The Mess (General OOC)   Posted by Cap'n Rae.Group: 0
Eric Phillips
 player, 27 posts
 Spartan-117
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 20:11
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Anders Mattson:
Anyway, the Russians are outnumbered and we're working for their causes, which gives them little reason to kick us in to the teeth as long as we're doing their bidding. It isn't absolute insurance against them doing so regardless, but it is better than nothing. Now that they are aboard, it is far more difficult to disarm them - it should have been done right when they stepped on board.


See, this is what makes me think we are treating the symptoms and not the disease.

You are working for the Russian's cause.. Great.  That's gotta be true because they said so over a single 20 minute meeting right?  Clearly you've got them pegged.  It's only us PCs who might be lying lyertons using lies to get aboard your boat and play the long game, bidding our time until we can stand on the crows nest and fire an RPG into the deck killing everyone below.

Let me spell it out.  Several of you come across like Player Character ... hell, I don't even know what the right term would be.  Character-ists?  Player Haters?

You assume you totally understand the motivation, complexity, and end-game of all of Rae's NPCs, but us PCs must have a hidden agenda.  It's an ongoing meta issue perhaps because you have been screwed over by previous PCs?

If you were going to have some continuity and be paranoid vs. everyone, that would be one thing.  Yeah you should have taken the guns before.  But that didn't seem to cross any of your minds because they are just NPCs.  That's why Kentucky got aboard so easily.  It's only our PCs you guys are worried about.

That's a major structural issue for this game.  And it's just one of several that I see.

All that said, I do appreciate Mark's apology.

This message was last edited by the player at 20:22, Sat 11 July 2015.

Mark Scully
 player, 40 posts
 E7, USN SEALs
 Dave Ross
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 20:16
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Has Jelena Tamm been disarmed?

And if not why not?
Craig Sutherland
 player, 728 posts
 Lt., 42 Cdo, RMC
 Cymon
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 20:28
Re: The Airing of Grievances

To be honest I am apprehensive to add anything to this conversation given the warnings about player behavior that were thrown out there a couple of weeks ago. Sorry if my posts have not been up to scratch, but it is partly due to my work load and also I am on the road a lot so most of my posts are done using my phone, not a pleasant experience. Also Craig is not much of a people person.

First off I got the feeling pretty early on that the game was resurrected not for the benefit of the original players. We now have two very distinct groups within the game and I can't really see how we are going to gel these two groups together given that any solution we come up with will not in anyway seem realistic.

Secondly there was the point made of Konrad/Fuse stepping aside in the command role and I think that may have spooked some people.

The "strong woman" type has to much history with this group and to suddenly welcome a senior officer that seems to the boat crew to be a Anneka, Boots clone who after a day IG wants to make the decisions for the group doesn't sit well I would expect. Sorry I have not been privy to any of the PM's so I don't know if any of this has come out OOC, it has certainly been hinted at in game. A little in game time or making the decision as a group OOC would probably have made more sense.

Also some of the first interactions between the two groups was to be call deserters and sorry I don't think a place would have even been offered after that. A quick ride to the nearest town maybe or a short ferry to the other side of the river perhaps.

I have played with several of you in other games and they have gone well and some have not. To be honest I think helbent4 made some points early on OOC that a few people were feeling.

Cymon.

This message was last edited by the player at 20:38, Sat 11 July 2015.

Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane
 player, 31 posts
 Lt. Cmdr., USN
 keys138
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 20:52
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Mark Scully:
</quote>
Why would you feel the need to seek approval? I'd simply post "Lizzie continues her line of questioning."


In all honesty, that's probably how I would write it.  I guess my bigger point is trying to gauge how much room people have for puppeting another character to keep post flow moving.

@Cymon
Given that I have no clue who Boots is I'm going to refute the clone comment.  As both a player and a character I would expect a seat at the decision table, at an input level, as was agreed upon.  I don't recall issuing orders to the crew, nor do I have interest in running the crew.  Mark has been handling that end just fine.  I do have an interest in ensuring the crew that came on board does have some agency in the game, and that is why Lizzie was built at rank.  This is still the original crews game, albeit with some new twists.  We talked, at length, a few weeks ago about the deserter/patriot divide, and I continue believe that handeled correctly could provide good fodder for role playing.

