OOC.   Posted by The echo of the past.Group: archive 0
Luther Sorrel
 player, 51 posts
 AC 15, HP 39/44 PP 9
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 01:20
Re: OOC
Erm... Looking at the situation, we've got a bunch of skeletons and scarecrows galloping our way on skeletal horses.  Even if they're not specifically after our heads (which they likely are) they're going to attack living things on sight regardless.  I don't think diplomacy is likely to soothe them, we can't run away fast enough, and nobody expressed any other plans for peacefully dealing with the situation, so that leaves us to fight it out.

But hey, Luther ran off away from the wagon with weapon drawn.  If they turn out to be reasonable wizard-spawned monstrosities then you can tell them you don't know him :)
Mis'sha
 player, 80 posts
 The curious snake girl
 32/32 hp | AC 15 | PP 15
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 08:44
Re: OOC
In reply to Karliah Culver (msg # 249):

My point is he made the decision for the group. I can also a lot of things from my character's perspective, like ditching Luther because he's a homocidal maniac, but didn't do to keep group consistency. We all have to give and take a little, and sometimes that means that you have to tolerate the homicidal maniac because he is a PC, and not initiate a fight with every oppertunity, because some players don't like non-stop combat.
Luther Sorrel
 player, 52 posts
 AC 15, HP 39/44 PP 9
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 10:51
Re: OOC
In reply to Mis'sha (msg # 251):

Again, I don't see that there was much of a choice here: Mounted undead monsters are charging at us over open ground, and that means it's going to be a fight.  Our choices as I see them were to wait for them to attack us or to make preparations to be attacked, and I had Luther make preparations.  I don't see anything unreasonable in what I had him do under these circumstances.

On the OOC side, Mis, I wasn't aware that you as a player dislike or are tired of combat encounters, so it never occurred to me that preparing for a seemingly inevitable combat would be controversial.  I don't think it's fair to hold me or anyone else to an expectation that was never communicated.  I agree with Karliah that this is an issue of game style expectations more than it is with my character's choice in this situation.  If you'd like more options for ways to avoid combat then that's a discussion to have with the DM.  If you'd like for the PCs to take a subtler approach then that's also something we can discuss IC and OOC.

With all that said, I'm sensing that you dislike Luther as a character and how I play him.  Perhaps it's too much cognitive dissonance to group with a guy who turns into a psycho killer sometimes, which is perfectly reasonable.  I'd be willing to tone it down a few notches and explicitly take friendly fire off the table (for one), if that would help.  It's not my desire to ruin anyone's fun, and it ruins my fun if and when I do, so I'd rather try to do something to make things better.
Karliah Culver
 player, 64 posts
 Human Gunslinger | PP: 14
 HP: 29/32 | AC: 17
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 12:45
Re: OOC
^ Exactly this. All very well said, Luther.
Mis'sha
 player, 81 posts
 The curious snake girl
 32/32 hp | AC 15 | PP 15
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 14:39
Re: OOC
I most certainly have discussed the dislike for combat with the DM, well before the game started in fact. I prefer RP infinitely to dicerolling. I don't mind the occasional combat, it's D&D after all, but I am not spoiling for a fight.

Perhaps it wasn't mentioned explicitly OOC, but I think you've seen enough of my character IC to deduct that by now. Mis'sha is a noncombatant who has a crossbow for self-defense. Her mode of transport is impractical for combat and even vulnerable to it. Her interests are academic. Nothing suggests she is interested in a fight. To make matters even worse, and let me state it plainly now OOC so there's nothing under the table; During the first fight my concerns worsened. As I've communicated to the DM, there's a massive power discrepancy within the group, as some of you are optimized for combat. That means I have even less incentive to enter combat as a player. Not only is there my dislike for dicerolling and slowdown of the game, there's also the fact that each of your characters is several times as powerful as mine.

