Kick ass game last Saturday!- 03/01/2008 Props Thread!

Hi there!

Just throwing out a few props to one of the best games in a while!

What I liked about last game-

Props to Amber for making a political game happen! It's a great relief to see a praxis taken with political backing rather that violence. A leader that has the vested interest of the Primogen is always a better game rather than the mass bloodshed-prince-of-the-week one.

Props to Clay for sharing his new Catiff's world views, and being the all singing, all dancing sign of Gehenna.

Props to Darrin for making violence precise, swift, and surgical instead of a blunt instrument as it has usualy been.

And finaly...

Props to Dustin, Darrin, Jacob, and Joe for turning the game into one far more dangerous by the introduction of deep political hardball. It has been my belief that these sortsa of macinations will make the game grow in a far more positive (for lack of a better word) direction.



Seriously folks, a political game will be far more entertaining and interesting rather than a violent one. This is not to say that violence does not have a place in our game, it just good to see that it will be less common. I've always seen it as the easy out, the cheap victory. The ability to run political circles arround your enemy and make them suffer is the hallmark of a superior player and I believe that with the new turn of events that our game has just gotten better.


I'm looking forward to next game allready!

~Sean

Not too sure how I feel about an all political game, as my mind doesn't lend itself to politics very well at all......but I will say I was pleasantly suprised to see a few more people then the last time we gathered at the "blood pit" or "Cthulu house"....
Still, last night was my third such event, and as a relative noob to your events, I have to say I'm begining to enjoy it.
Now if only I can get my wife's schedule adjusted to fit the game better...



Jim

Props

Mr. Black, for playing Dusk against himself
Dr. Frost, for having a spare spine to loan the Primogen council.
Amy Hartzler, for talking to the Primogen council.

This (hopefully) stable domain has been brought to you by the machinations of such contributers as (most of) your Primogen council, Archon Lexington, and players like (most of) you.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Not too sure how I feel about an all political game, as my mind doesn't lend itself to politics very well at all......but I will say I was pleasantly suprised to see a few more people then the last time we gathered at the "blood pit" or "Cthulu house"....
Still, last night was my third such event, and as a relative noob to your events, I have to say I'm begining to enjoy it.
Now if only I can get my wife's schedule adjusted to fit the game better...

Jim

Politics is what makes or breaks games. Anyone can make a Kull the Conqueror character, buff up their dex + alertness, and then rely on celerity to carry them through without having to think their way through things. It's kinda like what I call bumper sticker idealism- If you can sum up your political idealology on a bumpersticker, you have a bigger problem.

Same thing with violence in Vampire, too much of it and you'll literally kill your game.

Political settings that characters can sink their teeth into is a far cry more cerebral that an entire night of Rock Paper Scissors. It's far more satisfying than whacking your enemy like a bad 80's action movie.

Again, this is not to say that violence does not have a place in the game, it just needs to be used in a surgical fashion rather than a blunt instrument, which has been commonplace.

~Sean

Well I like violence, I like vampires as evil hard core monsters prone to frenzy and killing. I like sharks and kill or be killed. I like a game where political mechanations mean you are good enough at politics to overcome violence with words instead of action all the better to inflict your violence.

I find magical floating instant elysiums just add water as not in the rules or intent of the game, and strange NPC enforced story teller actions/ npc edicts not supported in cannon meant to quell violence as heavy handed and not fun for me.

I may be in the minority, I might not be, but for those of us that like Darwinian, hard core rules for vampire that follow cannon exactly, sign me up and I just wanted to speak up for myself and them. There is already a padded "safe room" vampire out there E capital C, capital C that runs very much like a vampire retirement home and bills itself as a "political game that doesn't have a prince of the week".

If I find myself glaring at unstopable NPC's with constant loathing, a feeling of pressure ooc that I am "disrupting the social game" with the actions my character would take, and I can't walk five feet without hitting elysium, then you wont see me at DRC.

Clay

McBastard wrote:

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Not too sure how I feel about an all political game, as my mind doesn't lend itself to politics very well at all......but I will say I was pleasantly suprised to see a few more people then the last time we gathered at the "blood pit" or "Cthulu house"....
Still, last night was my third such event, and as a relative noob to your events, I have to say I'm begining to enjoy it.
Now if only I can get my wife's schedule adjusted to fit the game better...

Jim

Politics is what makes or breaks games. Anyone can make a Kull the Conqueror character, buff up their dex + alertness, and then rely on celerity to carry them through without having to think their way through things. It's kinda like what I call bumper sticker idealism- If you can sum up your political idealology on a bumpersticker, you have a bigger problem.

Same thing with violence in Vampire, too much of it and you'll literally kill your game.

Political settings that characters can sink their teeth into is a far cry more cerebral that an entire night of Rock Paper Scissors. It's far more satisfying than whacking your enemy like a bad 80's action movie.

Again, this is not to say that violence does not have a place in the game, it just needs to be used in a surgical fashion rather than a blunt instrument, which has been commonplace.

~Sean

Saint wrote:

Well I like violence, I like vampires as evil hard core monsters prone to frenzy and killing. I like sharks and kill or be killed. I like a game where political mechanations mean you are good enough at politics to overcome violence with words instead of action all the better to inflict your violence.

See, what I think you're looking for here is a Sabbat Game. The Sabbat focuses on "vampires as evil hard core monsters prone to frenzy and killing" while Vampire focuses on the Vampire as a Tragic Character who becomes a monster over time. (VtM:3rd, pg 22) Furthermore, it describes *Human* life becomming worthless, not all life. A nice wrap it up is the Vampires self description as Kindred, something that even the most ancient of them do. Those who have embraced their inner beast call themselves Vampires for that is what they believe they are

Vampire is about personal horror, the loss of humanity, and the downward spiral of a monsterous existance. What you are taking about is the embrace of the monster, which is the providence of the Sabbat.

