PbP frustration

[Blackrat]

admin said:

[forgive my rank hypocrisy here, but can we save OOC chat for the OOC board unless it directly relates to the content of the thread?

Ok, fine. Here it is.

Our current PbP sucks. It's dominated by those who can post frequently, to the cost of those who can't, and by those who want to move action forward, to the cost of those who want to discuss it first. Exactly who's in those groups might vary, but nonetheless it's unfair.

Given that my character is the only compassion >1 character apart from Ferric (who's only Comp 2), I am always going to be at odds with the group, and thus I am always going to want to discuss things before we do them. Thus I can't really participate in PbP - and frankly, it doesn't bode well for the face-to-face sessions either.

The solutions are as follows:

Short-Term: I remove the problem of my character being at odds with the group. Fox drops to Comp 1, or drops out entirely, perhaps to be replaced by a new, Comp 1, character.

Long-Term: As I've said before - several times - we should be aiming to create characters that fit together, or at least that can accommodate one another when they don't. As I've also said, we should only be attempting to PbP stuff that actually suits that very different medium. This does not include large group stuff, really. I know that's annoying for those who have lots of time and want to use it all RPing, but there you go. Find some sub-quests to go on.

Any thoughts welcome. Default conclusion, though, is that I'll discuss my character options (above) with BSR.

Apologies for the brusqueness; am at work and not a lot of time to post. Also apologies for the complaints, but I'm really not enjoying this and I'd rather discuss it than just sulk or drop out.

[cardinalsin]

1) I think it is a problem that some characters effectively don't get to act (when in a session they would have done so) because their rate of posting isn't high enough. This includes, but is not limited to, seeking discussion. I think my proposed solution would probably be to limit the use of the forums to discussing plans, with an explicit assumption that no decision is firm until all parties to it have had a chance to read and post. An exception could be made for IC interactions where all players present have agreed to it, as an alternative to one-off sessions for those interactions and/or doing it in the main session.

2) I think the Compassion thing is a separate (though somewhat related) issue. I'd like a discussion about what Compassion 1 really means. When I was genning Raiden I asked BSR about the virtue system because I was puzzled by the apparent need to take at least one ridiculously low virtue (the book says level 1 "implies deficiency") in order to get Willpower higher than 5. BSR replied that a virtue of 1 doesn't really imply deficiency as such. Compassion 1 means you're means-justify-ends, not that you are a total b@stard. It looks a bit like it is currently being interpreted as "you are a total b*stard".

3) Relatedly, there is the question of whether characters with differing Compassion levels can co-exist. I think it hinges on the above question about what Cmp1 means. A high CMP character can probably co-exist with a means-justify-ends person. They probably can't co-exist with a total b#stard. I prefer the means-justify ends interpretation, since it assumes we're all basically working for some broadly "good" goal, but might disagree on how we achieve it; and I enjoy IC moral debate. If we go with the "total b%stard" approach then we're effectively in a villains campaign. Is this where we want to be?

[Learned Hand]

cardinalsin said:

1) I think it is a problem that some characters effectively don't get to act (when in a session they would have done so) because their rate of posting isn't high enough. This includes, but is not limited to, seeking discussion. I think my proposed solution would probably be to limit the use of the forums to discussing plans, with an explicit assumption that no decision is firm until all parties to it have had a chance to read and post. An exception could be made for IC interactions where all players present have agreed to it, as an alternative to one-off sessions for those interactions and/or doing it in the main session.?

I think that would be a good compromise.

As for the comp issue, I've been playing Kairos very much as somebody who does want the best for the common folk but, as CS says, thinks that this end is worth a hell of a lot of horrible things happening along the way. They're not to be enjoyed but at the same time they're necessary. (That probably wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't also incredibly intemperate). I like the idea that Fox and Azir (and Ferric who I think is not evil) will hold him back and convince him that more than 5 minutes thought might reveal another strategy and in that sense I think we have compatible characters.

[Blackrat]

I agree with both the above, that mixed-Comp characters can work, but only if discussion is allowed. Otherwise one or other group gets ignored - and this is exactly what happens in PbP.

