The Social Monster

So it has finally happened; the monster rears it's head again! The problems of social roleplaying are many and varied; but in our situation that's amplified by playing over the internet with people we don't know well and also because our game involves so many players. Many of you will have heard of West Marches; the game that Maladon is loosely based upon in terms of design principles. Well; it's a sobering thought that Ben Robbin's original West Marches game (and indeed my own first attempt to run Mystbound Realms face to face) ended in failure, with neither game reaching their conclusions because of the Social Monster. Ben Robbins described his own game as a swirling maelstrom of jealously and ambition and I am beginning to see the same sorts of patterns emerging. To that end, I would like to try and set up some rules and guidelines for sorting out all of this type of stuff. 1) Choice is KING in TTRPGs; we play them because we can do anything as a player. Thus Rule 1 of a TTRPG is this: NEVER should any player try to stop another player from playing their character or from taking any action that they want to take. That might cause a disaster or a TPK but choice is very important in this medium. Having said all that; if one person has total freedom, everyone else has none. So there has to be a balance. 2) Allied with rule 1 is this; if your character would not like what someone else's character is doing, absent your character from the scene in some trivial way so that your character does not see what is going on. This is a GAME; make room for other people to play. The game is about the overall story, involving all characters; not just your character. It is also fine to roleplay an interaction or conflict in character; but note that the conflict should be played out solely to heighten the roleplaying experience, not to try and obstruct someone else's choice. What I am trying to say is that players should only argue with other players about their character actions to highlight the drama or spot-light the other character's actions, not to try and stop them from doing stuff. In-character arguments should be about drama, not because you are invested in a particular outcome. 3) If players are having real problems; a scene being spoiled or something of that nature, they can call TIMEOUT in game! Once this is called, the game stops and that player must quickly summarise what is wrong. TIMEOUT can last a maximum of 5 minutes and perhaps can also first be handled by a chat discussion as the game is going on, so that we can work out what the problem is. We can't call TIMEOUT every 5 minutes and so only two are allowed per game session. 3) If players are having persistant problems with another player, please first talk to the player about it in a private message or on Discord if possible. Please also involve me if you feel it is not resolvable. When talking with other players about problems, try to be objective. 4) Loot is a common area of trouble. If you want to roleplay a greedy character, great; just know that if you are found out it removes the PvP lock and allows other characters to kill your character. And let's face it; that kind of RP is really an excuse to be a dick if we are all being honest. This is an example of where one player's choice obstructs EVERYONE elses'. The root of this kind of behaviour is selfishness not roleplaying and I won't encourage it. 5) The DM can also be a major area of problems; let me know if a storyline is too dark for you, or you feel your character is not getting enough sptolight time or is not getting enough sessions or anything else. I am human (yes really; the Aboleth is not my real voice, honest) and I make mistakes. Tell me!! 6) I think session sign ups are now also an area of conflict. How do people want to resolve this? I don't want any more rules; let;s have some sort of agreement and discussion please. Let's not let the Social Monster eat another game! Let's talk openly and honestly and all try and listen to make the game better for everyone.

Well I like the rules they seem fine and about game booking maybe have it where people can book one game a week as well as the sign ups so once a week people can boom one game sessions gm must be available for it but everyone gets a chance to do it at least once and this can be tracked with the player tokens so you can either use a token to jump into any game the is part of the sign up rule or they can use that token to book their own game tokens rest once everyone has used them 

Fully agree on most of the points, here is where I disagree 4) Greedy characters do not always mean you are a selfish person that just wants its character to be well off (if that were the case, playing a selfish character is just short sighted imo). I can see the thrill of that, especially for people who usually are quite the opposite and want to experience this feel as a PC. But you are the GM so if you throw bricks into the gears of people that do it, it is absolutely legit. 5) a) I don't think that you can ever give everyone enough spotlight, as long as your days only have 24h as mine do. Speaking for myself I could probably ask you questions until the cows come home... my internal loose ends threat of Marokin is already quite extensive... but answering all these questions would not put an end to it and take out the realism to some extend... (can't know everything in real life either, right?)   b) I was aware that you are not the Aboleth, but am still not convinced whether you are not a robot. 6) I think the system right now works for the bigger part. All of the following should actually go into a new thread or be discussed on discord... The racing for spots is imo a bit annoying but it shows on the otherhand the enthusiasm that the people have for this game. I was thinking about an additional rule (borrowed from economy theories): How about a ceiling for how many sessions a PC (or, if you want to go further, a player) can play per round of sessions. E.g. max 3 out of 4... Why would I like it? To see different group dynamics. What happens if you have different people together. E.g. what would happen in a mission in which Reskin and Meren go somewhere without Syvil and Cain who usually keep them in check? Will somebody else feel obliged to counteract? a.s.o. a.s.o...  That is however my personal wish :)

The only thing I can really think to comment on is 6.) but I'm not sure how it can be resolved if we dont want to fiddle a bit with the process? I mean the easiest thing that occurs to me about it could be that after applying the rules as normal, to then promote anyone who wasn't in the previous one over those who were?