Saint wrote:

I find magical floating instant elysiums just add water as not in the rules or intent of the game, and strange NPC enforced story teller actions/ npc edicts not supported in cannon meant to quell violence as heavy handed and not fun for me.

What Elysiums are you talking about? There are no real hard and fast rules about where an elysium is (VtM: 3rd, pg. 43), just a few ideas about where they are and what sort of behavior you should be able to expect.

Alternatively, omething about turn about is fair play comes to mind.

However let's not pretend that there are any hard and fast rules in a political game. It's entirely based on whatever characters can get away with, that's the only rule. Furthermore cannon is subjective at best, as are the laws of Vampire Society. What, the 2nd tradition isn't a catch all for whatever the prince wants? Show me exactly what it intends and the limits of it power and I'll bet there are a dozen things that will contradict it. Last, violence used as the only means to an end is juvenile and a real detractor from the game as a whole. Personally, it's blatent use and abuse is what I see that has made us loose as many players as we have. Some people want to be in a Shakespearian tragedy where their possible death will mean something, not random victim # 46 of a John Singleton film.

Saint wrote:

I may be in the minority, I might not be, but for those of us that like Darwinian, hard core rules for vampire that follow cannon exactly, sign me up and I just wanted to speak up for myself and them. There is already a padded "safe room" vampire out there E capital C, capital C that runs very much like a vampire retirement home and bills itself as a "political game that doesn't have a prince of the week".

Clay, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you believe what you just said.

1) Direct Canon is subjective at best. There are aligations, alusions, and perspective on truth but very little is concrete and often it is contradictory. Show me something in cannon wirtten one way, and I'll show you where it's written another. Like I said, with a few exceptions, the political system is subjective and it has been and always be a case of what you can get away with.

2) While ECC does have an NPC Prince, they did have a PC Prince for a very long time. We have a PC Prince who took Praxis and has political backing. Sticking as close to cannon as exactly as one can, this is the way it usually is for immortals to hold power (VtM: 3rd, pg. 35 & 36). You can't do it unless you have support or if you do it will be extreemly short. Putting it another way, what was taken with violence will be lost with violence. That which is taken politically will be much harder to loose because those that chose the prince have (or at least should have) a vested interest in keeping them there.

3) What was the intended design for the shot at ECC? I'd like to think that we're better than that, and moreover the continued animosity between our groups does nothing more than breed a continued adverstiy that really serves no point other than feeding ego's. I can understand not liking a group, or disagreeing with a playstyle, or even just not liking the people. I just like to think that we're above petty gripes and snide comments. We're the good guys, right?

Saint wrote:

If I find myself glaring at unstopable NPC's with constant loathing, a feeling of pressure ooc that I am "disrupting the social game" with the actions my character would take, and I can't walk five feet without hitting elysium, then you wont see me at DRC.

Clay

Well, everyone needs to understand that when something becomes a waste of their time then it's time to do something else. A friend of mine gave me a phrase that I'm holding onto alot closer than I once would have

"Don't fuck with my free time. I don't have enough just to hand out."

If DRC becomes a game of who can build the most physical badass character and it comes down to who has the highest inititaive then I'll quit because a game where violence is golden is nothing more than a boffer LARP that uses RPS. However I believed that the game could change for the better and last week it did. Was it perfect? Well, not ecaxtly, but sometimes you must break a thing to create something better. Last week we had a game that somewhat fumbled it's way into a more political setting, but it will ultimately lead to a better game in the future.

Just my thoughts.

~Sean

1. I think the Camarilla venue can be exciting the clan books for Cammies certainly are. Theo Bell isn't a nap time socialite.

2. I think that this game is slowly morphing into ECC, and the parallels become more obvious each day, if you can't see it I wont explain it.

3. You are gonna think I am saying this because I am not playing the prince anymore
( no doubt you will try to rebut my statement for the sake of doing so), truth be told and you can consult the story tellers on this I wanted to get out of that a while ago, and was sending in my new sheet/concept months ago as many of you know. My reason for this is I can't really enjoy the whackeyness going on in our game and didn't want to be pivital in propegating it ooc onto our game.

4. Game is becoming "gay" I can't say it more simplely, gay, and not the good kind where I can get it on with a young thai man pretending to be a woman and I only find out half way through, but the bad kind where I feel like I am on the recieving end of a guy pretending to be a bear and I know from the start and he is out of lube. I'm sorry but that is just a little too much hair in my teeth for me thanks. My appologies to others for the graphic image, but that perfectly captures how I am starting to feel lately.

As to why I don't "go somewhere else to waste my free time" as you sugest, well I put a lot into this Game, I've been here since day one, donating to events, bringing new players, securing game sites, spending my week end putting up fliers since day one, donating materials to game and a shit load of time. So pardon me for watching what is fun about this game slowly slip by the way side as another lauds it. Just consider this a counter point, because while I am saying it, I'm not the only one alone in my views, and this is a chance to make things better for everyone, there is a way you can have game for everyone, I'm not saying game needs to be one way or another, but there is balance, and it isn't working out well in my eyes. Then again the story teller elections next month should hash all this out.

That's all I have to say about this, anything else is just a flame war.

Clay

McBastard wrote:

Saint wrote:

Well I like violence, I like vampires as evil hard core monsters prone to frenzy and killing. I like sharks and kill or be killed. I like a game where political mechanations mean you are good enough at politics to overcome violence with words instead of action all the better to inflict your violence.

See, what I think you're looking for here is a Sabbat Game. The Sabbat focuses on "vampires as evil hard core monsters prone to frenzy and killing" while Vampire focuses on the Vampire as a Tragic Character who becomes a monster over time. (VtM:3rd, pg 22) Furthermore, it describes *Human* life becomming worthless, not all life. A nice wrap it up is the Vampires self description as Kindred, something that even the most ancient of them do. Those who have embraced their inner beast call themselves Vampires for that is what they believe they are

Vampire is about personal horror, the loss of humanity, and the downward spiral of a monsterous existance. What you are taking about is the embrace of the monster, which is the providence of the Sabbat.

