[HQ Ignorance] Re : Re : Scene 55: The Damned Dam Breakers!

[Sam Elliot]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Loran <aillet_l at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> [Pure OOC]
> Forword : This is not a flamewar, just a quiet statement on relationships between Sam and me. I hope it will give some clues at least on me... with all limitation of mailing communication. Please forgive any bad feeling because of my words, I don't have other intention than to explain myself.

:)

> Everything coordinated and working like a clockwork among the PC could be very statisfying for planing minds who somehow also have their rights on a share of pleasure in the game, especially if it respects roleplaying conditions (using a player meta-level to get this miraculous coordination is something like cheating to me).

Yes. Some of the current situation is very satisfying on this level.
In truth, it may be feeling a bit odd not having that much of the fog
of war, which may have led to my (off-hand) remark about not telling
Azhur.

> >From various messages of you, it seems to me that you like to have a trickser/conflict role in the games ? ;-) Well, that could be fun... up to the point it could become boring for people who are trying to build positive plans (no the case here, I'm speaking fully in general), but I'm sure you know that already.

I agree.

> The main risk seems then to me that dangerous situations occuring because of constant and maintained misunderstandings between the protagonists of an adventure don't finish to sound dramatic but rather silly (and it's a common comedy gimmick just for that) ...

Aka it can be disruptive. Yep.

> In my personnal vision of RPG (which is only an adaptable personnal position) it is more the role of the GM to introduce new dangers than the role of the players (quite the classical situation in fact)... and I'm always feeling disturbed, as GM or a player, when a player decides on his own that "now the story need a little 'dramatic' pinch" and try to push the adventure out of control (I suspect my own mind to like RPG just because it can get a better control on things than IRL... but duds, you're not my shrinks :-D).
> So here we will disagree if we exagerate our point of view (and i won't).

Duds are things which fail to function properly. Dudes are cool people.
Sometimes I think you are only pretending with your English mistakes ;-)

Yes - if we are talking about players providing bangs for other
players (say as a complement to the GM doing so) then yes, I suppose
it needs the players to buy in.

> This being said, In fact I don't have problem with your plans in general because they don't ruin the story or spoil my interest for it. With my message I  simply wantedto point out that adding uncertainty to a quite desesperate situation wasn't the most useful action for the group and even the most logical for Ichtya  (but Icthya is a nasty goblin, I know ;-)

It's good that you raise concerns. Hell, if you don't like an action I
have my charcater take, you have a certain right to veto.

> I don't see the usefulness or need for her to hide things here, because sending thoughs to the Red Banner doesn't restrict her behavior at all. No answer (approving or not) will come back to her. I don't see either how a though of a Talor's fellow to her mysterious guardian can 'conceivably be intercepted' by the enemy... Icthya is just intentionaly missing a chance of being helped or, more critical for her, hiding a conscious sabotage action... but it's only my own feeling and I have tried to signal it with my last message (trying to soften the critics with a funny approach, I hope it worked).

:-)
It really wasn't much of a deliberate thing. Honestly, I just like
putting my character in danger (I don't see it being that dangerous to
anyone else). In another game I had my healer jump off the friendly
giant brontosaurus earth demon she was riding into the tentacles of a
swamp monster which was attacking them, armed with a parasol.

There is also the matter of enjoying failure. To a large degree, I
can't get away from the desire that our losing this whole battle is an
option. I don't want to lose it but I do want interesting failure to
be an option. And I want the stakes high.

> As I said Icthya is free, but the assassination of King Guillarm wasn't in our plans or even in our ethics, nor was the planting of the forest or our participation in the war (and who knows the consequences of next Icthya's initiatives ? :-D).

Yeah. Both of these were actually fruits dangled before us by Lev.
Everyone refused the first one, which I didn't like (Aalmon and Azhur
have a certain pacifistic ethic which I didn't choose, so it kinda
goes both ways) - so I changed Icthya's reaction to that; but hers
alone. It was Lev too who had the seeds offered to Icthya, following
up on some stuff I had said. And when Icthya tried to kill this king,
everyone else was in a different part of the world.

 > Play with fire if you like, but don't burn Azhur, he will have to
react in accordance with his own coherence.... such situation are
dramatic at story level of course, but sometime can also kill the game
at players level... a thing that nobody wants for sure, so I raised my
hand when it scrapped me...

Okay. In truth I don't see how it harmed you(r character) but if you
say it does, I'll listen. In reverse, if you want to burn some forest
down, please do. Icthya won't like it but I will.

> Sometime exposing different positions create conflict, but most of the time it helps to avoid it and that's what I want here.

Sure.

> I also hope that my english will be good enough to be understood in the way I wish :-S
> Loran

Your English is better than you pretend, you devious so-and-so ;-)

Sam.