Yes, I was asked to come on board.  I've been asked to come several games.  This is the first I've joined in the middle of and I accept a learning curve.  But it was made clear to me that Rae wanted everybody back as they were all part of his vision.
Anastasjia Kovac
 player, 18 posts
 U.S. State Department
 Tegyrius
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 20:56
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Funny, no one expressed a problem the last time I introduced four PCs and NPCs from Air Force Special Operations Command.  From where I sit, the real problem is that some long-established players have a knee-jerk paranoia toward any character whose personal story concept extends beyond shutting up and unquestioningly following Konrad's orders.  Which is darkly hilarious considering how adamant you are that the tug is not under military command.

I've been sitting on this for a few months at Rae's request, but since we're having this conversation, I'm going to put it on the table.  When Rae told me he was restarting this game, my immediate reaction was weary revulsion.  Unlike Keys, Dave, or Spartan, I've been on this particular carousel before and I wanted no part of it again.  When I finally did let Rae talk me into rejoining, it was under the explicit condition that my character would never be under the command of any PC run by Cymon, with a very strong implication of extending that limit to Fusilier.  That, in part, is why the newly-arrived PCs are a cohesive and independent team.

For those who don't remember (or who were too oblivious to connect the dots the first time), my previous PCs in this game were Daniel Larue and Dominique Connolly ("Boots").

The last time Rae shut this game down was in response to an IC interaction that went OOC backstage.  The tug had found a settlement composed entirely of women and children.  A shore party had made contact with the intent of trading surplus small arms (of which we had too many to count) and Larue's medical services for food.  At some point during the initial contacts, Connolly told several of the male PCs to rein in their usual levels of aggression and not go anywhere unaccompanied so as not to spook the locals or give them any excuse to levy accusations against the tug's crew.

I will note for the record and for Cymon's benefit that this was the first time she had exerted any IC authority, precisely because I was trying to avoid playing her anything like the late, unlamented Anneke.

Craig (Cymon's PC, then and now) responded with a misogynistic dismissal of Connolly's gender, professional qualifications, and rank (for the record: him,  Lieutenant; her, Major).  As a player, I was too taken aback by the vitriol in that post to compose an appropriate IC response until Rae had moved the scene back to the tug, at which point Konrad's only acknowledgement of the incident was to tacitly support Craig's actions and similarly dismiss Connolly, along with a slap on the wrist for what he and Craig considered an unbalanced initial trade of surplus small arms for food.

I attempted OOC resolution in PM with both Cymon and Fusilier and received equally curt dismissals.

At that point, I told Rae I was leaving the game because I could not see any logical IC continuation of those events that would not result in Craig being, at minimum, beaten to within an inch of his life once the rest of Connolly's aircrew found out about his words.  It was more likely that Danny, who had an established on-screen history of being irrationally protective of his people, would have simply murdered Craig and dumped his body over the stern with ten kilos of ballast chained to his ankles.  And I was not going to be the disruptive player who brought PC-on-PC violence back into this game.
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 888 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 21:34
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Couldn't sleep.

I was unaware of the issue with Boots, I thought it was over an argument about selling guns for cheap. If I'd known I would have tried to smooth things over and probably have failed miserably.

The way Boots was brought on board was rather different to the introduction of the new characters and comparing the two may be a little unfair.

As is comparing how we've treated the Russians and the new group. Again, the way the decision was made was wrong I grant but I envisaged that we'd accept the mission and have a turn where the boat was being fixed and we could plan, come to a proper decision with the new group that would include running before the General came on board but after the boat was fixed as well as sorting out security and getting everyone armed.

The next turn took up more time than that however an didn't give u the time to do that. I had intended to do it as soon as I had done the admin type posts so people knew where they were before the meeting over food. I was preparing that with Mariusz' post about the food.

I was unaware of the bad blood and if I have contributed to increasing that I am sorry.

The point about the "look but don't touch on the armoury" I nagging as well: it was shown to you so you could decide what needed to go on the recon as soon as the command group had reported back, a command group that included Lizzie.

