roleplayers: Security in Roleplaying

Tashiro (

tashiro) wrote in

roleplayers,
@ 2006-03-04 12:42:00

Current mood:	thoughtful
Current music:	Hollywood Studio Symphony - The Way of the Sword

Security in Roleplaying
My sister made a rather long-winded post recently in her livejournal, and I thought I'd put it here since I got her permission.
Diary of a Power Gamer

So... thoughts?

(Post a new comment)

	waiwode 2006-03-04 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	I'm not getting the link, Kit. Doug. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	creativedv8tion 2006-03-04 06:06 pm UTC (link)
	Right click on "Diary of a Power Gamer" and then choose view image. You'll see it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tashiro 2006-03-04 06:35 pm UTC (link)
	Fixed (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mort_q 2006-03-04 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	link? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	tashiro 2006-03-04 06:35 pm UTC (link)
	Fixed http://kueidan.livejournal.com/41507.html (Reply to this) (Parent)

	salith 2006-03-04 06:05 pm UTC (link)
	You've tried to link a post as an image? (Reply to this)

creativedv8tion
2006-03-04 06:06 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure what you did, but there's nothing there, but I noticed a little temporary red x that became "Diary of a Power Gamer"... and if I right click and view image, then it takes me to her post.

Weirdness.

Anyhow... sorry, if you want "security", write a book. It's the same as a control-freak GM, a control-freak Player needs to learn how to Play Well With Others.

Her post is basically, "Me, me, me."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	kueidan 2006-03-04 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	I gave the other players time to solve the problem.. usually about a week. I don't see how that was 'control freak'. If I get involved, I want the problem solved.. if the GM can't plan around my actions, then tough. If it was something that I need to get involved in, I don't see any point in stretching things out. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 06:52 pm UTC

(no subject) -

silentclarity, 2006-03-04 07:00 pm UTC

(no subject) -

silentclarity, 2006-03-04 07:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 07:06 pm UTC

(no subject) -

silentclarity, 2006-03-04 07:30 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 07:31 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

lederhosen, 2006-03-05 12:53 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 07:05 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:42 pm UTC

(no subject) -

trooper6, 2006-03-04 10:25 pm UTC

(no subject) -

voltbang, 2006-03-04 11:04 pm UTC

(no subject) -

entsuropi, 2006-03-05 11:34 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 02:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:35 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 08:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:44 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 08:50 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:53 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 08:55 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 09:01 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 09:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

entsuropi, 2006-03-04 09:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 09:19 pm UTC

(no subject) -

silentclarity, 2006-03-05 10:03 am UTC

(no subject) -

amokk, 2006-03-05 04:09 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 08:53 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:58 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 10:54 pm UTC

(no subject) -

shiftercat, 2006-03-05 12:20 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 01:39 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 01:53 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 02:05 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 03:42 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 04:15 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 06:59 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 07:40 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 08:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 09:48 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 01:27 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 02:08 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 04:13 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 04:26 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 09:55 pm UTC

(no subject) -

shiftercat, 2006-03-05 03:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 06:45 am UTC

A few points...

salith
2006-03-04 06:21 pm UTC (link)

When you are faced with a GM, they offer change. They bring instability to your life. That's their job, and I don't begrudge a GM for doing that. But if I get involved, if it brings my characters into play, then I react to it as a threat to my security and safety.
A GM's job is to facilitate a story and present situations/NPCs to the PCs. S/He may have a story arc planned out, but that's not the issue here.

To me, that is realistic. You use all the tools at your disposal when you're tackling a problem. Story be damned. If it will return me to safety and control over my life and the environment around me, then I'm happy.
So she likes to play 'defensive' characters who just deal with the situation so they can go back to their normal routine... not exactly what I would call an adventurer :/

If you are in a sword duel for your life, you don't try to be flashy and show off and make it dramatic, you go for the killing blow the moment you can. And if you happen to have a gun, there's nothing wrong with stepping back and shooting the person in the face and ending the fight immediately. That is survival. Is it 'fair'? Of course not. But fair gets you dead.
This depends on the character you are playing. Play Arnie in some action film, yep, go for the instant kill. Play Antonio in Zorro and you go for the flashy moves to show you are superior to your opponent, humiliating them before dealing with them (since killing is not always the goal).

