|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Feb 13, 2008 10:55:08 GMT
It seems that this whole thing is based on a misunderstanding - LH thought he had agreed with BSR that nothing would go ahead about a slave trade until he had asked the rest of us. Obviously something broke down in the communication. LH never meant for this to happen and my opinion is that we should try and sort it out, whether by retcon or some evil genius outside plot or whatever. eh - like I said I'm happy to leave things as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Feb 13, 2008 10:58:51 GMT
... there would be no need for retconning. So really all I wanted to do was have what I figured was an essentially pointless (pointless in the sense of altering anything other than our relationships) conversation amongst our characters... But no RP conversation should be pointless! Conversations serve to advance the story, not just detail the characters. I don't want to play a character in a story that's already been written - I want to play a character who's making the story! Also, by saying the above, you're assuming that our characters would have gone along with your slavery arguments - obviously if we'd disagreed in the discussion and decided not to use slaves, we would have needed to retcon. And above, you say ... which is another example of the same. Also... But how do you know the conversation isn't going to change a thing? Unless your character is so stubborn that no amount of discussion will change his mind, you can't be sure of that. (And if you were playing such a character, I'd encourage you to reconsider as they really aren't suitable for group RP. I know you're not doing that; this is just a side point.) Essentially when you say stuff like that it feels like you're trying to play our characters for us - and I know that isn't what you're trying to do and that isn't how you're trying to make us feel, but that's what it does feel like (again, for me at least). No matter how correct you are in your assumption that our characters would agree - and yes, you probably are right - it's still an assumption, and that's not really fair. For example, even if two people agree with you, what if one character disagrees with you really extremely? Then the other two characters might say e.g. "Yes, we agree with your points, Kairos - but since [e.g.] Fox is so adamant about this, let's just let him have his way on this one, ok?" Decisions don't always come down to a straight vote, as some characters feel more strongly than others. Ultimately, it puts players like me in a difficult position, because on the one hand I want to disagree and have a decent argument about it because that's what my character would do, but on the other hand I don't feel that I can do that because it risks having to retcon which I really don't like. So I feel like I have to go along with whatever you've said - which is not what I want from RP, obviously! Again, I know this isn't what you're intending to do, and I'm sure you didn't see it that way when you wrote that stuff - but do you see what I'm getting at and why I find it difficult and not especially fun? (As a character note, I should point out that actually if you discuss it with him Fox will probably come around - hence the need to retcon the current IC thread. But I'm using him just as an example here.) Indeed - and would therefore be better served by an IC discussion, if you are going to inject a "prequel" discussion in at all  Otherwise it really does sound like "Oh, I mentioned this to you guys. You were ok with it." Indeed there will - and I'm considering having Fox go off and do his own thing in between sessions for exactly that reason. However, my point was that in this case you could have avoided the problems by just going along with what was on the boards already. If you didn't feel your character would have done that, then yes we have a problem as clearly it won't be fun for you that way. However, I think we need a way to reconcile this, because otherwise it does make me and maybe others feel that they aren't being allowed to play their characters properly. I guess a bit of character-compromise on all sides is the first step. Important Final Note:I hope this doesn't sound like I'm having a go at you, LH. I really don't mean to as I Love you and RPing with you is super fun. I just need to make the points above because I think this is just going to come up again if we don't discuss a solution now - and also because I don't think it was clear that doing this makes me feel like I can't play my character the way I want to. Anyway, the most important point, more so than all the above, is: *hug*. |
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Feb 13, 2008 11:02:22 GMT
And yeah it is a shame that the misunderstanding might not occur but I had no way of knowing I was stopping anything happening, let alone anything cool. In fact, since I thought the conversation would not change a thing I just couldn't understand why there was a problem at all. I've got no problem with subsuming character to plot if we wanted to keep this as is, (or for that matter, whenever we need to again) but please tell me that I need to trust you and go along with things as they stand rather than talking about retcon or whatever. Sorry. I should have made it clearer that this is what I was trying to say. I know that you wouldn't have a problem with stuff. And I'm sorry if it had ceased being fun. Hopefully we can change that. In terms of what happens on the boards, and what happens in individual side quests (such as the salt mines thing we did - or the thing I am doing with BR) I am keeping an eye on all of it. And nothing will have consequences until I am satisifed that people have had their say. In this case someone mentioned the impending slaving to Fox during a side quest session with BR and he just reacted IC. I thought it would be cool if the two solars were working at odds with each other without realising it. Though obviously becuase LH posted and BR didn't - BR had OOC knowledge that LH did not, but IC you were in the same position. I know that LH didn't mean for any of this to happen - and certainly would have done things differently. It just added a nice touch to the story to me. I'd like to continue on as we are without retconning if possible. And while I am aware we need to sometimes I'm going to be trying to keep it to a minimum. |
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Feb 13, 2008 11:30:15 GMT
I can't use the quote function so... y'know pretend I'm making good quotes.