Saint wrote:

I find magical floating instant elysiums just add water as not in the rules or intent of the game, and strange NPC enforced story teller actions/ npc edicts not supported in cannon meant to quell violence as heavy handed and not fun for me.

What Elysiums are you talking about? There are no real hard and fast rules about where an elysium is (VtM: 3rd, pg. 43), just a few ideas about where they are and what sort of behavior you should be able to expect.

Alternatively, omething about turn about is fair play comes to mind.

However let's not pretend that there are any hard and fast rules in a political game. It's entirely based on whatever characters can get away with, that's the only rule. Furthermore cannon is subjective at best, as are the laws of Vampire Society. What, the 2nd tradition isn't a catch all for whatever the prince wants? Show me exactly what it intends and the limits of it power and I'll bet there are a dozen things that will contradict it. Last, violence used as the only means to an end is juvenile and a real detractor from the game as a whole. Personally, it's blatent use and abuse is what I see that has made us loose as many players as we have. Some people want to be in a Shakespearian tragedy where their possible death will mean something, not random victim # 46 of a John Singleton film.

Saint wrote:

I may be in the minority, I might not be, but for those of us that like Darwinian, hard core rules for vampire that follow cannon exactly, sign me up and I just wanted to speak up for myself and them. There is already a padded "safe room" vampire out there E capital C, capital C that runs very much like a vampire retirement home and bills itself as a "political game that doesn't have a prince of the week".

Clay, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you believe what you just said.

1) Direct Canon is subjective at best. There are aligations, alusions, and perspective on truth but very little is concrete and often it is contradictory. Show me something in cannon wirtten one way, and I'll show you where it's written another. Like I said, with a few exceptions, the political system is subjective and it has been and always be a case of what you can get away with.

2) While ECC does have an NPC Prince, they did have a PC Prince for a very long time. We have a PC Prince who took Praxis and has political backing. Sticking as close to cannon as exactly as one can, this is the way it usually is for immortals to hold power (VtM: 3rd, pg. 35 & 36). You can't do it unless you have support or if you do it will be extreemly short. Putting it another way, what was taken with violence will be lost with violence. That which is taken politically will be much harder to loose because those that chose the prince have (or at least should have) a vested interest in keeping them there.

3) What was the intended design for the shot at ECC? I'd like to think that we're better than that, and moreover the continued animosity between our groups does nothing more than breed a continued adverstiy that really serves no point other than feeding ego's. I can understand not liking a group, or disagreeing with a playstyle, or even just not liking the people. I just like to think that we're above petty gripes and snide comments. We're the good guys, right?

Saint wrote:

If I find myself glaring at unstopable NPC's with constant loathing, a feeling of pressure ooc that I am "disrupting the social game" with the actions my character would take, and I can't walk five feet without hitting elysium, then you wont see me at DRC.

Clay

Well, everyone needs to understand that when something becomes a waste of their time then it's time to do something else. A friend of mine gave me a phrase that I'm holding onto alot closer than I once would have

"Don't fuck with my free time. I don't have enough just to hand out."

If DRC becomes a game of who can build the most physical badass character and it comes down to who has the highest inititaive then I'll quit because a game where violence is golden is nothing more than a boffer LARP that uses RPS. However I believed that the game could change for the better and last week it did. Was it perfect? Well, not ecaxtly, but sometimes you must break a thing to create something better. Last week we had a game that somewhat fumbled it's way into a more political setting, but it will ultimately lead to a better game in the future.

Just my thoughts.

~Sean

Ok....next time I see what I view as a stupid remark, I'll take the high road and say nothing.
Seems like me saying anything is an excuse for people to start an argument that need not be.
Just like real life....
I'm of the opinion, which I know you don't share Sean, that a good game mixes both excessive violence, and political intrigue. Take one of those away and you're left with, what exactly?
If you take the intrigue away....people say it's too violent. If you take away all the violence it's just a bunch of people in a PUD building stroking each others minds.
Not something I'm up for by the way.
Besides, as I recall from all the vampire games I've EVER played, it is the most fun when vamps are violent, crafty creatures with plans within plans. Take away all the blood,guts and gore, and you're left with what looks like a presidential election. LAME!
Like I've told certain people in the past, if it isn't fun I'll not long be part of it.

Saint wrote:

1. I think the Camarilla venue can be exciting the clan books for Cammies certainly are. Theo Bell isn't a nap time socialite.

No, but he's one out of 13+ howmany bloodlines? Certainly NOT a majority.

Saint wrote:

2. I think that this game is slowly morphing into ECC, and the parallels become more obvious each day, if you can't see it I wont explain it.

DRC was BASED in ECC from everything from the System to the ST Heirarchy, so what did you expect? There are several ST differences that are still there (Like a PC Prince) so stop with the insinuation that ECC is bad just because they're not us. Furthermore, as they have at least three times our membership numbers, they must be doing something right. So let's stop bashing on them with the undertone that we are somehow slipping. It's just cheap.

Saint wrote:

3. You are gonna think I am saying this because I am not playing the prince anymore
( no doubt you will try to rebut my statement for the sake of doing so), truth be told and you can consult the story tellers on this I wanted to get out of that a while ago, and was sending in my new sheet/concept months ago as many of you know. My reason for this is I can't really enjoy the whackeyness going on in our game and didn't want to be pivital in propegating it ooc onto our game.

...and what does that have to do with the price of Tea? Let's stay on topic here. specifically what "Wackyness" are you referring to? Seriously, lets discuss this and see where you think that others have made mistakes. I don't mind doing a little research, but do understand that most of what WW prints is HEAVILY innundated by context.