My first 'foray' was, in essence, subtle. I have a psychic character, who also happens to be the head of the law enforcement in the region. She is good at stealth and assassination if need be, and I felt this was a good time. Creep into the enemy camp, kill off the leaders, and the siege is over. Clean, and quick. A bit of work for me, but it saves lives.
Where were the psychics and such on the opposing force to counterbalance this possiblity? Any leader worth their salt makes sure they are defended.

Then of course, I'm insecure again. It means I do not have my security, and my sense of stability. Which means, of course, fighting tooth and nail to get it once more. Which means, in a matter of weeks, or months, people will complain once more, because I've done what I always do..
I think this is the crux of the problem.

In the end, it sounds like this person would prefer playing Quake and not playing the friendly-noble-by-day and flamboyant-rapier-wielding-vagabond by night. Unfortunatly this then starts getting into the realms of what is roleplaying and different styles of gaming, which are out-of-bounds.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: A few points...

kueidan
2006-03-04 06:46 pm UTC (link)

Yeah.. not in the setting. When I do play games like D&D or Shadowrun, my play style doesn't change much though.. I make characters who are efficient and skilled at the roles they're expected to play.

That was my primary complaint about D&D actually.. it is very hard to do the 'one shot, one kill' approach to your opponents, though I've been studying my brother's current game (I'm not playing) to learn the rules better for constructing my preferred character types (snipers, assassins, etc).

Shadowrun was a bit better.. but even there my motto is 'if you're spotted, your mission failed, regardless of outcome'. I'd take a week or two to plan what to do in a mission, do legwork, and try to slip in and out of an area without being spotted. Got pretty good at it too, though it frustrated the SR GM..

As to the enemy psychics.. the GM didn't think of it at all. Not my problem.

And no, I don't like FPSs at all. I do enjoy roleplaying, but I think the 'flamboyant' type are just being foolish. You kill your opponent, or otherwise eliminate them as a threat as quickly as possible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: A few points... -

salith, 2006-03-04 07:03 pm UTC

Re: A few points... -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:47 pm UTC

Re: A few points... -

shiftercat, 2006-03-05 12:33 am UTC

Re: A few points... -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-05 01:37 am UTC

Re: A few points... -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 01:56 am UTC

Re: A few points... -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 02:00 am UTC

Re: A few points... -

shiftercat, 2006-03-05 03:35 am UTC

Re: A few points... -

shiftercat, 2006-03-05 04:07 am UTC

	silentclarity 2006-03-04 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	Typical Creative Agenda mismatch. Hard to say for sure, but she's an avowed Gamist (nothing wrong with that) in a game that I'm guessing is full of Simulationists-by-habit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	zamiel 2006-03-04 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	I think she's evidencing more Simulationist thinking, really. Totally character tunnel-vision without considering there's a wider narrative going on. The focus on "winning" terminology is partly obscuring the fact she means it soley for her character. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 09:00 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 09:10 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 09:29 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 09:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 11:17 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 11:22 pm UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-05 02:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-05 02:21 am UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-05 02:38 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-05 02:41 am UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-05 06:10 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-05 10:56 pm UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-06 10:12 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-06 11:30 am UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-07 02:21 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-07 02:22 am UTC

(no subject) -

xuenay, 2006-03-07 02:41 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 10:57 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-04 11:01 pm UTC

(no subject) -

amokk, 2006-03-05 04:15 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-05 07:09 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 07:51 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 12:55 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 01:49 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 02:42 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 02:58 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 04:32 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 07:57 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 01:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 01:56 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 03:31 am UTC

(no subject) -

silentclarity, 2006-03-05 10:13 am UTC

(no subject) -

waiwode, 2006-03-05 02:37 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 01:15 am UTC

waiwode
2006-03-04 07:06 pm UTC (link)

My thoughts.