@PK; I agree with you to some extent that RPing a greedy character can be fun and that it is not always selfish; but the number of fimes this is true versus players just being selfish is like 1:100 in my experience. If someone wants to play that way, perhaps we need to OK it first. I want to be sure the player has a decent character that adds something significant to the game before allowing it because of the problems it can generate.

Ha, not denying the robot accusations! I knew it!!!

I have never gotten this joke; it is because of the Discord distortion to my voice becuase of bad internet?

Know it is because you are a dm monster bent on our destruction we must rise up and fight the evil!!!! (takes of clothes and adds body paint)

Yes it started because of that and because you are robot buddies with r20 and it gives you all those nat20 rolls.

muuhhhaaa; Roll20 is my bitch Meatbags!!

Each time I crit you; I drain off a piece of your souls.....................muuhahaaa

That time you got three natural ones followed by three natural twenties was interesting...

I must be a super meat bag then with the rolls I was getting that session.

On a more serious note; another thing that needs to be said is that successful players can play any character they like, no matter how extreme and get away with it! And all for one very important reason; they are very good at 'telegraphing' when they are in character and when they are out of it. There are three things needed for this; 1) The ability to immerse themselves in character so completely, that it is easy to tell the character from them as a player.  Voice acting helps; one of of the reasons I originally became interested in using voices in game. 2) Despite very powerful immersion, the best players do NOT over-identify with their characters. They step out of them and do not display emotion about what happens to their character. Indeed, some relish the chance to die gloriously for their goals. 3) The very best players are 'scene directors'; they don't just think of their characters, they think of the scene and the game and what it needs. An example; Jon who plays Tarville was in a scene with Erolith/Mindartis and they were facing 6 Dromen. It was a battle that was virtually unwinnable and Eroltih went down in the first 2 rounds. Some players would have been annoyed and thrown in the towel or griped about the unfairness of it. What Jon had Tarville do will live in my heart as one of the greatest moments in a fantasy game I have ever seen. Tarville, who is trying to reunite the true Avowed and all of their blades, called upon Lord Snowmantle and bargained away a sword more powerful than Calinaar or Shaldinaris in exchange for Erolith's life and their freedom. Bear in mind that Jon has been playing wiht me for 5 years now and most of his characters have been involved in the history of the Avowed and their swords, so this was a very big thing for both him and his character. Thus was the sword Everhalt 'lost' to a servant of Cernas but I hope you can all see how this adds enormously to the game by adding in a quest to recover this fabled blade and also shows what Tarville is; that when the chips were down, he showed his quality as a player and a character. That is heroism people; so SHOW me you are a hero, don't tell me and I will reward you a hundredfold.

Yes it's has if I was there 

Wow....seems I stepped in at a bad time! For me, as arguably the newest member of the group I cant comment much, other than the sign up process is a bit of a bugbear (but hey, thats mostly cuz im on the other side of the world to all...) And gods bless Jon/Tarville......I miss that so much!

I've only played one game with everyone here so far, but I can say I know the social monster pretty well already. :P But my thoughts would be: 1. Choice should be king, if someone want to do something they know would probably piss off a few people, they should be able to. But people should at least consider the consequences for everyone else in the party before they go off and do something. After all it's just for fun. 2. I think it should be on the players who are having the issue to resolve something with themselves if something is happening that they don't like. Either turn a blind eye or confront the character after the fact and have an argument them maybe. 3a. Communication is key and hopefully the ability to freeze the game should help clear up some problems. 3b. Really, if you have a problem with someone then talk with that person, don't talk about them behind their back. That's how you resolve issues. 4. I guess that would depend on just how greedy someone was. If someone decided to hoard a couple hundred gold for themselves then, yeah, their a bit of a dick and the players should have every right to try  and get back their equal share but that shouldn't mean killing them right away. But if they decide to keep an entire treasure trove for themselves, well then it's fair game. 5. Honestly I think you're a fantastic DM, the voices show how much effort you put into having fun. While I can't speak for anyone else, no story is really too dark for me, if anything I would say it adds a bit of authenticity that the world isn't a happy little place. As for spotlight on any character, it's bound to happen that someone gets pushed to the back there's just too many people. Maybe as a fix you could try to set up sessions that have more focus on each character and their goals? That might help everyone feel equal. 6. It's a first come first serve kind of basis right now isn't it? With favoring to newer characters. I guess that's fine, but I work a lot so I'm not exactly always available for sessions anyway but when I am free it seems that everyone has already taken up all the spots by the time I see the post.