If that didn't come over again I apologise.
Craig Sutherland
 player, 729 posts
 Lt., 42 Cdo, RMC
 Cymon
Sat 11 Jul 2015
at 21:35
Re: The Airing of Grievances
In reply to Anastasjia Kovac (msg # 192):

As I said to you in the OCC and in PM there was no ill will from me as a player it was an IC observation by my Character. I then apologized in the OCC if you had taken this the wrong way. I was also on the road and unable to access the internet for several days.
Minh Quyen
 player, 723 posts
 SP4, U.S. Army MP
 JinnySong2
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 02:25
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I don't think its really a matter of special forces backgrounds at all. I believe the new players helped alienate themselves with their PC's entry which was handled badly. I say handled badly because if they weren't PCs they (I'm sure) would not have been given a pass and permitted on the boat. Why would they? From the start they made it clear that they didn't respect the boat's leadership organization and they weren't going to take no for any answer... a sort of "We're coming aboard whether you like it or not". I'm sorry if you don't think that would have any negative fallout IC or OOC.
Eric Phillips
 player, 28 posts
 Spartan-117
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 02:30
Re: The Airing of Grievances
<rhetorical question>Perhaps the issue of the invitation from the Ref played into that?</rhetorical question>
Minh Quyen
 player, 724 posts
 SP4, U.S. Army MP
 JinnySong2
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 02:37
Re: The Airing of Grievances
If you are asking me I don't know anything about that... I'm only speaking from my perspective.

What I was getting at before was just saying a little bit of self reflection (along with the finger pointing) might be in order for everyone. Regardless of what was part of any invitation or behind the scenes setup the gameplay was handled badly for what was supposed to be a positive future between everyone.

This message was last edited by the player at 02:38, Sun 12 July 2015.

Konrad Bayer
 player, 1937 posts
 Hauptman, Pzg
 the fusilier
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 04:44
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I have been quiet here lately. I didn't like how the integration was handled. It was ridiculous, crazy really, and I had to compromise a character that I've created and gotten attached to over the many years. For Bayer things were never it's my way of the highway and I'm a dictator by the way, but in any case that's just what happened in the game and real life. So it bothered me OOC just as much as things did IC.

Afterwards things didn't feel the same and I honestly had no idea how to respond. Whatever IC posts that I came up with either sounded ridiculous (unnatural) or they were realistic... which actually wasn't good for the game. I don't expect everyone to understand, but that's how it is from me.

Rae asked me to go along with it and try, and I agreed, because I wanted things to work. My solution was to keep to the sidelines, hoping that over time things would smooth out, and then I would try to get back into it... maybe it would feel right again. Apparently my solution wasn't a good idea.

Anastasjia Kovac:
When I finally did let Rae talk me into rejoining, it was under the explicit condition that my character would never be under the command of any PC run by Cymon, with a very strong implication of extending that limit to Fusilier.


I would like to know more about the strong implication part. Are you saying that you're only here because you demanded and got concessions - that your PC would never be under my character's command? I'm not clear on this and I really want to know for sure.
Anders Mattson
 player, 151 posts
 Kapteeniluutnantti
 mediiic
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 05:09
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Easier said than done, but I believe all those who have had past grievances need to push them in to the past and wipe the slate clean. We, the players, are all humans with human emotions (and I believe that extends to the GM as well). Our characters are humans with human emotions and imperfections. For an example, Anders is most likely suffering from some level of PTSD from both likely being the sole survivor from his ship and from what he has seen since he landed in Poland. While the first bout of it was brought on by my personal inactivity for a reason or another and GM reaction to that, I've come to play him as mentally instable ever since.

What my point is, our characters, no matter the original concept, change and develop during the play. We need to understand that not every military commander is a perfect one - those who have served know very well what I am talking about.

So, the integration of the new characters fell on its ass? We're adults and we just need to roll with that. Or rather roleplay through it. I am trying to say, this is a roleplaying game, not a pure military simulation where personalities do not matter.
Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 889 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 05:18
Re: The Airing of Grievances
The last part of your post sums up my position on this medic, mistakes were made that I regret but now they've been pointed out I would like to prove I have learned from them by moving on and hopefully making it a better experience for everybody.
helbent4
 Lurker, 16 posts
 Lurking
 In Lurksville
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 09:54
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Anders Mattson:
Now, since we're airing out matters, I do feel at times nobody actually reads some of my posts in the OOC, or if they do, it is not acknowledged. Okay, they may be a bit borish, but I can stand with you guys telling me to shut up rather than ignoring me. ;^)


Ha ha! I feel your pain, brother. Regarding your story of playing in the SWRPG my former character in this game (Dawid) was in a similar situation. Changing that took time and patience, plus the understanding on my part I couldn't always have things my way. A lesson worth noting here.

Konrad and Griet evolved into the de facto leaders of the group not through some understanding with the GM or a random roll during character creation but because they were the ones others wanted to follow. They didn't always make the best choices or made popular decisions. They paid their dues and earned the respect of others who did as well.