Is there anything wrong with what she did? I don't think so. She certainly isn't the first, nor even the thousanth, to try the old "sneak in and assassinate the leader" trick.*

And if you are capable of turning an enemy army into trees? Man, I couldn't resist that temptation.

As to wanting the quick reward over the long-term? It is unfortunate, if the rest of the group is concerned with long-term tropes and themes and moods, and does cast

kueidan as a bit of a Leeeroy Jenkins! But is she actively trying to undermine other people's good times, or just trying to have a good time? More the latter, I think.

That being said, MU** style games are dramatically unlike table-top games, and I can see why people are complaining as well. Ending a situation other people were enjoying should annoy people. Just like having the President decide to address the Nation about his new "More Taxes For the Common Man" Tax Reforms on TV ... right in the middle of your favourite TV show is annoying.

Still, there should be a wide gap between Player annoyance and Character annoyance. And sometimes one of them is deserved.

Finally. In table-top I might cite "the enjoyment of the group" as a factor if I felt one player was show-boating or stone-walling. In MU**'s? The other players are just random streams of electrons emitting from some room somewhere. It's nigh impossible to currently and correctly gauge player enjoyment before they provide you with feedback, at whihc time it's often too late to do anything about it. It's a problem with the medium.

Doug.

*And it is a good trick. Makes you wonder why it almost never happened, back there in history.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	waiwode 2006-03-04 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	*And by that I mean it happened a lot, but almost never in armed camps. Doug. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

voltbang, 2006-03-05 01:20 am UTC

silentclarity
2006-03-04 07:10 pm UTC (link)

While I agree with you that there's no malice in what kueidan does, I disagree that it's impossible in a MU* to determine whether or not other players are having fun.

Sure, you can't look at their faces - at the time. But based on reading Kueidan's post and some of the responses, I'd speculate on two things:
1) This isn't the first time Kueidan has done something like this.
2) This isn't the first time it's turned out like this (with other players in the game apparently being upset)

There is a feedback and reinforcement process happening - and it's just as functional as that in any tabletop RPG. Sure it's a bit delayed - but it's there and frankly it seems to be a big flashy red siren light.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

waiwode, 2006-03-04 07:28 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 08:49 pm UTC

kueidan
2006-03-04 08:51 pm UTC (link)

Well, okay, looking at this from a D&D perspective..
The PCs encounter a group of opponents.. twenty goblins or something. The party consists of rogues and fighters, itching for a heavy battle and a body count.

The mage fireballs the entire enemy group and wipes them out. He has fireball, he knows that if it becomes a dragged-out fight the rest of the group is going to get injured, he knows his life was at risk, and he didn't want anyone to get away and warn others.

Was the mage wrong?

What do you say, 'we're sorry, the mage isn't allowed to memorize fireball anymore, it ruins the other player's enjoyment'?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

entsuropi, 2006-03-04 09:04 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 09:05 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-04 09:26 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-04 11:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

entsuropi, 2006-03-05 12:11 am UTC

(no subject) -

creativedv8tion, 2006-03-05 12:24 am UTC

(no subject) -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 02:02 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 01:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

salith, 2006-03-04 09:07 pm UTC

(no subject) -

lederhosen, 2006-03-05 01:13 am UTC

kueidan
2006-03-04 09:03 pm UTC (link)

By the by.. I found the Leeroy Jenkins comment amusing, since it is completely antithetical to my way of thinking.

He charged in, ignoring all strategy, and then said it wasn't his fault.

I would have been the person crunching numbers, determining strategy, and trying to get the solution done with minimal loss of life, with maximum effectiveness. If it failed, I'd have taken full responsibility.