so I am a bit confused about the conflicts between characters thing where you say to absent your character from the scene. Wouldn't that be circumstantial? For example, if the party takes a hostage and 1 member wants to kill the hostage and the other does not want to kill the hostage, there should be conflict. If one of the party members makes a move to kill the hostage, shouldn't the one trying to stop the hostage's death get in the way? Or should they also then absent themselves from the scene?

Derek; I am not saying you must absent your character from a scene, I am just saying that this is a valuable tool in a player's toolkit for avoiding constant conflict. I want everyone to start thinking about everyone elses' fun; not just their own. If, for example, there is a character in the group who is a bit shady and you're playing a Paladin, absent yourself from the scene sometimes (I'll see to the horses; the enemy may still be lurking, I will guard this passage etc) to allow the shady character some screen time. Otherwise, the overbearing characters just end up dictating everything.

So....................more social problems in our community of Maladon. This time it involves Zil (who plays Aurelia, Iloa and Boone) and Josh S (who plays Mindaritis/Erolith).  I hope neither will mind me using them to show you how I analyse this kind of situation. Some people may say ' well; they are just getting on each other's nerves ' or something similar. I don't accept that for the simple reason that part of the job of a DM is to try and solve these problems in social dynamics. And just saying the above accepting that these two players will never get on. I see this as a classical 'clash of roleplaying cultures'. What do I mean by this? Well, roleplaying is a complex hobby and has a number of competing imperatives. When we play the game as players, we are unconsciously trying to do a number of things, all at the same time, namely: 1) play our characters authentically 2) gain gold and XP 3) advance our characters 4) advance the 'game story' or in essence try to 'do stuff' in game 5) keep our characters alive Now you can't do all of these things equally at all times, but every roleplayer has, more or less, the same items on their list. What differs is the order of importance. And the order of importance you place on these items, determines what kind of roleplayer you are. For example, if you place highest value on 1 then you will RP your character even if it will get them killed, because to you 1 is much more important than 5. If on the other hand, you 'just want to get stuff done' then you will tend to ignore parts of your character whenever it gets in the way of getting stuff done because 3 and 4 are more important than 1. Which way is right or wrong? The answer is obviously that it's an entirely personal choice; though I will say that the more dangerous the game is, in terms of lethality to PCs, the less satisfying the game becomes for pure RPers who put their character before everything else. That's simply because you die so often it gets really old really fast................... I think what's happening with Zil and Josh is simply that they have different priorities on their respective lists. Zil, whether he knows it or not, always seems to me to put 'playing my character authentically' somewhere near the top of his list. This may or may not be an instinctive choice, but it's one I've seen him make many times in several different games now. He seems less worried about advancing his character or more generally about 'getting stuff done' because he is playing three different characters and that is bound to slow his advancement, yet I think he cares not one whit. Josh seems to me to put 'getting stuff done' and 'advancing my character' much higher on his list. So when these two meet, Zil gets annoyed with Josh whenever Josh ignores the situation and the context and just wants to get hold of something he needs from Zil to gain power, information or to get stuff done. Zil seems to feel, whether he knows it or not, that Josh is 'not playing properly' when he acts in this way. Josh, on the other hand (and PK playing Marokin to a lesser extent) feel that ' Zil is being obstructive ' because he won't give them the information they feel they need to 'get stuff done'. They seem to imply that Zil is not being a team player and is risking everyone in the group by not sharing all this stuff. Zil I think, feels that Josh and PK are 'metagaming' by acting this way, because to him, the group is an artificial part of the game and to him you can't react to the idea of the group, in character, because in this sort of game the group only exists in the gamist part of the experience. So this is the root of the disagreement in my opinion, and as I said before, no one is right and everyone is right. As a player, you have to learn to recognise and respect other peoples' playstyles. The purist RPers amongst you have to accept that everyone metagames and that sometimes, you do have to acknowledge the group because it is a part of the game. And the dooers in the group, have to accept that you have to engage in RP more if you want to get the right response out of the RP purists. Ideally, as time goes on, the best thing is to become consciously aware of your own internal order of priorities and then learn to analyse those in other players. You then need to move to a middle ground between you and each other player during every interaction, in order to make the experience as satisfying as possible. This is a complex skill and we are all still learning it. Hope this has been of some use.

