.

[Styx]

Also, i personally feel that the phrase "but is what my character would do" IS a valid argument, depending on the situation. i may be playing my character, but my character often makes decisions that i would never do. People who really delve into playing other "people", not just caricatures of themselves, often find themselves going "what the hell is my character doing?!", which id part of the fun.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

I am not saying these people aren't acceptable at game. I am remarking that if you are so close to your character that the character's loss will cause actual emotional harm and not just temporary upset, that perhaps you are too close and maybe a break is in order for your own sake as much as anyone else's.

+1 David. I don't personally like ending characters when there is another way around, however "it's what my character would do" HAS to be a valid reason for your actions. Otherwise what are we all doing here? We are playing characters who most of the time don't think like us, have very different motivations than us, and live in a very different world than us. To deliberately ignore what your character would do in an IC situation out of fear of OOC hurt feelings (or worse, OOC reprisals as have been the case in the past) I feel does a tremendous disservice to our game and our community. If you have a cooler idea within the repertoire of the character's actions the sure, by all means pursue it. But we are adults and this game does not need kid gloves.

[David Price]

There was a time... quite a while ago now, when I was playing a Malkavian, Arlo Braven. As it turned out, he was a bit of a loose cannon and various characters (quite reasonably) wanted him dead. He, of course, wanted to continue living.

There were _lots_ of midweek scenes trying to kill him. He managed to get out of every one. I ran the scenes with my assassins right there with me throwing chops, and I didn't have any ill will towards them.

But... he was also Keeper at the time. And spending two hours running scenes just to determine whether he could go into game... meant that I wasn't playing in Saturday. Or being able to handle what the position required. So I was getting even more flak socially for not being able to do the thing... that I should've totally been able to do, since there was no reason he wouldn't be there (assuming he lived). And I did this like three weeks in a row.

Eventually Arlo figured out who it was and just told him to knock it off (yes, Arlo was weird), and we moved on. But it wasn't the fact that he was trying to be killed that bugged me... it was the fact that it meant I couldn't play the game because of it, and was taking consequences for a time bubble that wasn't my making.

I don't think "Only in live time" is going to work all that well just because there are people that will never do any of the things that they should supposedly be vulnerable to. And time bubbles are going to happen regardless when you ambush somebody during travel time. But there should be things we can do to make these sorts of things more reasonable, like informing players they might have a midweek scene to resolve. I don't know what the right answer is OOC.

IC there should _also_ be consequences, though, but that's the responsibility of the players/characters. Knowing specifically that a kindred has killed another is one thing... but knowing they did it while they were feeding, or while they were asleep during the day, or whatever... these are things that should have social consequences. That's the sort of thing that should be dealt with in character, though. I don't mean to be attacking the characters specifically responsible for the current situation with that statement, but it should be the sort of thing that people think about when they do these sorts of actions - am I the sort of character that is okay with people knowing that I kill people during the day? If not... don't do it that way.

[Webmonkey]

Broney's point about being locked in time bubbles a lot is a pretty good one. It can definitely feel frustrating to be in that position when you'd like to play with the rest of the game.

On the other hand, he did say that Price survived all of the time-bubble attacks and that he was present for all of them. In a certain light that might actually lend a little credence to the idea that it's a good idea to have all parties present for such things, even though it meant there were some inconvenient time bubbles.

Weighed evenly, which is more inconvenient: The frustration of a character ceasing to exist completely off-screen or the frustration of having IC-duties that are delayed several hours by midweek time-bubble combat? (Which no doubt would eventually lead to some IC consequences, that would either need to be awkwardly hand-waved, or just dealt with IC in a slightly less than fair way to the guy that was just trying real hard not to be on fire).

For me personally, I weigh the loss of a character off-screen as the bigger pain point. I totally acknowledge the potential obnoxiousness of the time-bubble however.

So maybe that's the gist of the question, which is 'worse'?

Food for thought.

---

The following is sort of a side thing: I see Nick's concept of "Let's agree to kill your character," however to be sort of a null prospect. I don't think I'd like it from either end. I think my response would likely be, "How about we don't?" as the victim and I feel like I'd be forced to abandon the attempt if I got the very same response as the attacker, because they'd totally see it coming. As the victim I'd be jumping at shadows, and there'd just be very little way around it, and as the antagonist I'd have to devise a way to kill them *extra* hard. It's all needless stress. I say let PvP chips fall as they may.

As a storyteller I always asked players that wanted to retire a character if they were willing to have them die in some bloody way though, because it's a fact that character death just drives story and shakes things up in a way that nothing else can precisely. (Just look at last game for evidence of that nugget). And if a player wanted the PC to continue on in the 'world' as an NPC that was cool too, but boy was it great when players said, "Sure, go ahead!"

I think that's mainly the purview of the STs though to do that, unless a friend casually mentions the want to retire a character and I as a player think it might be fun to 'kill' them, but that seems to me to open up a can of worms - like getting a 'free Gen' from an essentially unopposed Diablerie for example, which squicks me a bit.

[Sethron]

I killed Angela after discussions with Megan of wanting to retire her.

So it can happen. I didn't free diablerize her, though, and my character was ending her story at the time.

[Iris "Chases-Rainbows"]

I think regardless of midweek or at game, all players involved need to be present for each scene going on.

Having the STs take up the midweek death scenes need to involve both parties present- together. If it eats up other players time and the STs time it should use as much time at game for the antagonist.

[Webmonkey]

Sept 12, 2013 20:37:14 GMT -8 Sethron said:

I killed Angela after discussions with Megan of wanting to retire her.

So it can happen. I didn't free diablerize her, though, and my character was ending her story at the time.

Again I think this is sort of a side discussion, but my thoughts about that are, nothing wrong with it per se, but I bet that story could have been tailored to add some intrigue to existing personal plot to remaining characters by the staff had they been running it, rather than the ending of the PC being 'self cleaned' by other players with perhaps not as much investment (since your character was on her way out the door). Again, not a bad thing how it sounds like it went down per se, just maybe a missed 'murder mystery' opportunity for the general game population and especially for those with prior investment in the Angela character.

TLDR version; Redshirts can help prove the episode is serious.


/storyteller brain