Completely yin-yang here. :>

Mind you.. I hate failing with a passion..

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

waiwode, 2006-03-04 10:48 pm UTC

inncubus
2006-03-05 12:56 am UTC (link)

It's interesting, she's got some valid points; it IS rather odd to sit around not doing anything when your followers/friends/whatever are dying in droves (and to an extent could be bad RPing to do so, what person in that situation wouldn't help...only the selfish profiteer types). On the other hand it also seems to have prevented other people doing what they found fun. I'm guessing that this is a group of players with wildly disparate power levels which causes problems anyway(but is more "realistic").
I'd probably get around it by creating a weaker character that can do their best(and still be working towards their own security etc) but still not be a solution in and of themselves, while still potentially being significant; I don't know if that would work for her or not.

It reminds me somewhat of one of the comment options from the CRPG "Baldur's Gate", it went something like "So you're a Harper, one of Elminster's lot? I don't know, with friends like that why do you even bother to walk.". If running a FR game it can be rather difficult to decide why the PCs should be so significant when there are already some stupidly powerful NPCs out there who can solve world-ending plotlines with a wave of their hand. They key is that the GM really has to have more things going on so that the powers tend to balence out a bit. For example Elminster is off in the abyss trying to stop something much worse than just the end of the world or whatever, and other people are needed to work on the smaller, but still big, problems.
In that example, the leaders should have been set up as being more protected or another threat calling for more urgent action should have been going on. That way everyone gets to play a part, without behaving stupidly and just hanging about.

I tend to think the main problem here is the game/the GM not taking things into account very well. Her method of play mentioned in Shadowrun sounds like it would fit most of the games I've played of it very well, being seen IS a big risk and should be avoided if it's possible. Although the difference is that's how the other folks in the game like to play too, clever thinking and tactics tend to beat blind firepower.

The only thing I think that does seem a bit unusual is that, from the way things have been stated, it seems like that's the only sort of character she'll play and while, if that's what works for her, there's nothing inherently wrong with that it does limit the types/styles of game that can be fun for her and others.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

creativedv8tion
2006-03-05 01:36 am UTC (link)

I'm guessing that this is a group of players with wildly disparate power levels which causes problems anyway(but is more "realistic").

It's a MU* game, so it's not a standard group of players (tabletop or online) but rather a community of players in the game. So, yes, there prolly are super-characters (obviously she plays one) and then varying degrees of others.

Which is fine... except for when the players of the god-like characters start using arguments like "realism" in a freaking game. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

inncubus, 2006-03-05 01:43 am UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 02:09 am UTC

(no subject) -

entsuropi, 2006-03-05 12:01 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 01:56 am UTC

xuenay
2006-03-05 02:07 am UTC (link)

The poster didn't do anything wrong, in my opinion. If her character's got strong powers, then it's only natural that she'll take advantage of them - to assume anything else would be ridiculous.

If anybody's to blame, it's the GMs for allowing such powerful characters. If they wanted the events in question to be bigger challenges, they'd either be fielding more powerful opponents or making the player characters weaker.

(Reply to this)

amokk
2006-03-05 04:17 am UTC (link)

I honestly don't see a problem with what happened. The situation (being a very powerful single character in the midst of lower powered characters who vastly outnumber you) is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Either you help and you use all your abilities (and do what happened, end the situation faster than people wanted), or you don't and you get bitched at for not helping, and they never take "because I'll end it and ruin your fun, so go have your little war" as a valid answer when they lose their character.

(Reply to this)

Spotting the Elephant

ijason
2006-03-05 06:09 am UTC (link)

Ok, here's what I see: There is a HUGE difficulty for this player in separating Self from Character. She seems incapable of providing her characters with any sense of logic, values, or process of thought other her own, real-life beliefs. I can't (and probably wouldn't) comment on whether or not what she does is role-playing, as my friends and I had quite a blast on several occasions making "ourselves" in various types of games and "playing" the stories through. Those characters weren't exactly us, as they were in different universes (yes, even the "realistic" universes were different - at least in circumstances), so they were "played."