How many Maladonian months of training to become proficient? ;) Jokes aside this is a very interesting post... Hopefully I'll be able to not just understand it, but to really learn something from it. See below what I think my priorities are. Of course I am likely wrong; introspection is not my best trait... But thought it could be of use to anyone wanting to understand me and Syvil, maybe? It also seemed like fun :] Keeping Syvil alive - I do not like my characters dying, with the exception of the rare times when I decide that it is time, at which point I have been known to revel in it. But then it is usually with some agency; taking risks or actively making a sacrifice. Advance Syvil's character; both RP and mechanics wise - I love mechanics, but I also like creating a story for my character; bes is when the two combine. Make Syvil stay true to himself - Not yet sure just what this means, as Syvil's character is becoming ever more fractioned as I try to re-examine my playstyle Gaining gold and Experience - This is a means to an end most of the time, and often I find both come as a result of keeping Syvil alive. Advancing the story as a whole - Always good fun! It is one of the main reasons to play. Yet I find this is not a priority, as it will happen, sooner or later. That said I do like to push for "today's goal", but that doesn't need to be the main plot.

Just want to add: I don't have an issue with how Zil plays his Characters, but I know e.g. that Josh does not mind very confrontational RP and I am not sure if Zil likes that so I decided to now run posts by him before to see if that is ok with him. :) Personally I don't have a problem with how Zil plays, I actually like the characters that he plays and the way he plays them. Marokin unfortunately does have his issue with both of them. Might turn out differently with my other characters :)

The Mindartis/Boone conflict is not so simple as I make out above though. The above is overlayed with another problem; the problem of the antihero. Antiheroes are everywhere in popular culture but I am NOT a fan of them in RPGs for one reason; antiheroes are all about being acting as an arsehole. In a movie, the main character looks really cool when he cuts people off with one-liners and dismisses other peoples' ideas and importance or jokes about them. All this rudeness really only adds to his coolness and mystique in films and books. The problem is, when you a play a character like that in an RPG, you are essentially saying to the other players 'I am the main character in this story ' because in movies the antihero tends to be the loner and is THE hero. You are also belittling and slighting the other characters and this can lead to confusion and friction when the players start to feel it is directed at them and not at their characters. Or, even worse, when they mistake the arsehole character for an arsehole player. In a movie, the antihero has plot armour. The other characters react to him in ways that just emphasise his coolness because one person is writing the story. But what invariably happens in an RPG is that the other players get pissed off with the anti-hero character and it leads to all sorts of in game problems. I would cite Mindartis as a prime example. He is an difficult character, pure and simple. I love the character, but he acts like a DICK...... Playing an antihero is fraught with peril even if you know the other peope in your group well, because humans are emotional beings. Think about it; if someone starts shouting at you it is VERY likely that you will start to shout back even though it is rationally, a stupid thing to do. Similarly whilst we all know rationally that Josh is not Mindartis (indeed, I know Josh socially from face to face gaming, and can assure you that he is the sweetest of guys) but when Josh acts like Mindartis, unconsciously we react to him emotionally, and this creates tension and occasionally arguments, just because of the type of character he is playing. It's fundamentally why playing evil or difficult characters like antiheroes is really a rather difficult thing to pull off and is something to be wary of as both a player and as a DM. It may seem a funny experiment but I would warn you all again of the consequences of this kind of thing. I have seen it wreck a fair few groups. It works best when you have a different voice for your character and you actively change voices and delibertely say things OOC in your normal voice, to remind people that you are not your character. It takes practise, but all in all, I am glad we have characters like Mindartis. They add to the game, if we can keep everyone on the same page and stop the game from self-destructing.....................