Giving Konrad and Griet enough rank (per the RDF Sourcebook) to exert some kind of legitimate command authority seems like a sensible solution here; it would have helped in the previously cited examples and it will help in the future. (That is if new command level PCs are permitted in the future, which should be seriously reconsidered.) Fuse might not want Konrad to get sucked into the regular military again but good characters do evolve over time. It's worth considering.

Tony
Anastasjia Kovac
 player, 19 posts
 U.S. State Department
 Tegyrius
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 12:01
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Konrad Bayer:
I would like to know more about the strong implication part. Are you saying that you're only here because you demanded and got concessions - that your PC would never be under my character's command? I'm not clear on this and I really want to know for sure.


I'm only here because I demanded and got the concession that my PC would never be under the command of any PC run by Cymon.  I wasn't enthusiastic about having my PC fall under your character's command because of the incident mentioned above and your OOC dismissal of it.  I did express strong concerns about your play of Bayer based on that incident, but I did not make exclusion from Bayer's command an explicit condition for joining.

To elaborate a little more: Connolly started off as an NPC in Larue's back story.  I later picked her up as a secondary PC because I didn't want Rae to use her as ablative armor for the boat.  Her rank was a function of her back story as an NPC.  When created, she was never intended to serve any sort of command role.  When I took her over as a PC, she still wasn't intended to usurp any sort of command, as you, Rae, and I explicitly discussed in PM at the time.  Her IC comments at the Amazon village had nothing to do with some deranged idea that she was trying to pull rank for the sake of being an Anneke clone.  They came from her being a female approaching a community of females with obvious psychological trauma involving military-age males - and the fact that no other PC but Mariusz had openly acknowledged the roleplaying problem Rae had thrown at us.  But she was still a USAF command pilot with all the training and skills such a background entails, and she wasn't going to hesitate to speak up if a problem was in her lane.

When you ICly and OOCly supported Cymon/Craig's dismissal of her as an officer, team member, and human being, you - in your leadership role as a player - effectively made her unplayable as anything beyond a mindless, voiceless automaton programmed to follow Konrad's orders unquestioningly.  That is the position I wasn't willing to be in again as a player.
Jelena Tamm
 player, 35 posts
 Red Army Deserter
 Silent Hunter
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 13:46
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I've got to say as a new player in this game that I've not got any particular grievances. Although I can see why others might have.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:47, Sun 12 July 2015.

Eric Phillips
 player, 29 posts
 Spartan-117
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 13:56
Re: The Airing of Grievances
In reply to helbent4 (msg # 201):

This is not about IC rank.  From my POV, this about players not willing to suborn your Character's RPing in an effort to allow everyone to participate and craft a shared narrative together.  When people are more invested in ‘RPing their PC’ than creating a collaborate player base that is working together, there is a problem.  That's doubly so when your PC is a nominal leader of the group.

And once again, the Verisimilitude argument of "I didn't/won't/can't/shouldn't do that because it goes against my character concept" doesn't carry any water with me because you just embarked 7 armed Sovs on your boat after Бизнес ланч.

I mean, maybe the General didn't want to send wave after wave of his men against the boat while it was docked given all the heavy weapons that Krowla can bring to bear.  He told you he values his men.  Yeah, they could take the boat while dock side, but at what cost?  Maybe hijacking from the inside is the better play.  Of course you don't really feel like you are taking that risk and why is that?  Are Rae's NPCs that transparent?

This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 13:57, Sun 12 July 2015.

Griet Niewiadomska
 player, 890 posts
 CPO, Polish Navy
 mark101
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 13:59
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Sorry, Spartan, I thought I'd explained that issue twice. I don't know which other way I can explain it. If it is such a sticking point for you as I've said, I am more than happy to step down.
Eric Phillips
 player, 30 posts
 Spartan-117
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 15:50
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Griet Niewiadomska:
Sorry, Spartan, I thought I'd explained that issue twice. I don't know which other way I can explain it. If it is such a sticking point for you as I've said, I am more than happy to step down.


You have and I appreciate it.  That fact that you recognize the need for a change speaks volumes.  IMHO, any activity with more than one human participating in it, is going to require some compromise.

I guess what I'm looking for is something akin to:

Everyone who is willing to compromise their character in the interest of group cohesion, shared story telling, and overall inclusiveness, take one step forward.  Everyone who can't do that, take one step back.  Front rank, attention to promotion.
Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Kane
 player, 32 posts
 Lt. Cmdr., USN
 keys138
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 17:45
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I'm taking the family camping until Tuesday and won't be posting until that evening.  I remain hopeful that we can work this out.