BUT my point is this: Not everyone is a "efficiency rules the day" thinker. In games or in RL. The irony is that most people like Kueidan, because of the way they think, can NOT understand why other people don't think and act the same way. Which is why she can't create characters who think and act differently. There are bunches of people who think in this manner, but most of them aren't gamers, because to most people with this mindset, gaming is a waste of time - it doesn't accomplish anything, you can't "win" at it, so why play?

When they do play, it creates problems for the rest of us, because we tend to LIKE exploring the other trains of thought, the other value systems, etc. RP gamers, in the most part, are a fanciful bunch - dreamers, even - that's why RP games tend to appeal to us. So it comes as somewhat of a shock to have people like Kueidan steam-roll through our dream world and solve the issues without flare or drama.

Kueidan, to me, isn't a power-gamer, so much as she's a "tool user." Her characters (I would guess) tend to be the most effective extension of her own will into the gaming universe as is possible. They probably are not just the best at what they do, but what they do is probably the most effective profession in the given world. For example, I'm guessing she's never played a fighter who specialized in the whip, or a Thief with a higher strength than dexterity. Why? Because such a character isn't an efficient use of resources.

One might say she needs to understand that not everyone is born to their perfect profession, or that people don't always determine exactly where they best "fit" and then follow that path - in fact, some people spend their entire lives running as far from their "best fit" as possible. Her response would likely be that that those people are foolish, and usually failures. She would likely not be far off the mark, either - especially about the failure part.

While we can suggest that she try to play a character that's out of character for her (pardon the pun), one that won't, or can't become "the best" at what they do, I don't know that she would ever enjoy such a character. It's not the way her mind works (remember, she hates failure). I know how I would handle (and have handled, in the past) such a player as a GM, but I'm not going to say it's the "right way," or the only one.

I don't think, in a MU** environment, that anything can be done about the friction, unless Kueidan somehow discovers the joys of non-traditional characters. There's too much power available to good players - and make no mistake, she IS good at what she does; that's the problem, remember?

So that's my rambling, Vicoden-induced 2 cents. Do with it as you will.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Spotting the Elephant

kueidan
2006-03-05 08:10 am UTC (link)

While we can suggest that she try to play a character that's out of character for her (pardon the pun), one that won't, or can't become "the best" at what they do, I don't know that she would ever enjoy such a character.

I'm willing to break my mold, I've done it before. On this MUCK, I'm playing a mage/paladin.. first time I've tried playing a paladin, actually. I'm playing a psychic/cop.. first time doing that, too. I've never played a psychic before.

In the last (first) D&D game I've ever played, I went for a Rogue. My intent was to make a quick in-and-out sort of fighter, who flanks someone, and removes them from the fight as quickly as possible. Never played one before.

My previous characters?
A shugenja in L5R.. a petite, frail girl who used magic to manipulate the court and protect the rest of the group from the political side of the fence, so they could deal with the physical threats.

A ghost haunting her twin brother and possessing him off and on in Shadowrun. Half the time she was an intangible, ineffectual spirit who couldn't leave his side, the other half of the time she possessed his body so she could do things (they swapped places).

My characters aren't really your run-of-the-mill sorts. I do try for variety. But, when I pick a role for them, I do two things.. I develop whatever skills or talents are needed to survive in the setting the game master puts me in.. and I make my character progress as far as I can in their chosen field.

My shugenja was a nightmare for my brother in his campaign, and was relegated eventually to 'NPC'.. I'd do things in the background to help the players, and assisted with setting and other NPCs as needed.

My Shadowrun character, since I had to team up with my brother, was something else. He developed the character's street skills and contacts, I developed the magic side of things. That character was one of the most terrifying summoners the GM had ever seen. (We had no offensive spells to speak of. We had infiltration spells up the wazoo, but I decided it would be summoning we'd excel at).