Stephen Dove said: So....................more social problems in our community of Maladon. This time it involves Zil (who plays Aurelia, Iloa and Boone) and Josh S (who plays Mindaritis/Erolith).  I hope neither will mind me using them to show you how I analyse this kind of situation. Some people may say ' well; they are just getting on each other's nerves ' or something similar. I don't accept that for the simple reason that part of the job of a DM is to try and solve these problems in social dynamics. And just saying the above accepting that these two players will never get on. I see this as a classical 'clash of roleplaying cultures'. What do I mean by this? Well, roleplaying is a complex hobby and has a number of competing imperatives. When we play the game as players, we are unconsciously trying to do a number of things, all at the same time, namely: 1) play our characters authentically 2) gain gold and XP 3) advance our characters 4) advance the 'game story' or in essence try to 'do stuff' in game 5) keep our characters alive Now you can't do all of these things equally at all times, but every roleplayer has, more or less, the same items on their list. What differs is the order of importance. And the order of importance you place on these items, determines what kind of roleplayer you are. For example, if you place highest value on 1 then you will RP your character even if it will get them killed, because to you 1 is much more important than 5. If on the other hand, you 'just want to get stuff done' then you will tend to ignore parts of your character whenever it gets in the way of getting stuff done because 3 and 4 are more important than 1. Which way is right or wrong? The answer is obviously that it's an entirely personal choice; though I will say that the more dangerous the game is, in terms of lethality to PCs, the less satisfying the game becomes for pure RPers who put their character before everything else. That's simply because you die so often it gets really old really fast................... I think what's happening with Zil and Josh is simply that they have different priorities on their respective lists. Zil, whether he knows it or not, always seems to me to put 'playing my character authentically' somewhere near the top of his list. This may or may not be an instinctive choice, but it's one I've seen him make many times in several different games now. He seems less worried about advancing his character or more generally about 'getting stuff done' because he is playing three different characters and that is bound to slow his advancement, yet I think he cares not one whit. Josh seems to me to put 'getting stuff done' and 'advancing my character' much higher on his list. So when these two meet, Zil gets annoyed with Josh whenever Josh ignores the situation and the context and just wants to get hold of something he needs from Zil to gain power, information or to get stuff done. Zil seems to feel, whether he knows it or not, that Josh is 'not playing properly' when he acts in this way. Josh, on the other hand (and PK playing Marokin to a lesser extent) feel that ' Zil is being obstructive ' because he won't give them the information they feel they need to 'get stuff done'. They seem to imply that Zil is not being a team player and is risking everyone in the group by not sharing all this stuff. Zil I think, feels that Josh and PK are 'metagaming' by acting this way, because to him, the group is an artificial part of the game and to him you can't react to the idea of the group, in character, because in this sort of game the group only exists in the gamist part of the experience. So this is the root of the disagreement in my opinion, and as I said before, no one is right and everyone is right. As a player, you have to learn to recognise and respect other peoples' playstyles. The purist RPers amongst you have to accept that everyone metagames and that sometimes, you do have to acknowledge the group because it is a part of the game. And the dooers in the group, have to accept that you have to engage in RP more if you want to get the right response out of the RP purists. Ideally, as time goes on, the best thing is to become consciously aware of your own internal order of priorities and then learn to analyse those in other players. You then need to move to a middle ground between you and each other player during every interaction, in order to make the experience as satisfying as possible. This is a complex skill and we are all still learning it. Hope this has been of some use. i this agree with this i am more a 1 as i have stayed true to my character on more then one situation i dont just play to "get stuff done but to rp" and in the statement i was metagaming i knew Zil had a power book that was connected with the windsingers which Eroliths people is called so i was connected to Boone in this way and i had a rp session with Simon and pk as you know stephen asking p k to look into the windsingers so i knew about Boone and if you read all the threads on this i never asked Boone for the book i was trying to bring him into the inner circle which i have done with other characters in the past thats way i said it was information i was giving not asking for anything but that was never explored instead the mood of the Rp was set by Boone and Erolith acted in accordance with it i even went as to say in the rp i came as an ally to give information and warned him he might be being watched and invited Boone to Runic street to see the Burrow as only 3 people have seen it and he would be the 4th and as you know Stephen i would not simply ask someone there just to get stuff but to start a deeper rp thread but that was never explored and my point in this Zill wasnt Rping his character because Boone is a goody goody as stated by Boone so he would verbally attack someone like he did telling them to f off when no overly rudeness was given and the whole Rp was zill acting out his frustration instead of rping and this means he is just being rude ooc and i will not deal with that when i came into the thread not asking for anything and trying to include him timing or not and i wouldn't start a knew rp thread when one is active. if we are talking about metagaming i have seen Zill do the exact same thing the PK is doing by asking for an item repeatedly because it helps his character when we were in elees game and he came to me in an open rp thread asking for his first magic book and the same thing happened there we got into an argument me saying stuff so this situation is not knew to me and Zill but the first time he didnt seem to mind because in my opinion he was on the side of wanting something but i state again i was there to include Boone and give him information i dont use metagaming 

@PK; the bottom line is that you can only play confrontations when they are between CHARACTERS not between PLAYERS and it's easy to mistake one for another unless the players are experienced and know and trust each other.