Saint wrote:

4. Game is becoming "gay" I can't say it more simplely, gay, and not the good kind where I can get it on with a young thai man pretending to be a woman and I only find out half way through, but the bad kind where I feel like I am on the recieving end of a guy pretending to be a bear and I know from the start and he is out of lube. I'm sorry but that is just a little too much hair in my teeth for me thanks. My appologies to others for the graphic image, but that perfectly captures how I am starting to feel lately.

Ok. Visual asside, why do you see the game as gay?

From the above statement (and this is just me speaking for myself here) all I can say is criticizing without basis or suggested solution is whining. I've not only heard this from you, but from Jason and Kyle as well. From what I've heard from y'all collectively the ENTIRE basis for your bitching is that you are not getting what you want or things the way you want it, nothing more. It's that sort of mindset, the one where people place their personal demands over the good of the game as a whole, that damages the game the most. I think that most people do not want the kind of game that you are demanding (Hence most of the resistance the three of you get from the ST staff), and I think that it's time that the lot of you realize that and make a few decisions from there. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just believe that friends should be able to be honest with each other, and since neither one of our rents or house payments are dependant on the outcome of this conversation, it should not be a big deal.

Case in point- At ECC Jason Killed, threatened, and coerced his way to the top. This is fine to a point however the more power you gain, the more you have to start thinking as to what will be for the good of the game. If you are not willing to do that, then you are partially to blame for the games denegration. At ECC the ST's would not allow Jason to go on a killing spree because it would damage their game.

They made the right call. The ST's have to think about what will be best for a majority of the players involved and not just the one. No one player, no matter how powerful or influential, should feel free that he can ruin the game for the majority. If you piss enough people off, you won't have a game at all. He did this in the Cam too and met with the same result. What makes people think that it's OK in any game in the first place has always baffeled me. The Game does not belong to any one person, it belongs to everyone.

Saint wrote:

As to why I don't "go somewhere else to waste my free time" as you sugest, well I put a lot into this Game, I've been here since day one, donating to events, bringing new players, securing game sites, spending my week end putting up fliers since day one, donating materials to game and a shit load of time. So pardon me for watching what is fun about this game slowly slip by the way side as another lauds it. Just consider this a counter point, because while I am saying it, I'm not the only one alone in my views, and this is a chance to make things better for everyone, there is a way you can have game for everyone, I'm not saying game needs to be one way or another, but there is balance, and it isn't working out well in my eyes. Then again the story teller elections next month should hash all this out.

No you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not telling you to quit, I'm saying that if it's not fun don't do it, but if you choose to do it then you by default choose a certain level of acceptance. However now you've kicked in about a sense of entitlement due to your investment into the game. For the record, you';re not alone in any of what you have said. I've kicked in but the difference is that I knew I was doing it voluntarily and really expected nothing in return. if I got a perk, then thank you very much, but that does not entitle me to make demands or insist that the game be run a certain way. It means that I've tried to make the game better for everyone, and was looking for a way to improve it.

In the end what we have here is two mindsets- one is that violence solves everything and one where violence is a last resort. I will go on record right now and say that a game where violence solves everything will end very shortly and be of little substance. That's the way of violence, just like an 80's action film it is novel but fails to cary it to the Oscars. However there are films where violence is acceptable, but not the main plot point of the film. Case in point- Platoon. It's the fight of idealologies- Fighting for a cause you believe in vs fighting for mere survival. Everyone felt devistated when Elias was killed, and everyone felt releived when Barnes got it in the neck. So the question becomes, which makes a better constant for a story? A death that means something or a death that's meaningless?

Which would you want?

Saint wrote:

That's all I have to say about this, anything else is just a flame war.

Clay

No, that's a cop out.

Let's shine some light on the issue here. A core element is that we are all friends here with a common interest. I would like to think that friends can disagree on something and be willing to discuss it openly. This is a game we all enjoy so lets discuss this and work together to find a holistic solution.

I'm actually looking forward to it.

~Sean

If you think about it we kind of have two games in one. We have the policical people doing there thing, the primogen counsil and the court system and all that good stuff. And we have the war we are fighting with two different people, The Sabbat and The Cathyns. Isn't if safe to say that the people who want to be violent and brutal go and fight the war, and the people who want to be political, can use all there powers to protect the city and make sure we are all still alive. We can worry about fighting ourselves after we take out the forign threat.

Now, i completely understand that this war wont last forever, but we can just focus on what we are doing right now. We can talk about what we want to do after the war is over.

This is just my opinion, i am still a very, VERY young gamer, but i belive that if the people in the game react to the (makebelive) world around them, that it will be enjoyable. Instead of being yourself and doing what YOU want. Put your self in your characters shoes, and do what HE would want, thats how i play, but then again, i am still a young gamer.

I seem to recall you bitching MIGHTILY when Caleb summoned you the first night I showed up to try this larp. You even managed to get my first character killed trying to help you out.
If, myself, a brand new player to game, can lose a character first time out, and still come back for more, why did you complain so much about your guy possibly getting whacked?
More over, after all the dust from that first night settled you were still alive, and bitching....and made no attempt to apologize for stalling game till time was called...you then proceeded to continue on that same useless rant of yours...and AGAIN you where attacked because of it.Shot repeatedly, and given to the Assamites. I'm not sure how loudly you bitched this time to escape from the natural consequences of your actions.... However I recall you claiming you were going to quit the game.
If this means peace for all, and a space for new players to learn and grow as gamers.....please quit.

I'm your huckelberry...

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Ok....next time I see what I view as a stupid remark, I'll take the high road and say nothing.

Ok, what's been stupid then? let's not start this off with a misplayed morality card without knowing the details. It seems presumptious and rather condescending.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Seems like me saying anything is an excuse for people to start an argument that need not be.
Just like real life....

Um...

What are you on about?

Mr. Blunt wrote:

I'm of the opinion, which I know you don't share Sean, that a good game mixes both excessive violence, and political intrigue. Take one of those away and you're left with, what exactly?