LH, I specifically was trying to convince you (and others) that the torture strategy wasn't optimal, but got overruled because the thread moved forward without addressing my point. Your "Kairos wouldn't be interested in the out-of-room discussion" didn't imply that you were willing to discuss it...

It is this (PbP preventing discussion) that is my concern - the mix of Comp characters is just an example of what causes the problem to show up. In principle it should work; in practice it doesn't - at least with our current approach to PbP.

I'm happy to at least try the resolution in CS's point (1) if that will satisfy everyone. However, it will slow down PbP dramatically. If people don't mind that, great.

On an unrelated note - CS, much as I'm enjoying your trek across the nether regions of your keyboard, you can say "bastard" on this forum

[oneiros]

Yeah, I agree to the compromise. I'll fully admit to getting carried away - especially when I have lulls in work like at the moment (that is likelt to change in the next few weeks though) and with embracing the setting.

I don't see Com 1 as necessarily being complete @rse but as CS says, ends-justifies-the-means. If anyone watches it, Azir is pretty much Greg House in terms of he sees things (and people) as challenges and deals dispassionately with most scenarios. He is temperate enough to be voice of reason though and knows that heartlessness is not the way to achieve goals (other than when he's in limit break ) But he is a firm believer in expediency - which is why he kinda walks a line between Fox and Kairos (see the slavery discussion). Fox has convinced him of the glories of the U/Sun though his interpretation may require a little work.

But as you say, that doesn't necessarily come across well enough in PbP without more discussion.

[Blackrat]

Addendum: While mixed-Comp parties can work in theory, it's particularly difficult to maintain when only one of the party is on the high end. It basically requires a massive suspension of disbelief, because IC Fox doesn't think any of the other characters have the same vision that he does, and would just leave.

Also I agree with CS that we need to clarify Comp 1 / Comp 2. As I read the rules, Comp 1 is "deficient" - i.e. heartless. "Ends justify means" - so what LH describes for Kairos - is Comp 2, high Conviction.

[Blackrat]

cardinalsin said:

I enjoy IC moral debate.

admin said:

I like the idea that Fox and Azir (and Ferric who I think is not evil) will hold him back and convince him that more than 5 minutes thought might reveal another strategy and in that sense I think we have compatible characters.

Sorry, one more thing... I think the above reveal the real potential flaw in mixed-Comp parties: I really don't enjoy IC moral debate. Every campaign I play in seems to focus on that rather than the story, and frankly I'm beginning to find it really tedious. I don't want to spend half (or in fact any significant proportion) of this campaign doing IC compassion-related debates. I don't think we're at that stage yet, but it certainly looks like that's where we might be headed.

[Learned Hand]

Maybe I play Kairos as comp 2; the rules in exalted are rubbish sometimes and I think virtues is one such time.

Can I suggest that when we use these forums to plan our course of action as CS suggested we do so OOC.

(1) quicker.
(2) avoids lengthy moral debates. BR can say what Fox wants, I can say what K wants and we can end up somewhere in the middle by the 3rd post.
(3) is what we do during a session anyway, I don't see why we should make things harder for ourselves on an already difficult medium.

[Blackrat]

admin said:

Maybe I play Kairos as comp 2; the rules in exalted are rubbish sometimes and I think virtues is one such time.

Yeah, agreed - virtues are a bit daft. It's immaterial really - contrary to my "we need to clarify" above Sorry.

Can I suggest that when we use these forums to plan our course of action as CS suggested we do so OOC.

(1) quicker.
(2) avoids lengthy moral debates. BR can say what Fox wants, I can say what K wants and we can end up somewhere in the middle by the 3rd post.
(3) is what we do during a session anyway, I don't see why we should make things harder for ourselves on an already difficult medium.

Sounds good to me.

[oneiros]

blackrat said:

Yeah, agreed - virtues are a bit daft. It's immaterial really - contrary to my "we need to clarify" above Sorry.

Bit like the D&D alignment system but with extra numbers really

But yeah, happy to go with the proposed plan.

For the record, I do like IC moral angsting (chars should have differing personalities, which may lead to disagreements on occasion) but as BR says, there's a distinct tendency for such to overwhelm /derail a storyline and I don't want that to happen. I feel the train's been rocking a few times but we haven't hit a vicious snag just yet.