@Josh I don't think Boone is a goody-goody! I think he is a just a more a historical and less a 'fantasy' type of character than most in the campaign. And I am not saying you don't RP; sometimes you RP at the WRONG times and people think you are attacking or snubbing them not their characters. But what I have noticed is that your RP is almost never just RP for the sake of it, and usually has at least a side motive of increasing your character's power and influence. I will illustrate this by your most common question after an RP session; ' has my influence increased in the Burrow ' etc. And don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with that, it just shows your order of priorities. Indeed, it's also telling that you tend to create characters that are fundamentally ambitious and power hungry. That's often a sign of someone trying to minimise the conflict between RP and being a dooer. Boone is nothing like that. He established Chanters' Hall but has never really tried to expand it or gain influence. Ot at least much less than the Burrow, where you are ALWAYS agressively trying to expand it. And the Fey Isles is a VERY different sort of game. It is much more dangerous than Maladon, just because of the homebrew system I am not surprised Zil plays differently there. I play differently there. Don't take any of this as criticism; it is meant as a series of observations.................

Stephen Dove said: @Josh I don't think Boone is a goody-goody! I think he is a just a more a historical and less a 'fantasy' type of character than most in the campaign. And I am not saying you don't RP; sometimes you RP at the WRONG times and people think you are attacking or snubbing them not their characters. But what I have noticed is that your RP is almost never just RP for the sake of it, and usually has at least a side motive of increasing your character's power and influence. I will illustrate this by your most common question after an RP session; ' has my influence increased in the Burrow ' etc. And don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with that, it just shows your order of priorities. Indeed, it's also telling that you tend to create characters that are fundamentally ambitious and power hungry. That's often a sign of someone trying to minimise the conflict between RP and being aq dooer. Boone is nothing like that. He established Chanters' Hall but has never really tried to expand it or gain influence. Ot at least much less than the Burrow, where you are ALWAYS agressively trying to expand it. And the Fey Isles is a VERY different sort of game. It is much more dangerous than Maladon, just because of the homebrew system I am not surprised Zil plays differently there. I play differently there. Don't take any of this as criticism; it is meant as a series of observations................. ya just my point is i feel that rp with zill was done because he the player was frustrated and acted out so the rp was him being rude and not his character seeing as my character talked to Boone for the first time but ya it was the ooc actions that rp shows not the rp itself and i think people shouldn't put their personal feelings into rp because you are being rude to the person and not the character in my opinion and no matter what has happened to frustration me in this game and the people who play it i never put my character in a situation just to take a dig a person 

and zill has said Boone is a do gooder Quaker and he sees Mindartis as some kind of mafia don

Josh; you need to learn a basic fact! If you are rude to other people, whether it's in character or not, there is always a risk they will be rude back. If you remember I have warned you about that many many times, because Mindartis is a bit too close to the edge sometimes. Indeed I did warn you long before anyone really saw what kind of character Mindartis/Erolith was. One problem is that you are not aware of how Mindartis comes across to other people. I should play him back to you sometime; as I once did to Jon, as he tends to play similar kinds of characters. And don't get me wrong; Mindartis is not the most annoying character in the game.Sometimes, that prize belongs to others!

I think Zil was exaggerating to make his point.........