I think you're assuming something that's not quite true. The only thing I'd take out of there is the word *excessive*, and that's about it. Take out the *exessive* and you've got the good groundwork for a game. Violence has a place in the WoD, but not to the the Extreme as it is in our games. Violence should be terrifying, and as it's so common in our game it looses that impact. Scale it back a great deal and it becomes a thing of dread. The casual way it's dispensed leads us to believe that we are not characters in a story, just a collection of dots and games of RPS.

A discussion that I have with the ST's is that it should not be seen as necessary to spend XP on physical disciplines as a matter of survival. It's a mindset I'm trying to change. Why? People should be able to play their character without the consistant worry that they must spend points on combat skills and physical disciplines just so they can make it to Elysium. Furthermore, these skill sets rarely lend themselves to strong roleplay, but more to roll/rule play.

Personally, I think that this mindset comes from those people who buy the rule book just to read what they can play and the powers they get rather than the context in which they were intended. These players have only a basic grasp of the setting (Because they did read the first few sentances of their clan page), but they sure can kill someone.

So tell me, what is the virtue of this kind of mindset in a game so heavily laden in setting?

Mr. Blunt wrote:

If you take the intrigue away....people say it's too violent. If you take away all the violence it's just a bunch of people in a PUD building stroking each others minds.

Whoever said take away *all* the violence? Again, most certainly not me.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Not something I'm up for by the way.
Besides, as I recall from all the vampire games I've EVER played, it is the most fun when vamps are violent, crafty creatures with plans within plans. Take away all the blood,guts and gore, and you're left with what looks like a presidential election. LAME!

Maintain the level of blood and guts that we have now and we might as well be a cheap slasher flick. watch enough of them and it looses it's shock value to eveyone but the most juvenile.

I'll say this again, and I'm not sure if I can say this any more clearly, I am not an advocate of removing all violence, just toning it down to the level of where it's shock value is returned. Furthermore let me turn this around on you- take away all the political intrigue, and what you're left with is people who take Thunderdome seriously. LAME!

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Like I've told certain people in the past, if it isn't fun I'll not long be part of it.

That's fair.

If you're not having fun with something you have every right to walk away.

The flip side to this (and I'm sorry I'm attributing it to you, but you're the 2nd person in this thread made a similar statement. This is not intended towards you Jim, just the mindset behind it.) is that no player or minority of players are or should be allowed to hold a game hostage with their attendance. If you do not enjoy the game, you have every right not to play and do whatever else you find more appealing with your free time. There's not enough free time in anyones day for me to want to infringe on it and make people attend out of demand. In the same breath to make such an overt declaration of personal negative intent is nothing short of emotional blackmail.

It's not fair, it's not good standard, and it's INCREDIBLY selfish.

What I think you mean to say is "If it's not the type of game I like, then I'd rather play in one I do." and that's a sentiment I can totally understand. I've walked away from games that I didn't care for to try games I do, and there's no real reason not to. I left ECC because I'm not a fan of playing until 2:30 AM EVERY saturday, and DRC fits WAY more comfortabely into my schedule. I still have friends there and we don't begrudge each other for what we do.

I guess what I'm saying is that while I understand that you must do what you think is best for you and yours, you don't have to throw rocks to do it. No one will think less of you if this game is not your cup of tea.

~Sean

I would like to say thank you on behalf of the staff for all the feedback listed above.

The best thing we could do, at this point, would be agree to disagree. Some like combat and some like role-playing.

This isn't worth split the game in half over. We are all adults and can work towards having fun and not just at others expense.


We are working towards plots and have a few things in the works now that will hit both sides of the spectrum and a little in the middle. One was put on hold because we had an NPC prince, which we will do if the players want but prefer not to have.

Apologize to you HST Dustin...however as I've been addressed here..I feel inclined to respond.
Sean said;
"The flip side to this (and I'm sorry I'm attributing it to you, but you're the 2nd person in this thread made a similar statement. This is not intended towards you Jim, just the mindset behind it.) is that no player or minority of players are or should be allowed to hold a game hostage with their attendance."

Now although you claim to not direct this at me,you should probably not be so quick to call the kettle black Sean. My very first night you stalled game so badly with your arguing that my wife and I didn't really get the best impression of the game, and the people who attend. Well, aside from an impression of you.
What difference would it have made for you to put down your sheet and make a new one? Was the idea itself so awful you couldn't stand it?
Now while I have nothing against you personally....you do make it very hard to remain silent, when much that exits your mouth serves only to irritate, well me...in particular.
My comments have been merely ones of a new player trying to find his way in game. A new player who is quite rightly tired of tolerating an attitude from people who constantly tell me I know less then they about this game.
I have a rule book. I did not read it just to find out how kick ass my powers are, or could be.
I am very familiar with the idea's behind the game, and would very much enjoy embracing them at this game.
As for condescension, I'd ask if you even read what you post?

Mr. Blunt wrote:

I seem to recall you bitching MIGHTILY when Caleb summoned you the first night I showed up to try this larp. You even managed to get my first character killed trying to help you out.

1) There were some discrepancies that were brought up and it took a 4 page paper to clairify. I handed it to the ST's for review and they agreed with me. They found my judgement and reasoning to be sound.

2) You walked off by yourself, got killed, and you are somehow supprised? With the amount of violence you advocate in your above post you have the audacity to claim righteous indignation? I would think that you would know better, however lets look at it this another way- Those that know me know that I will not kill another player who has not killed a PC themselves. I will play cat and mouse for years (IE Alice Nuaabaum) but if they have not ever killed a PC as far as I know, I may make their life hellish, but I'll not kill them.

This is the halmark of those who preferr Elder Level play. We do not kil those who may eventually become useful. Therefore blaming me for you wandering off by yourself and Calebs men killing you, well you have only yourself and Kyle to blame.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

If, myself, a brand new player to game, can lose a character first time out, and still come back for more, why did you complain so much about your guy possibly getting whacked?