I was being glib when I referred to the conversation as "pointless (in the sense of altering anything other than our relationships)". Our relationships *are* the story, or at least a big part of it, and of course the conversation could change the story.
The reason I gave a 3-1 result if that O and MDV both told me, in PMs or in conversations that they would go along with it. I PMed O after Azir told Kairos that they needed to have a chat. I live with MDV. This was the only reason I was confident about the outcome.
Yes there are other variables, and so many cases where we would have a different outcome. But then if those happened, (and they could - I'm neither so stubborn IC or OOC, and I don't intend to use unnaturaly mental influence on you IC) then we'd retcon. I never had a problem with retconning, which I have said is sometimes necessary - I simply said I thought it was unlikely we would have to (something with which you agree) in this case, for the sake of argument.
Just to be clear - the *only* reason I wanted to have the conversation (preferably IC but I suggesst OOC for reasons of time) was so that I wouldn't be asserting control over the story and your characters (a role I quite happily refer to as 'The Josh'.
That was precisely the reason that I said to BSR in our face-to-face session when I first mentioned having slaves that I would need to check it all with you guys before any of it was canon. It's quite ironic that my attempts to stick to that - the idea that any major decisions should be made as a group, free of any social combat - have made people think I'm trying to control their characters.
To reiterate:
1) I wanted to have a conversation about the slave trade IC so that we would be making all decisions as a group, and I wouldn't be asserting control over the story or railroading other people's characters. I also think this would have been right for Kairos's character.
2) I therefore said to BSR in our face-to-face session that everything I did in the Salt Mines would have to be checked with people IC.
3) When the Social Engineering Thread popped up, it appeared I had missed my window and so I resorted to an OOC conversation, where I said what Kairos's arguments would be and what he would be willing to concede, hoping that it would turn out that we reached an agreement. This was always a speedy alternative to an IC thread
4) If we didn't agree, then we would have talked IC, disagreed, and Kairos would have been willing to cancel the slaves. This may have involved retconning, but I would have been happy to do that, especially given (2).
5) We then started arguing about whether we should have a conversation at all. When I made my arguments, I assumed certain outcomes to the discussion, OOC or IC, based exactly on what people had told me their characters would do. I used the fact that one specific outcome was likely to make what I hoped was a more convincing argument for having that conversation - that we wouldn't need to retcon.
6) That argument seems to have made it look as though I had made decisions regarding other people's characters without checking with them. I did think that the conversation would be 'pointless', but not because I was playing people's characters or writing the story, but because people had told me what their characters would want. In fact, the only reason I was so keen to have the 'pointless' conversation was because of (1) and (2). Of course, its been pointed out that I was taking too much for granted, but see (4) and my willingness to retcon had the assumptions I made for the sake of my argument turned out to be wrong.
Points of Agreement
Me playing other people's characters is A Bad Thing, and one person taking control over the story is A Bad Thing.
We're not having a go at each other, but the boards don't allow for the use of humble body language that would make that obvious in RL [fake stutters a lot]
BR's love is important to LH, more so now that the bond between Kilik and Fox is dead.
Causes of disagreement
1) General misunderstanding, poor ability to express ourselves.
2) 2 people had a cool plot device that needed to be kept secret, and so needed to make arguments without giving too much away. Leading to poor ability to express themselves.
Suggested solutions
1) friendship affirming hugs and compliments
2) ST decides between continuing without an IC discussion or having an IC discussion
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Feb 13, 2008 11:31:36 GMT
BSR hadn't posted when I started replying. I'm guessing we're going ahead as is, then. Man I'm going to performance excellency your arses |
|
|
|
Post by oneiros on Feb 13, 2008 12:00:33 GMT
Woah. I go away for a meeting (strangely enough about complaints handling) and come back to find this. Um, I'll have to hold my hand up and say I'm a little bit confused here as to what is going to happen. Are we going to leave it as Kairos *didn't* tell the group what was going to happen and - as I'm surmising from the above - Fox has roused the spirits of the populous, leaving the conflict in the square as it stands? As LH said, Azir doesn't have a problem with the plan in principle but believes it could have been handled differently. I'd like to have an IC convo coz I think it would be interesting and possibly foster more of a bond between Kairos & Azir - but that can still happen now. I would agree with BR in that it does seem as Kairos (and almost by inference LH, however unintentionally) has effected a fait accompli with the slaves but I accept a) that's not the way it was supposed to happen and b) that's not the way Kairos wants to act. But *hugs* all round and a general *yay* coz only enthusiastic commitment has a tendency to generate this level of emotion Azir would also like to make the point (and will do so in IC if possible) that we can't have social unrest if we're going to try and look good to the other countries when we host them. So - which way forward folks? |
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Feb 13, 2008 12:17:51 GMT
Whoops - didn't see there was a second page when I made my previous post. So I'm a little behind (and was then) I'll deliver a better response soon.