I will be monitoring via iPhone.
Robert 'Tuck' Tucker
 player, 1691 posts
 P Sgt., 10th MD
 Corkman
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 18:43
Re: The Airing of Grievances
I'm sorry to say but, this is really ridiculous.

Both sides could've been better, I think we all agree?  I think we all are on the same page with that?

Instead of going forward right away, we need to go back and sit down with ALL of the PC's BEFORE the General and his staff come aboard with the NPC medic and set aside this bullshit and get on with the game.

I'm sorry if my game style isn't for some people but, with my schedule, it works for me.  If you don't like it, then maybe I should step out and not hold anyone back over fuckin' role-playing MY character.
Eric Phillips
 player, 31 posts
 Spartan-117
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 18:53
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Robert 'Tuck' Tucker:
I'm sorry if my game style isn't for some people but, with my schedule, it works for me.  If you don't like it, then maybe I should step out and not hold anyone back over fuckin' role-playing MY character.


Pretty much exactly what I thought when I needed a permission slip to get off the boat to do surveillance at the meeting site.

This message was last edited by the player at 19:27, Sun 12 July 2015.

Craig Sutherland
 player, 730 posts
 Lt., 42 Cdo, RMC
 Cymon
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 19:31
Re: The Airing of Grievances
In reply to Anastasjia Kovac (msg # 202):

Of course none of the previous bad blood was mentioned IC or OCC in Rae's other campaign we played together in for over a year, but then you were calling the shots and in command.

To be honest your post just confirmed what a lot of people were suspecting. It confirmed why the game restarted and that it had nothing to do with the original players who had put so much time and effort into the campaign. It explains that the current unworkable situation was a direct result of you grudgingly consenting to rejoin a “revolting” campaign. Also that it does not matter how long we play you will never be able to serve under Fuses character for some imagined in character slight that you can't let go of in real life.

So how are we to go about gelling the two groups ?

How long is it since my character insulted your character in game, two maybe three years do you think you have held the grudge long enough?

This message was last edited by the player at 19:35, Sun 12 July 2015.

Cap'n Rae
 GM, 3047 posts
 Tour Director
 Narrator
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 20:52
Re: The Airing of Grievances

I've been quietly monitoring the discussion here, waiting for everyone to have their say before adding my input. Most of you have been mature and respectful during this discussion and I thank you for that. I think that most of you are interested in resolving whatever conflict that exists here, and problem-solving a way out of it, and I thank those people for their efforts as well.

From my vantage point, there are at least three major issues that we need to resolve before we have any real hope of saving this game.

1. IC and OOC interaction and interpersonal relationships
2. Decision making structure (i.e. command)
3. GM expectations vs. player expectations

These are the core of the frustration and acrimony here. I will attempt to address all of these issues. In no particular order...

Part of the current frustration is the pace of the game. I sometimes push the game forward before all of you are ready to move forward with me. An example would be the quick transition from town to river in the last turn post. My intentions were, I think, good, but the execution likely caused more problems that it solved. My fear is that if I let the game linger on one episode for too long, people will get bored and lose interest. I've seen way too many PbP games atrophy and die due to low post rates. I tend to overcompensate to avoid this. That said, the post rate I've always shot for and tried to adhere to is one turn every two or three days. This has always been the case and it's clearly stated in the posting guidelines. At least five days had passed between the last two without a decision or consensus regarding how to proceed. Some players had posted multiple times during those six days, others once or not at all. Anyone not in on the IC "planning" was sidelined. When players don't drive the game, I feel the need to step in and drive it myself.

It's doubly tough when some players are engaging and others, whose input is required to reach a transition point, are not. 5-6 days between turn posts, IMHO, should be plenty of time to work towards a transition point IC, but if pivotal players aren't willing or able to put in the time and effort to do that, where does that leave the rest of us? When people miss turns without warning, it really complicates things. RL happens, I know, but when it becomes a pattern, it's a problem. It's doubly so when a leader PC goes silent.

Craig Sutherland:
To be honest your post just confirmed what a lot of people were suspecting. It confirmed why the game restarted and that it had nothing to do with the original players who had put so much time and effort into the campaign. It explains that the current unworkable situation was a direct result of you grudgingly consenting to rejoin a “revolting” campaign. Also that it does not matter how long we play you will never be able to serve under Fuses character for some imagined in character slight that you can't let go of in real life.