It's called vested interest. I think that you too would be upset if your character was being killed for a seriously pithy reason. Moreover, these things happen when someone outsmarts and out plays a traditional method of violence.

In other words, some of us will not go gentle into that good night.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

More over, after all the dust from that first night settled you were still alive, and bitching....and made no attempt to apologize for stalling game till time was called...

As you are not an ST, you're not entitled to an explanation. I explained myself to those who'se job it is to arbitrate these things, and they agreed with me, and that as they say, is that.

You also seem to be quite misinformed. I did indeed appoloigize to the ST's involved. I went to them instead of them searching me out. It's called having some class and showing some respect. Those who know me know this is how I behave.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

you then proceeded to continue on that same useless rant of yours...and AGAIN you where attacked because of it.

*sigh*

let it suffice to say that there was enough going on behind the scenes that when the retardery started, much like myself, the ST's had had enough.

Further, there is a level of the Jyhad that was being played out- some of the key players made the correct moves and others did not. Those who understand the Jyhad can riddle this out for themselves, and those that don't can wonder in the darkness. I do not have the inclination to divulge all of my tricks to just anyone who asks. I learned most of these the hard way and when the time is right I'll take my medicine like a big boy.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

Shot repeatedly, and given to the Assamites. I'm not sure how loudly you bitched this time to escape from the natural consequences of your actions....

*sigh*

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You may have some surface details, but nothing more than that.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

However I recall you claiming you were going to quit the game.

This would be correct. I was angry, and with good cause. Most people get upset when they are told one thing on an OOC level and something else happens. You can lie to PC's, but you cannot outright lie to players. That's one of the golden rules of being an ST.

However I was angry at the situation rather than the people involved. Furthermore, it was not just me, but my friends were upset as well. So we did what all players should do- go out, vent, and come up with new character concepts.

Which is exactly what we did.

We decided that it could have gone either way, and we let the ST's pick. However for your own edification, let our survival stand as proof that our game does not exist in a microcosim.

Political intrigue is fun that way.

Mr. Blunt wrote:

If this means peace for all, and a space for new players to learn and grow as gamers.....please quit.

I could say the same of you after your first snit your first game- take your inexpirence and play somewhere else, but no, I accept you for who you are in the hopes that we may be able to learn from each other. Just because I've been LARPing for almost 20 years does not mean I know everything, it means that I have a larger responsibility to the game I'm in.

Thank you for your time.

~Sean

Seems there is no arguing with you. Have fun then.

<<From the above statement (and this is just me speaking for myself here) all I can say is criticizing>>

Sean, I have not spoken to you about my opinions. I have not discussed my opinions with ANYONE. I’ve been sitting back and letting the staff grow into the positions.

Don’t put words into my mouth to gain political points or I’ll call bullshit.

I’ve done nothing but quietly support the ST staff. I did so even when you were bitching up a storm two weeks ago when you didn’t get your way and calling them and Clay names.

And I find it very ironic that you are bitching about violence at games when you were planning a violent coup/Hail Caesar on Cortez.

I was very much on my way to killing Cortez when the NPCs killed him. I was very disappointed I didn’t get to do so. Yes, Cortez was too violent and out of control and the PCs needed to deal with him to have a stable domain.

<<I'm not trying to be a dick, I just believe that friends should be able to be honest with each other, and since neither one of our rents or house payments are dependant on the outcome of this conversation, it should not be a big deal.>>

Then don’t put words into my mouth.

<<Case in point- At ECC Jason Killed, threatened, and coerced his way to the top. This is fine to a point however the more power you gain, the more you have to start thinking as to what will be for the good of the game. If you are not willing to do that, then you are partially to blame for the games denegration. At ECC the ST's would not allow Jason to go on a killing spree because it would damage their game.>>

I never killed a single character at ECC. With my toreador I tried twice, but wasn’t allowed to do so.

I made my brujah a political character. I made it to the top by skill, planning, threats, and RPing. I quit when there were direct threats to my character planning to kill my character and I wasn’t allowed by the storytellers to react. And I think I did a very good job in the position I had.

My brujah was my political character and I only used violence when it was required. I quit when people were planning on killing me and couldn’t and I couldn’t kill them. I don’t want to play in a holodeck with the safeties on.

I quit on top and completely in charge politically and socially.

My nosferatu wasn’t a political creature. My nosfertatu went to kill Amy because two weeks before she had told him that if she became prince she’d kill him as her rival. I saw that she was getting support after she saw I was going for it and frankly the primogen are usually sheep.

I stepped up for Prince only because I didn’t want an NPC in charge of the game. That was a major sticking point for many of us when we formed this game. I asked two other people to do it before I made my moves and they said no.

And even when I finally decided to take that step, I told people oocly that the domain would kill me within a week.

I was fine with that.

<<They made the right call. The ST's have to think about what will be best for a majority of the players involved and not just the one. No one player, no matter how powerful or influential, should feel free that he can ruin the game for the majority. If you piss enough people off, you won't have a game at all. He did this in the Cam too and met with the same result. What makes people think that it's OK in any game in the first place has always baffeled me. The Game does not belong to any one person, it belongs to everyone.>>

Once again, Sean, you are putting words in my mouth and trash talking me to make political points. Please stop. This is the sort of behavior that I find offensive in LARPs.

Please note I’m not bringing up your history in the Camarilla or trash-talking you. I’ve been pretty much ignoring all of this. And you aren't doing the storyteller staff any favors.

I haven’t complained once about the NPC defending Amy.

I complained about two things that STs said to me before and after to one of the coordinators. One of the STs apologized and while I’m still pissed he said what he said, I’m letting it go. The other one hasn’t apologized and should really know better. And I’m just choosing to ignore that person until he apologizes. And if I see more of this behavior, I’lll make a public fuss. But note, I haven’t said anything else about the last game at all.

