From: David Dankel (stgdankel_at_gmx.net)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 03:10:31 GMT
> >And deny us the chance to RP? :) Naw, IC is working. Our
> characters think
> >how they do, as does yours. If Siri disagrees there's no reason
> not to say
> >so, but that's not a reason for us not to play our characters out.
>
> We're not getting much playing done aside from back biting and
> prejudice. I'm not cool with sitting there in character while my
> character is dissected and the few of you being so elitist are
> smiling smugly and being rude. It's no fun.
I beg to differ - there is much discussion going on, and opinions are being
revealed. That tells a lot about characters.
> >I mean, tying not to be offensive, that's rather hypocritical.
> Everything
> >Siri said could start an arguement very easily - if she should
> express her
> >opinions, I think we should, too.
>
> Please do give arguement. Please do talk. But what makes a group
> game work is being a group. We should work on the friendship
> building side of things, not just shaking down and deciding on
> who's the weakest or the most likely to pick each other off. If I
> wanted that I'd play Paranoia.
And Siri has been nothing but friendly to everyone? Again, that's somewhat
hypocritical. The facts are not every character likes every other
character - why should they be forced to? And being a group is completely
different from all being friends. We're not trying to swear a blood oath
and form a group pattern or anything - just a group of adepts trying to
/survive/ the ruins long enough to find whatever they're looking for here.
An amount of trust is definitely required for that, but not friendship.
> > I know I haven't had a problem with the
> >debating and arguing - it's the only real way to make a decision
> other than
> >metagame and not RP. Considering we're not around a table
> together, and are
> >going to be sending emails no matter which way we go, why not make it IC?
>
> Because I game to have fun. This is set up to be a group game
> with a common theme. Why would we go into a dungeon knowing that
> everyone else is a black heart or a murderer and that at any
> minute they could slit our throats? That's how the PCs are
> treating each other. I'd like to see it toned down a bit.
In your opinion, perhaps. I see friendships (or at least understandings)
between some players and 'rivalries' between others, but no murderous
intent. Everyone /could/ be all cute and cuddly toward one another, but
perhaps I'm more of a simulationist at pbems, and that's not how life is. I
deal with people IRL I don't like but, for whatever reason, have to all the
time - it's the same way for the characters. They might not all get along,
but that doesn't mean they all want to kill each other. I think I'd be the
only person in my office if RL was like that. Why should Barsaive be any
different?
> Every time I give advice for the better it's ignored. Every time
> I yell it's blown out of proportion. My character has already
> been pegged without the player characters knowing who she is or
> what she's about and I see that as being kind of lame.
If you don't think other characters know enough about your character, then
share instead of being secretive. I know T'sunami's opinions, at least, are
formed on what he's seen, not what's sitting in a history document somewhere
on someone's computer. His assumptions of anyone could very well be off the
mark, but they're based on what he's actually experienced. But it's not
fair to accuse us of judging the book by its cover when that's all we've
seen.
> If we're playing only to argue within the ranks, why play?
Gladly I don't think that's the only reason people are playing. But equally
boring (and completely unrealistic) would be the situation where everyone
gets along perfectly well. One of my co-workers has been one of my friends
for over a decade, and we still disagree with each other on occasions,
sometimes heatedly.
As GM, Doug lays challenges and conflicts out for the party regularly -
that's his job. If everything was all a walk in the park, we'd be bored
with the game. Instead we're challenged by his encounters, and enjoy it.
Why, then, is it wrong to be challenged by each other? Almost every good
story involving a group of protagonists - and I think we can agree a pbem is
nothing more than an interactive story - centers on the group's relations
with each other as much as their accomplishment of whatever "grand task" is
put before them. Should this be any different?
I certainly don't begrudge any player who's character wants to disagree with
mine on a topic. For example, OOC we all know there's not game evidence
that Karma Rituals corrupt a person, but does that mean a character can't
have a 'wrong' theory that's still logically thought out? If there's no
glaring disproof of it, what would keep a logical person from coming to that
conclusion? Of coarse I knew people would disagree with T'sunami when he
proposed as much in the ruins - and that conflict makes the characters stand
out.
That's my opinion on the matter - it's all about finding the story in the
situation.
-> Mailing List Archive - http://www.kript.net/parlainth/
-> To unsubscribe: send a mail to majordomo_at_teaparty.net
with the body text "unsubscribe parlainth"
-> To see who's on the list: send a mail to majordomo_at_teaparty.net
with the body text "who parlainth"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 03:12:23 GMT