I really resent the implication here, Cymon. It's unfair and unwarranted. If I'd just wanted to run a campaign for the four new guys, I could have started a private, invite-only game just for them. I didn't do that, so obviously that wasn't my intent. I wanted all of you guys on board. I pushed the new guys to join because I felt that their active playing style would help with the pace and IC decision-making issue that I've addressed above.

Furthermore, "Imagined in character slight[s]" can ruin games. As we've seen here, it's really difficult to separate IC conflict and OOC conflict. RPG'ing with other people, whether it's face-to-face at the table or over the internet, is about relationships, both IC and OOC. When one plays fast and loose with IC relationships, that often translates to OOC. IC conflict can be fun to participate in and entertaining to watch- that is, as long both players have agreed ahead of time to RP intense interpersonal IC conflict. AFAIK, that never happened before the blow-up that scuppered the game a year-and-a-half ago. One can't simply say "no offense" OOC after upsetting someone IC and expect them to be OK about it. IC conflict can also muddy the waters between IC and OOC relationships, and it can poison both. That's what happened here.

I am partly to blame for the current interpersonal conflict here. Tegyrius was very reluctant to play in this relaunch of Cruise because he was/is still upset with what happened between Craig, Connelly, Bayer, and Larue before I pulled the plug. I wouldn't take no as an answer from him, so in a way, I brought some of that bad blood back into the game. I'm sorry for that.

Now to IG decision-making. First off, let me just say that playing a leader IC is a tough job. A leader character's decisions can affect the fate of other PCs and that's a burden. It's also challenging to RP out a more democratic IC decision making process given the medium (different time zones, different RL stuff we have to deal with, etc.), especially when there's a turn post deadline looming. That said, I don't think that most RP'ers are content to be told what to do all the time. I know that I am not. It's not fun. If I was happy to unquestioningly follow orders, I'd have joined the real military. Gamers want a sense of agency. In other words, they want a sense that they're decisions and actions have a direct influence on what happens next in the game. No? Some want that more than others- that's natural. But unilateral or even bi-lateral decision-making is not conducive to enjoyable RP'ing in a gaming group of 12 people. I'm not judging you if you're the type of person/player that doesn't mind just following orders. If you enjoy it, more power to you. But a lot of players, including all of the new guys, don't.

We worked out a command arrangement a couple of weeks ago but it's already broken down completely. If that compromise doesn't work, and a return to a unilateral command structure isn't acceptable (it's not), then I don't know how to solve this very major issue.

If I just throw scenarios at you and don't give you a chance to discuss how to approach them, then I'm railroading people. If that discussion isn't happening, and I move the game forward regardless, then I am railroading people. Either way, players lose that agency that they want. It puts me, as GM, in quite a predicament. As I said before, if the game doesn't move forward, I believe that it will stagnate and many, myself included, will lose interest.

I've done a lot of soul-searching and reflection over the past couple of days. I'm not sure that I am cut out to be a GM. I am too impatient. I think I expect too much of my players. I put a lot of effort into this and so I expect my players to reciprocate. Perhaps that is unfair. I'm not sure if I can significantly change my high expectations, though. I've tried and failed several times.

AFAIK, at this point, only Phillips has quit the game (if I understood him correctly; I'm not entirely sure). Does anyone else want out?

If you want to continue, then we need to work this out, not just sling blame back and forth. There are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in between. In order to move forward, folks need to be willing to forgive, compromise, and abide by the posting guidelines (ALL of them). If you can't or won't do any one of those things, then you really should quit.

DaleN is out. He's been AWOL for weeks with no explanation or warning. He did the same thing with Kasparov and I let him rejoin as Thijs. Disappearing without a word AGAIN is just rude and not cool. That's the sort of crap that makes this job a headache. All I ask is for some consideration. I hope that DaleN is OK. I bear him no ill will, but I will not GM for him again.

-

This message was last edited by the GM at 20:58, Sun 12 July 2015.

Eric Phillips
 player, 32 posts
 Spartan-117
Sun 12 Jul 2015
at 21:02
Re: The Airing of Grievances
Cap'n Rae:
AFAIK, at this point, only Phillips has quit the game (if I understood him correctly; I'm not entirely sure). Does anyone else want out?


Correct.  When you cull Thijs  please add me to the list.

PS:




This message was last edited by the player at 21:18, Sun 12 July 2015.