If the STs feel that NPCs will react a certain way because of roleplaying and player interaction, then I don’t have a problem with it. Certainly, I knew that Amy had been making inroads with the NPC.

If the STs are acting, as you are implying, because they didn’t want me in charge because I’m a bad player or somehow harmful to the game, then I’ll just quit playing. I would think that I earned the respect of the staff and the players by now and if I haven’t done so by now, then I never will.

So, this turned from a Props thread into something else entirely. I would really like it if this would be taken offline, as I do believe any new people that come along and start taking a look will see this and have second thoughts about joining this game.

Last game was a lot of fun. I had myself a blast being semi-political. I am not a combat character. However, I was prepared for combat if that is what it comes down to. That is how vampire is. It is very political, but it is also very physically dangerous. Both sides are parts of it. And I have seen games where one side or the other is completely ignored. This should not be the case. The game needs both sides to survive.

All the finger pointing and bad mouthing and stuff really needs to stop. People are here to have fun enjoying a game they like to play. They are not here to argue with others about game points. If that is the reason people are here, then those people should simply leave, lest they are going to keep others from having fun. And that is the point at which it has all gone too far.

So... as far as props... I am going to start a new thread on the matter.

Mcbastard wrote:

From the above statement (and this is just me speaking for myself here) all I can say is criticizing

Mr_Black wrote:

Sean, I have not spoken to you about my opinions. I have not discussed my opinions with ANYONE. I’ve been sitting back and letting the staff grow into the positions.

Don’t put words into my mouth to gain political points or I’ll call bullshit.

Then do it.

Seriously, do it. I'll refute it and quote you where and when and with who witnessed it.

I can think of two instances right now off the top of my head, and if you want we can go from there.

Furthermore, don't try and make the less than clever ploy of "You said I said". This ain't high school.

Last, I expressed *my* thoughts on the matter. Like it said I'm speaking for myself here.

Feel free to disagree with me.

Mr_Black wrote:

I’ve done nothing but quietly support the ST staff. I did so even when you were bitching up a storm two weeks ago when you didn’t get your way and calling them and Clay names.

One third right.

If by quiet support you mean passive / aggressive, then I can see your point. You are a founder of this game, a former ST, and like other I have known are far more interested in being right rather than doing what is right. What you've written here is nothing more than the traditional passive / aggressive wrought with insinuation and chicanery. Good luck with that, because I have that estranged tallent to see right through it.

I did bitch after they told me that they were going for more of a political game and then I get shot in the face 10 minutes into the next game. Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly what you think I said and the context in which I said it that was in anyway disrespectful to the ST's. I'll be real supprised becasue I'm positive that it does not exist, so quit bullshiting.

Last if I ever called Clay a name, then it would be something far less at a game than I would to his face. Don't try and drive a wedge between friends here. Clay and i can disagree, sometimes even vehemently, but that does not mean that I'll not go get a drink with him afterwards. So don't try and insinuate anything here.

Other than that, this is me calling "Bullshit" on you.

Mr_Black wrote:

And I find it very ironic that you are bitching about violence at games when you were planning a violent coup/Hail Caesar on Cortez.

HA! Bullshit and a WAY off assumption.

Wrong.

Dead wrong.

I'll tip my hand in this one-

Violence would have been counter productive. I know it is outside of your normal pattern, but political coups do happen. I have always been an advocate of that which was taken with violence will be lost to violence and as such, so killing Coretz ala Conan the Conqueror would have failed to serve.

Don't believe me? I've got a 4 page note to that effect with the ST's right now.

Mr_Black wrote:

I was very much on my way to killing Cortez when the NPCs killed him. I was very disappointed I didn’t get to do so. Yes, Cortez was too violent and out of control and the PCs needed to deal with him to have a stable domain.

Murder in the Dark is like that. Sometimes people don't get to know why.

Cortez got killed because he thought he had a big gun in his pocket. I found a way to have a bigger one in mine. He shot me, but I gambled on heavy artillery and lucked out.

Stable Domains must have the Primogen to have a vested interest in who was prince. That's what keeps the game stable, not killing your way to the top.

Mcbastard wrote:

<I'm not trying to be a dick, I just believe that friends should be able to be honest with each other, and since neither one of our rents or house payments are dependant on the outcome of this conversation, it should not be a big deal.

Mr_Black wrote:

Then don’t put words into my mouth.

What words would you be referring to? Show me once where I did that. As I make a habbit of not speaking for others and only for myself, I'd like to know where you think I've done that.

Mcbastard wrote:

Case in point- At ECC Jason Killed, threatened, and coerced his way to the top. This is fine to a point however the more power you gain, the more you have to start thinking as to what will be for the good of the game. If you are not willing to do that, then you are partially to blame for the games denegration. At ECC the ST's would not allow Jason to go on a killing spree because it would damage their game.

I should have added "Thus DRC was born."

Mr_Black wrote:

I never killed a single character at ECC. With my toreador I tried twice, but wasn’t allowed to do so.

I made my brujah a political character. I made it to the top by skill, planning, threats, and RPing. I quit when there were direct threats to my character planning to kill my character and I wasn’t allowed by the storytellers to react. And I think I did a very good job in the position I had.

My brujah was my political character and I only used violence when it was required. I quit when people were planning on killing me and couldn’t and I couldn’t kill them. I don’t want to play in a holodeck with the safeties on.

Thank you for proving my point. You made it to the top and the ST's would not let you kill people because they though it would be bad for the game. Did you ever stop to think that it might not be the sort of game that they want?

Mr_Black wrote:

I quit on top and completely in charge politically and socially.

That is indeed one perspective. I have heard several others.

Mr_Black wrote:

My nosferatu wasn’t a political creature. My nosfertatu went to kill Amy because two weeks before she had told him that if she became prince she’d kill him as her rival. I saw that she was getting support after she saw I was going for it and frankly the primogen are usually sheep.