[Blackrat]

oneiros said:

Bit like the D&D alignment system but with extra numbers really

But yeah, happy to go with the proposed plan.

For the record, I do like IC moral angsting (chars should have differing personalities, which may lead to disagreements on occasion) but as BR says, there's a distinct tendency for such to overwhelm /derail a storyline and I don't want that to happen. I feel the train's been rocking a few times but we haven't hit a vicious snag just yet.

Yeah, I'm happy to do it sometimes, for the reason you highlight; I just don't think it should constantly be getting in the way of progressing the story.

Also, BSR can vouch for the fact that I have a barely-contained hatred for (and incredulity of) the D&D alignment system. His ears have suffered as a result of this on many occasions.

[cardinalsin]

Yes, I agree with what everyone said. Even where it was contradictory.

Incidentally, I think the boards could still be a pretty good medium for one-to-one interactions, or even just description of actions taken by individual characters. I am therefore proposing to continue with the interrogation thread, once I have a spare moment to write it.

Also: I totally agree that IC moralising 24/7 would be boring. It's the flash-points that are interesting. But generally more so in the context of a reasonably fleshed-out system of morals rather than one described by four numbers.

[Blackrat]

cardinalsin said:

Incidentally, I think the boards could still be a pretty good medium for one-to-one interactions, or even just description of actions taken by individual characters.

Agreed. After some PM discussion, LH and I reckon that first actions should be discussed by all characters, so that the concerns and opinions of all characters are heard, and then second the discussion should be acted on, but by a small group of characters - say 2 or 3. Obviously they should take the others' opinions into account when doing this, but they can overrule them if they feel it's appropriate. Equally obviously, they should be prepared for possible IC fall-out if they do so.

This will take a bit more organisation, but I think it will make the whole thing more manageable, less likely to grind to a halt every so often, and more enjoyable for everyone.

Unless anyone disagrees, I think we should make this policy from now on. (Feel free to disagree, though - not trying to rush to a conclusion.)

[bravesirrobin]

I fully support the discussion that has gone on here and the conclusion reached. I have mostly wanted PBP to be more for overall action descriptions in narrative time, rather than high action/drama threads which should be done face-to-face ideally.

Also to give my own interpretation on the compassion debate. A characters personality should be defined by the overall spread of his virtues (not to mention looking at other dots too). The DnD system has two 3 point scales allowing 3^2=9 different alignments. Exalted has four 5 point scales allowing really for 5^4 = 625 different possibilities.

The true definition of heartless bastard would IMO be com1, tem1, conv5, val4 or thereabouts. (so kairos is not too far off in some ways - he has the intelligence to be restrained by those around him), though potentially could be achieved with low conviction and high valour - you'd care about nothing but would kill on a whim. low compassion with high temperance means your end-justifies-means kind of person.

i can give each person a summary of what I think there virtue spread says about their personality if desired. obviously you're all more than capable of doing this on your own, just might be useful to have one overview type thing.

[Blackrat]

bravesirrobin said:

Also to give my own interpretation on the compassion debate. A characters personality should be defined by the overall spread of his virtues (not to mention looking at other dots too). The DnD system has two 3 point scales allowing 3^2=9 different alignments. Exalted has four 5 point scales allowing really for 5^4 = 625 different possibilities.

I don't think that's really true. It relies on two assumptions:

1. That the four virtues are independent. I don't think they are, entirely. (And surely that's what you mean about judging on the spread rather than a single virtue. If they were independent you could do the latter.)

2. That each point on each scale implies a different personality. I don't think it does - one could argue that 1 and 2 are different, though as discussed we're not really playing them as such. But really there's not much difference between 3, 4 and 5 - just extremity, which is hard to judge non-mechanically.

(In D&D this would correspond to different scores on the percentage alignment scales, within the same alignment box. In theory D&D has 100^2 = 10,000 different personality spreads but realistically the numbers scale just doesn't correspond to differences in personality.)

Anyway, this is way off-topic now. I'm just too opinionated, sorry