Now then, back to this discussion. I want to say clearly I don't dislike Luther or how you play him. I think it's a rather good depiction of the Bloody Nine and you portray him well (although Logen tried a little harder to avoid fights I'd say since he feared the Bloody Nine). What I'm saying is I'm adjusting my playstyle and how my character acts to accommodate you. Were Luther an NPC, Mis'sha would never have associated with him. There's a difference between my personal and my character's perceptions and how they would act and will sometimes override the character's acting with my personal ones to keep the game flowing. I kind of expect everyone to do the same.  Think on it, is it unreasonable for Mis'sha not to want to take Luther along after she saw how he acted? I don't think so. But I accommodate another PC. Same thing applies to the riders are headed for the village. They just might pass us by. And Mis'sha communicated she wants to try for that. So why aren't you showing the same courtesy I show you? You know Mis'sha wasn't in favor of bringing you along. You heard her say she doesn't want to fight. You've even seen she's not much worth in a fight. What reason will she have for keeping you around if you ignore her and place her in mortal danger? Why is it me that has to keep adjusting Mis'sha to keep you around, while you can easily do it yourself?
The echo of the past
 GM, 102 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 15:06
Re: OOC
Ok this will be a quick skirmish, I promise, mostly to test how well can you mesh with Nihil. 1 scarecrow and a bunch of skeletons. not like with the giant vultures, these guys were dangerous.
Karliah Culver
 player, 65 posts
 Human Gunslinger | PP: 14
 HP: 29/32 | AC: 17
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 17:12
Re: OOC
Okay, so you want to avoid combat because Mis'sha is not necessarily built for it and you have concerns that the rest of us outclass you in that regard. So you would rather stay to non-combat aspects, where you'll likely just outclass he rest of us?

There's dissonance there either way, the only thing that changes is which way it leans.

You might have spoken with the DM about playing a non-combative role well before the game started, but none of the rest of us knew that at all, nor did we have much information until after the start of the game. And now that the game has started, you're trying to sideline a character who was built to excel in combat.

On top of all that, there is a certain aspect that we as players have to react to the encounters the DM gives us an interpret what we are 'supposed' to do and what we *can* do. An undead inquisition squad who happens to run right into us on an empty road does seem like a situation the DM expects to enter combat.

Now, the answer here is obviously to balance the combat and non-combat scenarios so everyone will feel useful at different times. However, such a balance usually end up with an average of at least 3 fights per game day.
Luther Sorrel
 player, 53 posts
 AC 15, HP 39/44 PP 9
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 17:50
Re: OOC
In reply to Mis'sha (msg # 254):

I still don't think I did anything unreasonable by having Luther prepare to attack a group of undead monsters charging at us at a full gallop.  Frankly, I'm annoyed that you insist on making me out to be some kind of inconsiderate jerk because I didn't read your mind as a player and choose to act out of character and against common sense to ensure your fun.

So, we're at an impasse.  I feel like I made a reasonable effort to meet you halfway on your unreasonable demands, but that didn't work out.  It seems that there's no way for me to play my character without you getting sore about it.  That's not fun for me or for you, so with apologies to the DM and my fellow players I'm going to bow out of this game now.  Thanks all for the good fun for the time we played together.  Please remove me from the game, DM, thanks.
The echo of the past
 GM, 103 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 18:31
Re: OOC
Wait, we don't need to be that drastic. This was suppossed to be a quick skirmish to give Nihil and Val a chance to do stuff and see how you all integrate, not a big set piece encounter like the last one. After that you would get to the location and explore, inquire and everything.
Mis'sha
 player, 82 posts
 The curious snake girl
 32/32 hp | AC 15 | PP 15
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 08:32
Re: OOC
Karliah Culver:
Okay, so you want to avoid combat because Mis'sha is not necessarily built for it and you have concerns that the rest of us outclass you in that regard. So you would rather stay to non-combat aspects, where you'll likely just outclass he rest of us?

There's dissonance there either way, the only thing that changes is which way it leans.


No. As I said, I avoid dicerolling and therefore combat. That, and a Scholar doesn't have that much out-of-combat advantage. Just a lot of skills. Any spellcaster likely has more out of combat utility then I on paper. What I want is to roleplay, not drag through myriad combat railroaded combat encounters.

Karliah Culver:
You might have spoken with the DM about playing a non-combative role well before the game started, but none of the rest of us knew that at all, nor did we have much information until after the start of the game. And now that the game has started, you're trying to sideline a character who was built to excel in combat.


Is he? Yes, he's minmaxed for combat, but if he's anything like Logen Nine-Fingers, he wants to avoid combat. He wants friends, he wants to protect them, but he knows doing battle only makes matters worse for himself. Logen Nine-Fingers would have tried to avoid this fight. So why can't Luther?

Karliah Culver:
On top of all that, there is a certain aspect that we as players have to react to the encounters the DM gives us an interpret what we are 'supposed' to do and what we *can* do. An undead inquisition squad who happens to run right into us on an empty road does seem like a situation the DM expects to enter combat.


I disagree there. Nothing suggests that combat is unavoidable from the description given. It could be the group passes us by and goes to the village, as that is their objective and they are already late to the fight.

Karliah Culver:
Now, the answer here is obviously to balance the combat and non-combat scenarios so everyone will feel useful at different times. However, such a balance usually end up with an average of at least 3 fights per game day.


If you play an adventure path, maybe. That's why I avoid any official written adventures, since it's so disgustingly fabricated around combat encounters followed by simplistic problem-solving, leaving nothing to sandbox or RP. Have you never noticed how synthetic those adventures are? My own table games average about a few rolls an hour and the rest is just RP, talk, investigating, exploring and perhaps one fight at the end of it all.

Luther Sorrel:
In reply to Mis'sha (msg # 254):

I still don't think I did anything unreasonable by having Luther prepare to attack a group of undead monsters charging at us at a full gallop.  Frankly, I'm annoyed that you insist on making me out to be some kind of inconsiderate jerk because I didn't read your mind as a player and choose to act out of character and against common sense to ensure your fun.


I acted out of character and against common sense to ensure your fun. Don't be like this because we have a difference of opinion, and put words in my mouth. I'm doing my best here to work this out.

Luther Sorrel:
So, we're at an impasse.  I feel like I made a reasonable effort to meet you halfway on your unreasonable demands, but that didn't work out.  It seems that there's no way for me to play my character without you getting sore about it.  That's not fun for me or for you, so with apologies to the DM and my fellow players I'm going to bow out of this game now.  Thanks all for the good fun for the time we played together.  Please remove me from the game, DM, thanks.


Or, you know, we could talk it out.
Luther Sorrel
 player, 54 posts
 AC 15, HP 39/44 PP 9
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 12:36
Re: OOC
Mis'sha:
I disagree there. Nothing suggests that combat is unavoidable from the description given. It could be the group passes us by and goes to the village, as that is their objective and they are already late to the fight.

I feel like this is beating a dead horse, but this scenario was always going to be a combat encounter.  It just was.  In IC terms undead have the sole objective to destroy the living and were never going to just pass by travelers on the road.  In OOC terms the DM said it was meant to be a fight to test out the new characters with the group.  So, I wish that we could agree that it was sensible to prepare for a fight here, because it WAS sensible.

I was admittedly abrupt in stating my desire to leave the game, so I want to elaborate on the reasons why I feel that this situation is irreconcilable.  This whole thing has already been more airing of dirty laundry than I'd ever wanted to do, so to spare the innocent bystanders I'm going to put this in a private line to Mis, the GM and Karliah since she was involved in these discussions previously.

(PM)[Private to Mis'sha; Karliah Culver; GM:
  1. You as a player don't like combat, playing a game system that has combat as a major part, in a dangerous setting in which combat is bound to happen with some regularity.  My character is both an ex-soldier by background and has a bloodthirsty alter ego, which means he will fight when threatened by monsters and when combat is inevitable will not sit by and wait to be hit first.  Being a person who dislikes creating unhappiness, in the future whenever I'd consider drawing my weapon I'd have to second guess myself: Is this going to upset Mis?  Has it been long enough since the last combat for her to be ok with it?  Is she going to resent that I wasn't sufficiently pacifistic and didn't do everything I could to avoid combat, no matter if combat is inevitable?  Even as this character I'm not asking for a pass to murder every NPC we approach, but just to be able to attack skeletons charging at us and not be chided for it.  This whole dynamic is not fun for me.
  2. Once a fight begins, my character's effectiveness in combat makes you unhappy because you feel that your character is ineffective by comparison.  There's no way around this discrepancy in damage output between a Barbarian and a Scholar, so there's nothing I can do to avoid this resentment.  Having my character's existence resented isn't fun for me.
  3. As a player you feel entitled to dictate to other players how they should play their characters.  You expect us to act in a way you approve of to create the game experience that is enjoyable to you regardless of what we might want for our characters, and you don't mind telling us so.  You expect us to abide by your expectations before you've even communicated those expectations to us.  I find this entitlement of yours disagreeable, to put it nicely.
  4. My part-time psychotic "combat monster" and your pacifist Scholar are fundamentally incompatible.  Let me be clear that I'll take the blame for this being a problem.  I chose to create a character with a scary and dangerous split personality, and I would not expect anyone to look past that and accept him with open arms.  What I was hoping for was to leverage this inherent conflict into some interesting RP to figure out how it could be worked around.  Two possibilities off the top of my head: Luther seems like an ok guy when not raging, so perhaps there's potential for redemption?  Second idea: Gosh the Cackler was terrifying, but without him that battle with the skeletons and vultures could've gone much worse, so maybe he's a useful weapon to have on our side?  Instead what we have is "Mis would never associate with Luther if given the choice, but since he's a PC her player will deign to have her go against character to begrudgingly tolerate him."  I mean, ok, it's hard to justify Mis associating with Luther and perhaps it's a big ask, but would it have killed you to meet me halfway?  I made an effort to make inroads by having Luther behave genially toward Mis outside of combat, and was met with nothing but cold hostility.  You made no effort toward even the barest IC justification for grouping, but you act like you did me a giant favor by having Mis barely tolerate Luther's presence while making it abundantly clear how reluctantly you did so.  I'm sorry, but I find it hard to be grateful for that.


So yeah, there are a few reasons that I don't see this working, and don't feel like it's worth trying to salvage.  I've already put too much energy into this argument, and I don't like all the negativity it's brought out of me.  For what it's worth, I'm sorry to you Mis for saying hurtful things, but I feel like I needed to express that stuff to explain where I'm coming from.  I'm sure you're a lovely person, but for whatever reason we haven't seen eye to eye in this game.  I hope all your future gaming interactions go a million times better than this one!
]

This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 15:18, Wed 02 Nov 2016.

Mis'sha
 player, 83 posts
 The curious snake girl
 32/32 hp | AC 15 | PP 15
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 15:08
Re: OOC
I don't see the PM.
Luther Sorrel
 player, 55 posts
 AC 15, HP 39/44 PP 9
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 15:20
Re: OOC
I edited maybe with correct formatting, check now...
Mis'sha
 player, 84 posts
 The curious snake girl
 32/32 hp | AC 15 | PP 15
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 16:50
Re: OOC
I see it now.

PM

[Private to Karliah Culver; Luther Sorrel; The echo of the past:

Somehow you are making this all about me, without finding any flaw in yourself. I don't like being put on the defensive, because it makes me really irksome, but some of your attacks here are out of line. Personally, I believe I have been extremely accommodating of the other characters and their wishes. I went from 'I want to somehow sneak into the wizard-lord's library'  to 'let's assassinate the wizard-lord so I can get into his library' just so I can have an IC reason to take the cackler along and have a role for him in the party. What have you done? Seriously, what have you done to accommodate the wishes of others? What were your thoughts when you made a homicidal maniac concerning the wishes of the party? Or did you automatically assume we'd all be fine with that?

How can you blow my request to have a less combat into this epic argument? You are so entrenched in what you want, that you'd rather leave the game then give an inch, while somehow thinking this is about me. You don't want to compromise and only see conflict where we could probably work this out.


Luther Sorrel:
[*] You as a player don't like combat, playing a game system that has combat as a major part, in a dangerous setting in which combat is bound to happen with some regularity.  My character is both an ex-soldier by background and has a bloodthirsty alter ego, which means he will fight when threatened by monsters and when combat is inevitable will not sit by and wait to be hit first.  Being a person who dislikes creating unhappiness, in the future whenever I'd consider drawing my weapon I'd have to second guess myself: Is this going to upset Mis?  Has it been long enough since the last combat for her to be ok with it?  Is she going to resent that I wasn't sufficiently pacifistic and didn't do everything I could to avoid combat, no matter if combat is inevitable?  Even as this character I'm not asking for a pass to murder every NPC we approach, but just to be able to attack skeletons charging at us and not be chided for it.  This whole dynamic is not fun for me.


Misha is not a pacifist (no idea where that idea came from). I also mentioned that I recognize that combat is inherent in D&D, but I'd like to shift the focus away from it. Not abolish it. Considering the feelings of other players around the table kind of helps improve everyone's experience. In this exact case, Mis'sha asked you to not do something, and you gave did it anyway, and somehow, miraculously, when I say something about it, it's my fault.


Luther Sorrel:
[*] Once a fight begins, my character's effectiveness in combat makes you unhappy because you feel that your character is ineffective by comparison.  There's no way around this discrepancy in damage output between a Barbarian and a Scholar, so there's nothing I can do to avoid this resentment.  Having my character's existence resented isn't fun for me.


A separate discussion, but it's not just that you play a barbarian, it's that you play an optimized barbarian, causing some imbalance in combat, but I only mentioned that as I wanted to mention why I dislike combat, and that in this particular game, another reason was added for me disliking it.

Luther Sorrel:
[*] As a player you feel entitled to dictate to other players how they should play their characters.  You expect us to act in a way you approve of to create the game experience that is enjoyable to you regardless of what we might want for our characters, and you don't mind telling us so.  You expect us to abide by your expectations before you've even communicated those expectations to us.  I find this entitlement of yours disagreeable, to put it nicely.


This is the part where you seriously annoy me. I don't dictate. I ask. And you have your mouth full of me telling you how to play your character, which I never did. I'm not entitled to anything, and neither are you. I don't have to accommodate your character, but I do. But you don't do the same for me.


Luther Sorrel:
[*] My part-time psychotic "combat monster" and your pacifist Scholar are fundamentally incompatible.  Let me be clear that I'll take the blame for this being a problem.  I chose to create a character with a scary and dangerous split personality, and I would not expect anyone to look past that and accept him with open arms.  What I was hoping for was to leverage this inherent conflict into some interesting RP to figure out how it could be worked around.  Two possibilities off the top of my head: Luther seems like an ok guy when not raging, so perhaps there's potential for redemption?  Second idea: Gosh the Cackler was terrifying, but without him that battle with the skeletons and vultures could've gone much worse, so maybe he's a useful weapon to have on our side?  Instead what we have is "Mis would never associate with Luther if given the choice, but since he's a PC her player will deign to have her go against character to begrudgingly tolerate him."  I mean, ok, it's hard to justify Mis associating with Luther and perhaps it's a big ask, but would it have killed you to meet me halfway?  I made an effort to make inroads by having Luther behave genially toward Mis outside of combat, and was met with nothing but cold hostility.  You made no effort toward even the barest IC justification for grouping, but you act like you did me a giant favor by having Mis barely tolerate Luther's presence while making it abundantly clear how reluctantly you did so.  I'm sorry, but I find it hard to be grateful for that.


No, a hundred times no. I, as a player, changed Mis'sha from 'I want to infiltrate the wizard-lord's library'  to 'let's kill the wizard-lord so I can loot his library' JUST SO I CAN HAVE THE CACKLER ALONG. And yes, sorry for my character not wanting to shake hands. Yours were caked in gore at the time. She let him into her house though, ain't that nice? But let's examine your argument. Both options you give for reasons to take you along require us to accommodate you and somehow, they involve thinking you are a an OK guy to have around after just witnessing your homicidal streak as your very first introduction. Again, you want us to change your opinion of you, without changing yourself. Ahem. Sorry, but no one in their right mind will think Luther is a swell guy after that intro. Ergo, is it too much to ask for Luther to be self-aware of what kind of person he is and try to fall in line with the wishes of the ones he wants to travel with?

Luther Sorrel:
So yeah, there are a few reasons that I don't see this working, and don't feel like it's worth trying to salvage.  I've already put too much energy into this argument, and I don't like all the negativity it's brought out of me.  For what it's worth, I'm sorry to you Mis for saying hurtful things, but I feel like I needed to express that stuff to explain where I'm coming from.  I'm sure you're a lovely person, but for whatever reason we haven't seen eye to eye in this game.  I hope all your future gaming interactions go a million times better than this one!


So stop arguing and focusing on the negative and work towards a solution and world peace instead.
]
Tigress
 player, 59 posts
 Wood Elf Blood Hunter/ 4
 HP: 15/32 AC: 16 PP: 13
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:20
Re: OOC
Omg, what happened to the thread?! O.O

You guys see it, right?!
Lavarian Galonodel
 player, 10 posts
 HP: 18/18, AC: 13
 SP: 4/4, PP: 13
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:26
Re: OOC
Welp, this is broken, now.
Val'Cryel
 player, 69 posts
 The Quick Shadow.
 HP 26/26 | AC 19 | PP 15
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:31
Re: OOC
Ok, good, i wasn't the only one. I believe the debate (Not argument) has broken the literal 4th walls. xD
Karliah Culver
 player, 66 posts
 Human Gunslinger | PP: 14
 HP: 29/32 | AC: 17
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:32
Re: OOC
Not sure what you guys are talking about, but that might be because I actually see the private text. Don't worry though, they have since moved to a private thread.
Tigress
 player, 60 posts
 Wood Elf Blood Hunter/ 4
 HP: 15/32 AC: 16 PP: 13
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:33
Re: OOC
Guys, stoppit, you're going to create a break in the dimensions!!

Karliah, do you not see?! The text goes on past the thread!!
Nihil
 player, 15 posts
 Zwilian
 HP=26/AC=11
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 01:35
Re: OOC
Start a new OOC thread? Or look for open tags in past posts?
Val'Cryel
 player, 70 posts
 The Quick Shadow.
 HP 26/26 | AC 19 | PP 15
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 02:05
Re: OOC
It seems only those of us not in the original PM can see the tear in reality. A new adventure awaits!
Tigress
 player, 61 posts
 Wood Elf Blood Hunter/ 4
 HP: 15/32 AC: 16 PP: 13
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 02:19
Re: OOC
Do we need to roll initiative or new characters? lolz.
Karliah Culver
 player, 67 posts
 Human Gunslinger | PP: 14
 HP: 29/32 | AC: 17
Thu 3 Nov 2016
at 05:24
Re: OOC
My guess is that the DM needs to delete those comments with the excessive PM lines. Probably something with quotes inside PM lines that maybe caused some sort of glitch in the code? Not sure.
The echo of the past
 GM, 104 posts
Tue 8 Nov 2016
at 22:24
Re: OOC
Ok, sorry. I don't really have time for this. I know I'm probably being unfair, but there is only one way I can find to salvage the game. Nothing personal, I want everybody to be happy, but I guess it is the needs of the many, or have no game...


If you are still around and want to keep going, post inside the thread. Roll initiative, all of you.
Karliah Culver
 player, 68 posts
 Human Gunslinger | PP: 14
 HP: 29/32 | AC: 17
Tue 8 Nov 2016
at 23:09
Re: OOC
DM, there might be an issue with this OOC threa for some of the others. I'm not part of it but from what I understand the thread looks broken when Val, Tigress, Nihil, and perhaps others look at it.

A random shot in the dark, you might need to delete the posts from Luther and Mis'sha that included excessive private lines.