Stephen Dove said: Josh; you need to learn a basic fact! If you are rude to other people, whether it's in character or not, there is always a risk they will be rude back. If you remember I have warned you about that many many times, because Mindartis is a bit too close to the edge sometimes. Indeed I did warn you long before anyone really saw what kind of character Mindartis/Erolith was. One problem is that you are not aware of how Mindartis comes across to other people. I should play him back to you sometime; as I once did to Jon, as he tends to play similar kinds of characters. And don't get me wrong; Mindartis is not the most annoying character in the game.Sometimes, that prize belongs to others! ya i get that but i was not rude to Boone if you read the thread Stephen i think your see that it was Boone who started the conflict and i just acted in accordance to how he set the mood i came into the seen saying how i know the good work he has been doing i was more then happy to talk nicely but Boon   " Oh goody, another person with mysterious motivations I hardly even know has come to accost me! I haven't seen hide nor hair of you in better part of a year eh Mindartis, but I suppose you'll be wanten me book too? Well I'm getting pretty damn tired of every enigmatic bastard with a hidden agenda suddenly come to wrap me up in their bloody secrets and tie me down with a ribbon of lies, while they can have themselves a gander and grope on what ever item of interest failed to get sucked up into their grasping little fingers! So go on then, make your silly grand speach or whatever and get it over with so I can get on with my day " that is what he said and since Erolith just walked in and not knowing whats going on would take offence to this seeing he was nice from the start so the mood was set by Zill conflict was not my goal nor was i the one who started it  

As a fair warning, Josh I do not hate you, but Rurik already dislikes Erolith due to his nature of trying to tell him what to do without explanation. So if you feel like I'm ever being rude to you do say.

@Josh agreed that Zil was playing Boone as really annoyed. But that's because Marokin had also been trying to get the book off of him.............. It is also true that in that one instance, Zil probably went too far! But that does not negate my point; Mindartis never goes that far, but he is subtly rude to everyone all of the time. So don't expect people to always react well to that............................

Derek B. said: As a fair warning, Josh I do not hate you, but Rurik already dislikes Erolith due to his nature of trying to tell him what to do without explanation. So if you feel like I'm ever being rude to you do say. ya i get that na you were fine Erolith did not know you and thought you were just one of the dwarven people ill make this statement i dont play Erolith or mindartis just to be a dick but their is a 10 page backstory to why Erolith the way that he is so his actions are in line with his backstory and how he sees people and his dark and bloody past so i never act like a dick because i think its cool but because its inline with my character 

Stephen Dove said: @Josh agreed that Zil was playing Boone as really annoyed. But that's because Marokin had also been trying to get the book off of him.............. It is also true that in that one instance, Zil probably when too far! But that does not negate my point; Mindartis never goes that far, but he is subtly rude to everyone all of the time. So don't expect people to always react well to that............................ know thats fine i know people will act in that way and i want people to act out their conflict with me makes for a bigger group interaction but i feel it was not a character thing but a player thing if it was just pc conflict i would be fine but i dont feel that here personally 

@ Josh Oh no you don't! You can't get out of it that easily. YOU created Mindartis, so something inside you does think being a dick is either cool or interesting. I am not saying I don't agree, but you don't get to make that argument unless someone else wrote the character.

Stephen Dove said: @ Josh Oh no you don't! You can't get out of it that easily. YOU created Mindartis, so something inside you does think being a dick is either cool or interesting. I am not saying I don't agree, but you don't get to make that argument unless someone else wrote the character. know i dont do it simply because its cool but i think characters that are broken and have problems are more real and i like to play characters that are real and playing a character that is nice all the time and trys to only do good is not real in my eyes so having a character that is mentally and personally broken is interesting and i dont do it simply because i think its cool if you get me im just saying im not being a rude dick because i simply want to make rifts but its an underline personality flaw and i wont just be a dick out of the blue but unless there is a reason to    

@ Josh; that just illustrates my point. Be very careful about RPing conflict between players. Most people in this game are extremely inexperienced RPers..........it's fine (indeed I would go so far to say it's essential) that we do it, but it needs more care and understanding..............

@Josh; I KNOW you're just doing it for an interesting RP and a dramatic character. I am just saying you need to step out of the character sometimes when you are playing with people who don't know you so well, so that they can see it's Mindartis not Josh being difficult. And anyway; all of this is just me picking at something that came up recently, so we can all see and learn something.

I will boldly jump in here; if we are to accept Erolith being an arse because of backstory reasons, which I had to struggle with before finally starting to respond to in more concious RP, then you also have to accept that maybe Boone took unkindly to what he sees, though they might not be, attempts at getting at his stuff; it might be part of his character. Misdirected anger is a very human thing. I can only point to the time when Mindartis tried to "kill" me... From my point of view it seems as if both characters acted sort of in line with their previous actions and that the "meta" debate really lacks substance, in this case. I've actually been waiting for Boone to flip for some time now; what with the terrible treatment of the poor in Haven and the crazy attitude we faced on Bael's Isle he needs to release some pressure already ^^

