Rikka, I am going to be very direct with you then, I think you are way off base, and that what I put to you earlier applies. Have the courtesy to be a little honest about it.
You can whinge and whine all you like, but your view of how things play out is a little light, perhaps its because you simply cut to the end of what happened after a week long absence and don't bother to read how things played out in the intervening time, otherwise there's no way you could be so demonstrably wrong.
That's a telling reaction.
We often expect to find in others, the traits we ourselves hold. Simply put, liars expect others to lie, cheaters expect others to cheat, etc. It is almost an axiomatic cornerstone in psychology. Your childish insults and accusations here - based entirely on my three brief posts - says much about you and little about me. More amusingly, you are attempting to ascribe a 'position' to me and then claiming your smoke & mirror construct is 'off base' and 'demonstrably wrong'. Demonstrably - gotta love those big score Scrabble words.
Regarding answering your questions, I'll say two things. First, my initial post was to let Kath know he wasn't alone in his dissatisfaction and, per his request, to give VoV a heads-up. VoV has proven to be intelligent, has solid reading comprehension - capable of detecting nuance and subtleties, is familiar with the campaign, and is familiar with you since (I believe) you've gamed with him before. From all that, I didn't think I needed to draw him a map about your deficiencies as a player or the issues with your character's actions. Hence, I gave him only the thumbnail info he needed. If he has questions for me, I'm sure I'll get a PM or somesuch. Second, pointless verbal sparring is a waste of my time. If you can ask a relevent question, I'll answer it. "Where were you when..." is irrelevent to the goal of correcting the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok - the DM is playing his timeout card to hopefully let things cool off for a few minutes.
1) Looking backwards here isn't helping anything with respect to how we move forwards.
2) All three sides of the river (including me) have agreed that there were some problems, and we've had a partially constructive discussion on how to try and prevent similar situations from happening in the future. The bridge is in construction, and hopefully we can all meet in the middle.
3) I'm not going to suggest that everybody shake hands, but it would be good to have a gentleman/woman's agreement to stop sniping at one another (and that goes for me too).
If people have significant issues, please feel free to PM me - the inbox is always open.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Righto, I'll apply the safety here.
When Klo and I butted heads, we all had a big chat about how things needed to play out. Klo got on board with things when realising that Skane and I were playing to type (and were always clearly signalling which way were going on any matter) and to 'fix' this, Klo took the IN GAME steps to put a bit of a leash on Klo and Elghund, which you'll note we took on board.
Now I can see why it is easy to take a shot at the party attack dogs, but when people come p with "A tree, attack it, a Weasel Kill it" it doesn't help things and actually is quite misleading, though in fairness I suggest that there may have been a level of honest forgetfulness in play.
The Trees attacked the party straight up.
The weasel we tried to capture alive and well, per Elghunds suggestion - funnily enough he was in the minority in wanting it to breathe.
With the above in mind it is worth putting aside some of the clear cut prejudices and look back on the encounters again and see how they actually played out. When we do that we realise that since Klo and Elghund had their heart to heart, every single combat had been a group decision - even this most recent one in that every single person in the party had an option to shape how that went down. Each person had an equal in game opportunity to interact and post, each person indeed did post.
At ANY point any of those posts could have OOC'd or tipped that you were trying to work out a strategy, or even been like "Shuddup Skane, you're drunk" and tried bluffing past the womans questioning. That's the first thing I attempted to do - lead the conversation off what Skane was saying and get us back to murky waters where it all became about her and not us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For posterity, and because it has a lot of bearing on the situation we are now in, I have gone back to the beginning, to the recruitment thread because I feel that there are a few pertinent points in it that might suggest where Skane and Elghund are coming from.
http://paizo.com/campaigns/SagaOfTheTaigheanDubhaAReignOfWinterPbP/recruiti ng&page=last
A Question of Tone:
Bodvar Bjarki ploughed into them now, hacking two handed, his only thought to do as much damage as he could before he fell. And now they fall in heaps before him, one on top of another, and both his arms are bloodied to the shoulder, and he felled so many, the dead were stacked all about him. He stormed on as if he was insane. - The Saga Of Hrolf KrakiIn my version of Reign of Winter, the start point will be moved from within Taldor to within the Lands of the Linnorm Kings – in the Northeast of Southmoor just on the fringe of the Grungir Forest (just South of Delmon’s Glen).
I plan on running this game firmly in the realms of the darker end of fantasy. While it will be far from grimdark, it will be a decent step away from the typical Golarion high fantasy tone. Magic will tend to be less overt, more discreet and insidious in nature. Healing will hurt and not automatically make everyone better instantly without some recovery time. Swords and axes cut deep and descriptions will be commensurate with that.