Actually, Amy was getting a vested interest from the Primogen, and as such she was going to take Praxis politically. It was the smartest thing she could have done as the Primogen would have had a vested interest in her success.

I followed you. I listened to you. I did the same to her and she ran circles around you.

Mr_Black wrote:

I stepped up for Prince only because I didn’t want an NPC in charge of the game. That was a major sticking point for many of us when we formed this game. I asked two other people to do it before I made my moves and they said no.

So why did you not keep asking? If it's so detestable, and you're not a politically motivated character, why did you bully your way into Harpy and then set yourself up with a bid for prince? You seem to be saying one thing while doing another.

Mr_Black wrote:

And even when I finally decided to take that step, I told people oocly that the domain would kill me within a week.

I was fine with that.

Those of us who don't want a prince of the Week club wern't.

Mcbastard wrote:

<They made the right call. The ST's have to think about what will be best for a majority of the players involved and not just the one. No one player, no matter how powerful or influential, should feel free that he can ruin the game for the majority. If you piss enough people off, you won't have a game at all. He did this in the Cam too and met with the same result. What makes people think that it's OK in any game in the first place has always baffeled me. The Game does not belong to any one person, it belongs to everyone>

Mr_Black wrote:

Once again, Sean, you are putting words in my mouth and trash talking me to make political points. Please stop. This is the sort of behavior that I find offensive in LARPs.

HA! What utter crap. Serious crap.

Here you go again with the passive/aggressive and talking out of both sides of your mouth all the while trying to call it civil. See, that's the real differnce between myself and other's- I will say things that will make people laugh, I will say things that make people cry, I'll say things that will make people angry, and I'll say things that will make people think

...but what I will NOT do is bullshit them. There's no virtue in it.

First, I NEVER spoke for anyone but myself.

Second, I SAW you do the same damn thing there that you did here. It's not bullshit if it's true.

Third, What political points could I POSSIBLY make? They for sure won't pay my cell bill.

Mr_Black wrote:

Please note I’m not bringing up your history in the Camarilla or trash-talking you. I’ve been pretty much ignoring all of this. And you aren't doing the storyteller staff any favors.

Who'se putting words in peoples mouths now?

Anyone can at any time feel free to bring up my involvement in the Cam. One thing the Cam did teach me though- It's always better to game with friends than to have friends *at* game. The latter seem to fade out when you stop going.

Mr_Black wrote:

I haven’t complained once about the NPC defending Amy.

And why would you? You knew she was making political inroads. Did you think for a second that wouldn't?

Mr_Black wrote:

I complained about two things that STs said to me before and after to one of the coordinators. One of the STs apologized and while I’m still pissed he said what he said, I’m letting it go. The other one hasn’t apologized and should really know better. And I’m just choosing to ignore that person until he apologizes. And if I see more of this behavior, I’lll make a public fuss. But note, I haven’t said anything else about the last game at all.

So, what's the point of this then? Is your pride so soft that a few stern words from an ST who has many other people to think about other than you cause for such indignation? MAYBE the ST actually believes what he said and has not appologized because he does not think he was wrong. This falls quite neatly under the "Shit Happens" catagory. So if it's not such a big deal, why bring it up at all?

Mr_Black wrote:

If the STs feel that NPCs will react a certain way because of roleplaying and player interaction, then I don’t have a problem with it. Certainly, I knew that Amy had been making inroads with the NPC.

Hence the no complaining above, right?

Mr_Black wrote:

If the STs are acting, as you are implying, because they didn’t want me in charge because I’m a bad player or somehow harmful to the game, then I’ll just quit playing. I would think that I earned the respect of the staff and the players by now and if I haven’t done so by now, then I never will.

I'm implying nothing.

I'm saying that the more powerful your PC, the more you have to start thinking like an ST. If players cannot or are not willing to do that, then they need to consider their characters desire for that position.

Ok, I'm done with this for tonight.

Personally, I think that this is a row that needs to happen. It does no good to have a white elephant in the room that everyone chooses to ignore.

On the flip side I could be dead wrong. I mean what I say and I try and say what I mean (although I'm pendantic as hell. A by product of learning to have to be right all the time.) I'm not above reconsidering my points of view if a stronger logic prevails. I've always thought it's more important to do what is right than be more concerned with wanting to be right.

That's just me though.

Goodnight.

~Sean

Man this is some crazy thread I was drunk when I wrote what I did lol (not that I don't feel what I wrote). But no joke Bob's African white wine from grocery outlet is a hell of a drug.

Clay

...Damn....


Well.

Damn.

Don't suppose we can move forward now, can we?

God I hope so...


~Sean

It would be nice if everyone would back off for, lets say, 24 hours? Statements are being made that are accusatory, insulting, callous, some of the above, or all of the above.

That really needs to stop, and those making them need to stop.

I'm sure nobody thinks they've gone too far, but I don't agree. I am the third party observer, and I'd trust my perspective over yours right now.

One...I say leave this thread up. Don't take it down because new players may see it. How we handle our disagreements is what I want new players to see the most.

Two...cut all props out of here and throw them into another thread or rename this one. Keep it on topic at the least please.

Three...Wow Guys. Seriously? We should do better then this. I am right there with alot of you in sharing some of the above mentioned frustrations. We can do this better.

Four...The first thing everyone needs to understand is that everyone talking about this still cares about the game. Everyone is trying to do what they see is right. You may disagree with that assessment, but to treat anyone any other way just damages friendships. Those are never worth ruining over a game.

In the past month I have witnessed too much of this. For me, I have to remind myself that "Just being honest" is not an excuse to make someone else feel like shit. May sound like touchy feely crap to you...but I promise...finding one thing you can improve about how you handle yourself in discussions will go a long mile in getting your opinion heard and what you want to see happen.