ok

Ithiloneth M. said: I will boldly jump in here; if we are to accept Erolith being an arse because of backstory reasons, which I had to struggle with before finally starting to respond to in more concious RP, then you also have to accept that maybe Boone took unkindly to what he sees, though they might not be, attempts at getting at his stuff; it might be part of his character. Misdirected anger is a very human thing. I can only point to the time when Mindartis tried to "kill" me... From my point of view it seems as if both characters acted sort of in line with their previous actions and that the "meta" debate really lacks substance, in this case. I've actually been waiting for Boone to flip for some time now; what with the terrible treatment of the poor in Haven and the crazy attitude we faced on Bael's Isle he needs to release some pressure already ^^ ya i guess but remember that was an extreme act and as soon as Erolith took control he quickly said sorry and explained sine of his past to you so i would never act in an extreme way and just leave it but what you said is true but i have said what i think i needed to and im happy to let it go and move on  

Never mind; I don't think my post would have helped. I'll be quiet now.

Ithiloneth M. said: I have, and I think had, no problems with the act! I thought it was great RP! Just as do with the confrontation between Boone and Erolith. But had I not known of Erolith's certain... trait.Then I might have thought differently and perhaps been upset over the attack itself; perhaps that is what is happening here? - Boone is showing us a side he hasn't so far and we are all surprised on one level or another, but all in all doesn't it sort of make sense? Isn't it interesting? ya well Zill has asked we part ways and dont interact with each other boone and Erolith so its not a character thing once again i see it as a player thing but like i said i have said my part 

@Ithiloneth what Josh did was he 'attacked' your character to show the inner turmoil in his character and to give you both an excuse to talk so he could tell you about his back-story in character. But I am not sure you understood because one of your most important meta-ideas about gaming is that ' the rules must be obeyed ' and so you almost went into combat mode because Josh inadvertantly used an attack roll. I was very surprised when you wanted to attack him back but I believe that for you, the rules trump the story or the RP every time and that is a lot of the source of your problem in this situation.

@Josh Zil said that because he got angry, not his character. And he was responding to something you did or said. I think he felt you were metagaming (I am not saying you were) and what made things worse is that your character is a bit edgy and arrogant as well and Zil started to mis-identify Erolith with Josh. This is why you have to be careful; it takes surprisingly little to cause conflict in these sorts of games when you are playing an arsey character. I did warn you........................

As I did not know whether this "attack" was real or not, I chose to treat it as real to avoid having Syvil die on me. Accordingly, I indeed treat anything that I do not know, to not be a threat as if it were a threat. In such a scenario where one character might get killed the rules matter as they are the only impartial judge of who lives and who dies. I admit and agree that this is a problem for me, especially when it comes to rules-checking.

@Ithiloneth in that situation it's entirely understandable. But what I am trying to show is that whether your character might die was your first thought or concern, whereas that would never have occured to me. It goes back to what I was saying about lists and priorities. I am just trying to make you aware of your internal processes; I am not asking you or anyone else to judge them. On my list my character dying is almost not there. I simply don't care and ditto advancing my character. I have played games with no advancement of any kind and I love them. For me RP is enough and is King; as you saw with the Dwarves the other night.......................

Stephen Dove said: @Josh Zil said that because he got angry, not his character. And he was responding to something you did or said. I think he felt you were metagaming (I am not saying you were) and what made things worse is that your character is a bit edgy and arrogant as well and Zil started to mis-identify Erolith with Josh. This is why you have to be careful; it takes surprisingly little to cause conflict in these sorts of games when you are playing an arsey character. I did warn you........................ ya you did and i understand it and maybe he zil players more games with different people he can see different ways people and how and they act out of character 

Stephen Dove said: @Ithiloneth in that situation it's entirely understandable. But what I am trying to show is that whether your character might die was your first thought or concern, whereas that would never have occured to me. It goes back to what I was saying about lists and priorities. I am just trying to make you aware of your internal processes; I am not asking you or anyone else to judge them. On my list my character dying is almost not there. I simply don't care and ditto advancing my character. I have played games with no advancement of any kind and I love them. For me RP is enough and is King; as you saw with the Dwarves the other night....................... ya i liked it we had some good rp in that game 

@Josh Since you are the one who likes playing this type of character (Raziel was similar if I recall) I suggest you take responsibility for portraying these characters in a more sympathetic light. You can play the same types of characters but you have to learn to show their weaknesses; otherwise people cannot see their humanity and so can't relate to them.