|
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Feb 13, 2008 12:33:45 GMT
Right, well. I think we have sorted out the basic 'we can all get along stuff' which is good - cos I don't think we will ever have a problem there, and so we shouldn't let it get in the way.
as for the story stuff, some broad points about PbP and the campaign in general:
(1) Retconning is bad. Sometimes necessary. But bad. We will try to avoid it wherever possible.
(2) Stuff happens in a chronological order. If you make a post - I will assume that is the next story-important thing you do. Hence a 'two weeks later' post eg. in the salt mines thread - means that nothing of import has happened in the intervening two weeks such as important IC discussions about the way to move the empire forward.
(2.1) as a corollary to 2, this will very much help avoid retconning, see (1)
(2.2) sometimes this can be annoying for the GM too. Valion and "Lord K" for example have been gone much longer than you guys expect, and indeed much longer than i had hoped becuase lots of stuff has happened. nervertheless, there won't be a 'oh we got back ages ago we've been here all along' thread, because of (1) and (2).
(3) an effort to improve over previous GMing attempts means that much less of the story will be apparant in advance. i promise that there is method in my madness. if things are not fun, or feel wrong, then we can certainly try to address that. but the story unfolds as it does. if there is a problem i'd rather move forward to tackle it than move back.
hope that seems sensible to people.
in this specific case we will say that Fox had disappeared to do other sutff and therefore was not in any discussion that might have been had. so the social engineering thread stands as is. we now have a lot more OOC knowledge, but IC nothing has changed.
i am anticipating that PbP will be a minor part of the campaign really. whilst i would like to run occasional side quests for individuals, i'd rather the focus was on live sessions. i know they don't always happen as often as we'd like. but c'est la vie.
|
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Feb 13, 2008 12:37:36 GMT
(4) all anger and resentment should be directed at the ST, since he should stop players from crapping on other players, and so there should be no issue with things other players have done.
(5) I love you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Feb 13, 2008 12:48:27 GMT
The reason I gave a 3-1 result if that O and MDV both told me, in PMs or in conversations that they would go along with it. I take your point, yes - but I stick by mine that without a discussion, preferably IC, you can't be sure of this so we still might need to retcon. Agreed as well. However, I perhaps haven't ranted strongly enough about how much I hate retconning. I really really do I won't go into full flow right now, but I will emphasise that I very strongly dislike it. So that's why the "don't put up a proper argument" vs. "retcon" decision was particularly hard for me - even though retconning might not seem like such a bad solution to you. Indeed I see what you mean, but to me the only way to be sure of keeping control of Fox had the inherent risk of retcon. Do you see what I mean? I know you weren't trying to control my character, but by putting me in the situation where complete character freedom meant risk of the despised retcon, I was pretty much in a no-win situation. Point taken again - though I'd still rather go IC from the start in these situations, I think. That bond will never die. My preferred solution, given that we've had the disruption and everything so a retcon won't add any more on top of that, would be to start over, i.e. to hold on the Salt Mines and Social Engineering threads, have an IC discussion of the slaves thing, since Kairos wants to, and then to either continue on or scrap the two existing IC threads once the discussion has concluded and we can see whether they're still valid. Other suggestions welcome though. I see BSR has posted again before I hit send. Suggested solutions: 1. Blackrat to stop being so damn wordy. 2. Everyone else to have some god-damn work to do  |
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Feb 13, 2008 12:55:21 GMT
in this specific case we will say that Fox had disappeared to do other sutff and therefore was not in any discussion that might have been had. so the social engineering thread stands as is. we now have a lot more OOC knowledge, but IC nothing has changed. That resolution sounds fine to me. However, I still think we should finish the slaves discussion (sans Fox) before continuing on the other threads. This may be just a case of confirming with MDV and Oneiros that they don't need to have one, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Feb 13, 2008 12:55:36 GMT
You see how BSR posts 3 times in a row- that's just post whoring. Can we have a long talk about that?
Also, right there with you re. wordiness
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Feb 13, 2008 12:58:14 GMT
Gimme half an hour to write up my post about how your mum is with me on the wordiness, and I'll be right with you.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Feb 13, 2008 12:59:11 GMT
(Not to mention her post whoring heh heh heh how did I miss that the first time?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Feb 13, 2008 13:01:28 GMT
I hate you
|
|
Otherwise it really does sound like "Oh, I mentioned this to you guys. You were ok with it."