I guess the most 'out of character' for me would be a character who was simply.. bad at what they did. Someone who did not progress or get better in their profession, and someone who was completely incapable of handling anything. And really? While I can see other players enjoying that? I couldn't in the slightest.

I live that every day of my life. Why would I want to do that as recreation?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

inscrutable, 2006-03-05 10:20 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 10:52 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 11:00 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 11:08 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 11:15 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 11:17 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

inscrutable, 2006-03-05 11:25 am UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

entsuropi, 2006-03-05 12:06 pm UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

ijason, 2006-03-05 06:40 pm UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

kueidan, 2006-03-05 10:00 pm UTC

Re: Spotting the Elephant -

ijason, 2006-03-06 02:13 am UTC

	100th Post! tashiro 2006-03-05 08:17 am UTC (link)
	100th Post! Seriously... I'm just going to sit back and watch. I've been finding it educational, but she's my sister, anything I say will be biased. o.o (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: 100th Post!

kyn_elwynn
2006-03-05 09:02 am UTC (link)

Post 101!
Enlightening indeed. I find many of the comments made by other gamers to be pretty standard. Though I have to say I find zamiel to on a bit of a high horse, that he's got this collective uber gaming knowledge and ettiquette and anything outside his box is wrong. Then again, I find kueidan both intriguing and frustrating at the same time to RP with so plusses and minuses all around.
Dogs in the Vineyards for everyone on this forum. Open your minds to real role-playing, then come back to your other games.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: 100th Post! -

waiwode, 2006-03-05 02:46 pm UTC

Re: 100th Post! -

zamiel, 2006-03-06 02:09 am UTC

Re: 100th Post! -

inncubus, 2006-03-05 01:01 pm UTC

Re: 100th Post! -

tashiro, 2006-03-06 01:42 am UTC

Re: 100th Post! -

xuenay, 2006-03-06 10:37 am UTC

silentclarity
2006-03-05 10:10 am UTC (link)

Nah, her CA is pure gamist through and through. The focus on in-character justifications is distracting - look at her out of game commentary - her focus as a player is on character effectiveness, efficiently dealing with challenges, etc. This is 100% Step on Up in action - and to be honest it's pretty refershing to see. There is a high focus on Exploration as well, but it's pretty thoroughly established that Sim can successfully exist as a subordinate priority to gamist play.

JD

(Reply to this) (Thread)

waiwode
2006-03-05 02:54 pm UTC (link)

GN ... S discussion ... making me ... black out. Must ... post response!

Once again, agree with you. Strange. I never agree with anybody. Gamist is the one "axis" that is most often misattributed or misunderstood, however to my pitiful and incomplete knowledge of The Three Letters, you've nailed it on the head.

However I must caution you that opening this particular can-of-worms can only help this lj-entry spiral up into its second hundred responses! :)

Doug.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

daemonfan
2006-03-06 03:15 pm UTC (link)

Seriously, "characters" like this are the reason I stopped playing any kind of MU*. There's always that one character who needs to be the best at everything, the other players be damned. You run into that sort of thing in Tabletop as well, but it's easier to deal with there.

To address the point about realism though; is it realistic for a character powerful enough to turn an entire army into trees to care about a bunch of soldiers dying in a war? Part of the problem here is bad GMing. The admin in charge of the event should have had a large threat for the high-level characters to deal with while the lower levels fought the rank and file. But kueidan isn't off the hook either. Every player in a game has a responsibility to every other player in the game to ensure that everyone has fun. You complain that other players were doing nothing while people were dying, but reading your other posts it seems to me that you are the kind of player who would have been upset if the other players had ended the seige without your character getting to show off. It's the classic loner character who never interacts with anyone and then steps in and solves everything in one fell swoop, why shouldn't the other players be upset about that?

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs