LOL! I'd like to say no, but....
Yes, I do think we all went over together, so by all means, Danton, stir it up. (Kalig's not arguing with him as she wants to get healed.)
Okay, now that I've read the GM's pushback in the game thread:
I brought up the point of "please don't assume consent" not due to the specific details of that moment but because you are increasingly pushing the boundaries of assuming what a player's character does or says "in the interests of moving things along."
I completely, as a GM and longtime PBP player, understand wanting to keep things moving. However you absolutely can do that without describing what somebody else's PC does or says. You can choose to describe a scene without inferring a PC's thoughts or actions while still moving things forward through your own NPCs' actions or asking the players questions.
Furthermore, this is play by post. We are not in a rush. There is in fact time to ask a question on occasion and wait for an answer. If you do the damage first by making an assumption you shouldn't and just hope a player THEN says, "I don't like this," that doesn't undo the damage you did. Doesn't it make more sense just to ask first and avoid the damage in the first place?
Yes, it takes a little more time. But if common courtesy and promptness are in conflict, my preference is to err on the side of courtesy.
You can ALSO make choices about what you do and don't describe while remembering you are in a globally public room full of strangers of a potentially wide variety of ages, cultures, and experiences. You chose to write the scene you did. Shelyn and the priest you made up didn't force you to write it that way. You could have chosen to describe a moment of no touching and a rush of light and the scent of roses, which also would have been entirely appropriate for the religion. You chose to describe something in a way that seemed explicitly intent on making it dance along lines of acceptable behavior. You chose to describe something your own prose suggests you KNEW could be uncomfortable (Your words: "Their position held a certain intimacy, one the druid wasn't convinced was entirely necessary.") You chose this.
Furthermore, you know not just from my application to this game, but also in the last game you and I are in together is that all I ask is people talk to me first before they describe affection or intimate action regarding my character. I am absolutely 100% certain I am not unreasonable in making that request, given we are in a public space among total strangers.
In before: why don't I send this message as a PM? To invite fellow players to a conversation about what they find acceptable in terms of assumed action on the part of. They may all indeed disagree with me, but I feel like we as players should collectively have a say about what is and isn't assumed about our actions.
I would like to give this game a chance and stick with it, as I really like the player group and I like the emphasis on character interaction and development. I am however increasingly worried that I and my own character are going to increasingly lose agency. Are we in a collaborative game together, or are we just passive participants in the development of your fan fiction?
So should I give this game another chance or should I just leave now?
I read this after I made my post and I will take a bit of time to think about where my various lines in agency are before committing something here.
In terms of basics, I really don't want any assumption on my part unless I explicitly stated to (for example, using my ability on LN actions that Abadar would appreciate in order to expedite). I am very fine with a slower game, in fact it is one of the main reasons I play PBP still despite my friends not getting it at all.
Truthfully the only time I really don't want to feel in control is when I roll dice.
@Kalig: Whether I disagree with you or not shouldn't matter ultimately as it should be respected case by case. And if you are fine with X as your limit and I am fine with Y as mine, then I should do my best to accommodate for X.
Forgive the late reply. I thought it best to both give this some time and gather my thoughts.
Okay, now that I've read the GM's pushback in the game thread...
‘Pushback’ is a strong word. ‘Feedback’ might be my own, though if we are to remain within the context of force and conflict then the phrase ‘standing one’s ground’ comes to mind.
But it is an unfortunately telling choice of word, indicative of my limited experience with you, DeathQuaker. For you to frame events in terms of combat is not surprising as although we have shared only two games, I must admit I have found you an unusually combative player. You don’t respond well when others do not fold beneath your demands. I understand that you may have had some bad prior gaming experiences, but please know that casting all other players and GMs as obstacles to be corrected is neither helpful nor fair.
I hope I’ve been even-handed enough a GM so far, that you may guess I am not given to critiquing the person over the argument like this. I do so here for a few reasons. One is to better highlight your many positive qualities by contrast. For one, I appreciate an outspoken player who knows what they like. It is often preferable to the meek for whom getting a dialogue – whether as GM to player, or PC to NPC – can prove difficult. But given the personal nature of your critique as well as the intimation (threat?) of myself being judged poorly in the court of public opinion, I feel a similarly personal correction is necessary.
Firstly, no; there is absolutely nothing objectionable nor inappropriate about a ceremonial kiss to the forehead or even cheek. You are not going to sway me on this. Nor will you sway any of the thousands of practitioners of a dozen denominations in a hundred nations should you take this fight to them. You may say that you don’t appreciate the practice. This is fine. This is an opinion. You are entitled to one such. But to insinuate the wrath of a global public for the depiction of an action most of that global public would consider entirely normal is proof that your perspective is skewed. Please recognize this.
From the same vein, this notion that my GMing style needs to be discussed, that it may be an obstacle to the continued survival of the game, has a wrinkle to it. Namely, how over the two games we have participated in, DeathQuaker, I have received unprompted private messages from no less than three players now about how your own conduct caused serious consideration to bow out. Please know that I hate politics. I don’t have the words to describe my contempt for office politics in particular. I loathe writing every word of this. But it is necessary you be told that while we can agree I am far from the perfect GM (boy, am I not), the game may have another, larger problem.
I am absolutely 100% certain I am not unreasonable...
And I am roughly 99% certain I have written nothing unreasonable. Now what? How does one progress from such a position? Are your sentiments worth more than mine? Are the thoughts of one worth less than the other? You can see that plain sentiments are not conducive to discussion. Demands that others comply with one’s opinions are certainly not conducive to group play. You may say that people’s personal boundaries should be respected. Yet when a certain GM laid down such a personal boundary in a previous game of ours, you did not pay this respect in kind. Instead you disregarded it with what at the time almost seemed like eagerness.
I bring this up because it has become a pattern. One cannot demand respect without giving it in kind. You cannot expect others to work within your arbitrary standards without being willing to work within theirs. This idea that one’s opinion is uniquely ‘correct’ and therefore supersedes all others is the mindset of bullies at best and fascists at worst. I fear I have been too generous in our past squabbles and enabled you in this. I will try to correct this mistake of mine for the future.
You chose to describe something your own prose suggests you KNEW could be uncomfortable...
Moving from ad hominem to ad rem, I’ll admit that ‘intimacy’ may have been a poor choice of word in describing the scene. As stated, I envisioned the kissing of the forehead as purely ceremonial, something that fit the clergy of a goddess of love. What I alluded to in calling it “not strictly necessary,” however, was the gameplay mechanics behind the scene. Remove Disease is a spell like any other, one that requires nothing more than the statement that it is cast as we so often see spells being used at tables and in pbp.
But what I adore about the pbp format is that it forces us to think in-universe. We do not write ‘ooc’ as we’ve gotten accustomed to calling it. When playing, say, a sorcerer out of spells for the day, the player has no option but to consider how to represent this in writing - in the context of the narrative – in universe. Does a caster out of spells feel physical exhaustion as a martial character might? How about a wizard or cleric? Does magic in the blood vs magic through study vs magic channelled manifest differently? Should arcane and divine magic be portrayed differently? How about individual spells? Does the spell Hold Person look, feel and present differently depending on the religion of the priest? As I mentioned once before here, these are the considerations that make up my favourite part of writing games like these, the intersection of hard rules and storytelling, to represent mechanics in a narrative context.
I know my prose can be overwrought. At worst, it even gets in the way of progressing the action. It’s another reason pacing is a concern of mine. But to write a contextual mechanics driven game without giving those mechanics context is to rob both of meaning. It is my sincere hope that no one is here to read or write a story consisting of “(1d20+6) = 16+6 = 22 ; (1d10+7) = 3+7 = 10 ; goblin HP -3/6”. We might as well be writing binary. Context is what turns numbers into your PC’s first slain goblin. Context is what mulls in that PC’s mind as they contemplate glory or whether they’ve just become a murderer. And context is what turns a spell like any other into a believable ritual in an established religion, a story element that characters can actually engage with. In this case I chose to portray Remove Disease with sympathy, lyricism and yes, a chaste kiss (‘cause it’s a touch spell, see), all of which I thought befitting a religion of love and beauty. I still think it perfectly befitting. I won’t apologize for trying to provide players something engaging. And I’m disappointed that a flat [ooc]Kalig’s cured, move on.[/ooc ] would have been preferable.
No, DeathQuaker, you are not passive participants in my “fan fiction.” If indulgences are what I wanted, then indulgences are what I would be writing. I assure you my writing process is akin to pulling teeth. I’m that sort of writer. I put in the effort regardless because the resulting bloody mess, every bit of fluff written is there to give the players something to engage with. I do so with the best of intentions. All of this is to say that I regret and apologize for nothing.
You should have asked first...
Maybe I should have. As you say, common courtesy goes a long way. Yet I’m not convinced it would have been so common in this case. This dispute forced me to consider what this transgression is exactly that I’m accused of. Depicting what is, again, an innocent, even banal rite? No, the idea of asking permission for this is absurd. Involving a particular PC in said rite, then? A PC whose every other post for literal weeks has revolved around removing this disease? Who has sought out this magic specifically to remove a disease? Whose only requirement in removing the disease is to stand still for a bit? Choosing to resolve this longstanding issue in a single post, this issue that has been bothering the player? Is this the transgression? Assuming that doing so might be acceptable?
Given the context, I did think this acceptable and still do. I thought it a favour, actually, laying to rest an issue plaguing a player as expediently as my own narrative sensibilities allowed. Courtesy? There was no violation of player agency. There was no objectionable material. There was nothing to ask permission for.
Please know that this is not the reactionary defence of the accused. I gave this time and thought. I even went over the gameplay thread, wondering just how bad my “godmoding” had gotten to elicit this criticism. After all, you are not the only one to make such an accusation, DeathQuaker. I myself made an unprompted apology for it just days into the game. I have long considered assumptions on the PCs’ parts a fault of mine as GM. All the more surprised was I when, upon reading through gameplay, I began questioning even this. What are these sins I’m made to answer for and even suspected myself guilty of? Leading PCs through the next inevitable doorway (never trapped)? Guessing at PCs’ moods (never dictating actions)? Resolving a curative spell a PC pushed for herself (never without providing other options)? Is this the “godmoding” I’ve worried over and been accused of? If so, I am not only guilty, but had better be locked up fast because I’d do it all over again. An oiling of the hinges of pbp as well as acknowledgements of PCs in the GM’s narration are both gestures I would personally be grateful for as a player.
Heck, in rereading the gameplay, I now even wonder whether my eagerness to “move things along” hasn’t been overstated into existence by myself as well. Keeping a steady pace is simply among a GM’s duties, and yet on one memorable occasion the party spent a great deal of time deliberating on how to overcome a DC 8 climb/acrobatics check, then actually succeeded at this, and then backtracked to said obstacle to discuss it all over again. Over a literal week. All of this without a peep from myself on progress or pacing. In brief, not only do I refute the charges levied, I am beginning to doubt my own insecurities.
To close this diatribe, this opposition of ours is not one of viewpoints but rather of degrees. I agree, utterly and wholeheartedly, that a PC is wholly the player’s, a dominion not to be breached by GMs. I too would be exasperated with a GM I perceived as dictating my actions as player. The hitch lies in ‘perceived’. Our ideas, DeathQuaker, of what constitutes such meddling are clearly very different. As for whether you should give the game “another chance”, I have laid out that I don’t accept any blame on my part and have no intention of changing anything. Well, not on this account, certainly.
But should you still – somehow – wish to continue, then some changes do need to be made. Namely, if you think you can be more amenable to others, then you are welcome to stay. If not, then I’ll have to ask you to leave.
I will leave the game. I don't think we are a good fit for each other at the game table. I certainly do not wish to disrupt other players' ability to enjoy the game. Regarding any concerns they actually have with me now or in the future, they are welcome to bring them up with me directly.
I have always made clear I have concerns about and consent and agency in RPGs, especially when participating in a text-based medium in public, largely anonymous forums participated in by persons from a wide variety of ages, cultures, and experiences. These concerns in and of themselves are not unreasonable. Your response, fixating on the specific moment and not the principle, increases my concern rather than reduces it. I moreover know I am definitely not being unreasonable in wanting to control my own character and not being told by another GM or player what my character does, thinks, or says.
This said, I am certain I have much room for improvement in how I communicate said concerns. That does not reduce the validity of the concern itself or the value in lifting it up for discussion. I always try to do better at communicating respectfully and effectively, and I fail, and I try again, and I will continue to work to improve that. I will always prefer to risk conflict by saying something and hope growth and improvement can result from the experience, even if we as fallible human beings may clumsily struggle toward resolution along the way. The alternative is saying nothing and remain uncomfortable and miserable in silence, which I find unacceptable compared to the temporary, if more acute, discomfort caused by disagreement.
My intention in all of this was to protect myself and potentially other players, and my actions are based out of that desire, not out of a desire to "win." If that looks like failing to back down, so be it.
Please mark my character as "inactive" in your campaign so it no longer appears in my campaigns tab.
For whatever it is worth, I genuinely do wish you and all the players in this game well. I hope the universe treats you fairly and you receive in kind all that you offer it. Good luck, and happy gaming.
Edited to add:
Yet when a certain GM laid down such a personal boundary in a previous game of ours, you did not pay this respect in kind. Instead you disregarded it with what at the time almost seemed like eagerness.
Simply as a point of factual correction: I believe in this specific case you have confused me for another player. The only other game that you and I were in when the GM stated a boundary, I was on vacation without Internet access and saw the entire explosion of that issue entirely after the fact. I never even got a chance to post to the thread before the game closed, let alone regard or disregard the request in any way in the game, IC or OOC. My posting history clearly shows this. (I contacted the GM privately after the fact, but based on the context of your statement, I doubt you know the content of those interactions.) I am happy to own the consequences of circumstances I've actually contributed to, but I wasn't involved in that situation at all.
And then there were 3....
And then there were 3....
Possibly more, we'll see.
Regrettable as this whole affair is, I do appreciate that we can handle this parting of ways civilly. All the best, DeathQuaker. Although I have to add an apology. The 'receipts' to that past incident mentioned are lost to me, but if I am misremembering events and accused you of something plainly not true, then I am genuinely sorry.
And with that sorry chapter closed... Alright, who's not dead? Sound off. As Niccan says, our numbers aren't what they used to be. Another apology to those who had to wait in the sidelines as the game effectively took a hiatus. That's my fault, of course. I should have tried to wrap this up quicker. And if this bit of drama has put you off the game, then I don't blame you in the least. I won't lie; it has put a damper on my own enthusiasm.
Which is why I feel it best to ask whether the three of you remaining - Danton, Niccan and Quintus - still want to continue. And if so, how. I mentioned this once before, but recruiting for six players was very intentional, knowing that player attrition is so common. I was entirely ready and willing to continue the game as long as we had a party of at least four.
Now that we're three, I'm having trouble envisioning the party managing the module as intended.
It's regrettable that it had to come out like this but it's better that things never fester. I do think that both of you taking your time was the right call so I'm not concerned about the mini hiatus.
I'm fine with continuing but we will definitely need another player to put us back to four. The question is are you?
If the answer is no, that's also fine. If it's maybe, that's okay as well. Ultimately this is supposed to be fun and if it ceases to be fun or is not fun it's fine to say that.
Today I'll be playing Skull and Shackles for most of the day so I won't be following this thread, but I'll check back later on.
I would very much like to continue.
I've PMed the GM that I've reached out to one of the players from the original Recruitment thread who has a martial build. I told them there were no promises, guarantees, etc. that I was only inquiring for availability and interest. They replied that they would like to play.
I have a bit of familiarity with one of the other players (Ironperenti) and he also submitted a martial build.
I also think an arcane build would be a good addition.
But if the GM has lost the enthusiasm for continuing then I'll defer to his judgement.
I very much want to continue. Of course the final decision is with the GM.
I have been thinking about the goblin PC and had to laugh when I thought about the rat looking down his nose at a goblin!!!! Pure silly! But, I do think it would be difficult/interesting to see how the townsfolk would greet a goblin, unless the goblin was with another PC that the town would be happy to see. Additional comedy would be the goblin with a dwarf!?! I can see it now.... A dwarf riding a war-pig and a goblin riding a fighting trained dog! Just kidding of course!
Right. Best to rip this band-aid off.
I apologize for another overdue update. That’s what happens when I really don’t want to write what comes next. You can already tell where this is going.
Sadly, I am shuttering the game. With fully half of the original party gone, it feels too forced to keep the thing going, like a 70s band insisting on reunion tours with most of its members dead. Just plain undignified, you know? Of course, I recognize that this is very much a ‘me’ problem. In addition to just losing my momentum, I’m simply not fond of continually subbing in new PCs. The characters are the soul of a game. This in turn makes an adventure read a lot more like particularly bad slam poetry when Sam and Legolas suddenly disappear to make way for faces all new and unfamiliar. Can it be made to work? Oh, undoubtedly! I’m just not convinced I can do so. I’m especially certain I wouldn’t enjoy the attempt.
This is to say that none of this is on you, Danton, Niccan and Quintus. I really am very sorry to disappoint you, especially with the work you’ve put into your characters. If you’re willing to give this GM another chance, I‘d love to play with you again in some other game somewhere down the line.
Thanks for the brief time shared and a special thanks for the encouragement as of late. Hope you find other RP outlets 'cause you deserve them.
Any chance of doing a "reset" on this game? Start over with a whole new recruitment and we can try different characters? Of course you'd have to change things up in the parts that we've played.... ??
I understand and thank you for running such a well-written and vibrant game and to the remaining players who are also very cool.
Hope to see all of you somewhere in the future.
True Quintus. Thank you GM Heat for a fun game!
Any chance of doing a "reset" on this game? Start over with a whole new recruitment and we can try different characters?
I don't think so, no. Not here and now, certainly. Though I am considering starting an all new game. No promises, but should something come of it, I'll be sure to keep all three of you in mind.
Figured as much.
Not an issue of course. Thanks for the great hooks and the vivid descriptions.
I hope to play with you all again at some point!