While a lot of these changes won’t actually change the mechanical effect of abilities - it is still important to keep in mind when putting together your characters. Wuxia inspired monks, or wizards that shoot fire out their nostrils will not fit in. Winter witches, sorcerers who call upon dark pacts and brutish brawlers do.
If you’ve never read any stories that involve vikingr or the like… I highly recommend you start reading this link, and do a little research into the subpages like the tale of Ragnar Lodbrok, or Saga of the Jomsvikings. This is the type of feel that I want for this campaign – and my selection of characters will tend towards those that can recognize that and build their characters and posts to suit.
Emphasis mine.
I also suggest that "Lastly, in the true spirit of the North, bloodnames and odes are earnt and not given freely" from the same thread is something Skane and Elghund are trying to live up to.
Something to dwell on anyhow.
If what is being suggested by a couple of players and the GM is that we should be backing away for what we signed up for, which was very much by the points above 'Bloodshedding Vikings' then by all means this is something to talk about, but the original thread touches on Dark themes, brutish brawlers, suggests Ragnar Lodbrok (who by the way killed everything that breathed including slaughtering Monks for phat lewtz in England) and that's what I thought we were playing.
I would be disappointed if we changed that personally.
I would like to see a few more strong Warchiefs emerge, not us descend into 'yet another Golarion typical party of do-gooders'
Ok - the DM is playing his timeout card to hopefully let things cool off for a few minutes.
LOL. I'd have to get 'heated up' before I need a cool down, but I'll do as you ask. As I said before, my first post was for Kath and you. I was content to leave it there and still am.
No one (least of all me) wants this to become a Rise of the Runelords hip hip for the greater good campaign). That's not what is being suggested here.
You'll also notice in the recruitment thread I include a couple of quotes from the Gestaþáttr - which includes the Norse ideas of hospitality. A few selected stanzas below again as a food for thought:
3. Fire is needful to him who is come in, and whose knees are frozen;
food and rainment a man requires, who o’er the fell has travelled
29. He utters too many futile words who is never silent;
a garrulous tongue, if it be not checked, sings often to its own harm.
31. Clever thinks himself the guest who jeers a guest, if he takes to flight.
Knows it not certainly he who prates at meat, whether he babbles among foes.
65. Circumspect and reserved every man should be, and wary in trusting friends.
Of the words that a man says to another he often pays the penalty.
Also - of Irriseni culture, at the head of the hierarchy lie the Jadwiga, next come monsters and cold fey -> then the peasantry. So within their culture the fey had the right to demand shelter, and the Irriseni populace have a need to be subservient.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More out of a sprit of having my voice in the conversation then any real intention to ignore VoV's request that we cool off, I'm going to give my perspective. I don't mean to draw things out; I just want to be on record. And again, I apologize for being silent through this. It wasn't by intent. Sometimes work just likes to slap me around.
And buckle up, kiddos, we have a high word count warning in effect.
Skäne and Elghund being "attack dogs".
As both of the their players have pointed out, this shouldn't be a surprise to us. They're black-handed cut-throats who are most comfortable resolving sticky situations with a heavy dose of explosive force. It can be frustrating if you feel that their approach to situations is dictating all of our gameplay experience. I felt that way in the beginning of the game, but I've seen evidence of both players actively trying to curtail that being the case. I don't want them to neuter their characters, and I want everyone to have fun… I like to think we're savvy enough players (and generally good enough human beings) to have our cake and eat it, too.
Katherson, I think it's smart for you to become more proactive. From what I can gather, you've got an interesting character whose been too much in the background so far. You have a quiet thing going with your character (which I can appreciate; Kló's the same.. at least he was supposed to be), but I look forward to you diving in to throw your weight around. Plus, we're demonstratively ( ;P ) light on characters who can make use of good charisma scores… it would be awesome to have some additional skillsets to be able to rely on for situations like the one we just finished up.
I'm not saying Elghund and Skäne were in the right. After multiple warnings that we should play it cool, the goat woman was baited with aggressive tones and postures. Did we all suspect she was likely trouble? Yes. But both did still take an aggressive stance with a few of their lines… that didn't' help. And it dug a hole I didn't know how to get out of.
I do agree that it is just as much on the rest of us to be proactive to help shape those encounters as we want them.
Did we break an oath and what does that mean for us?
I'm sure we could him and haw about the letter of the oath we took. I think we can agree that the spirit of the oath was "don't cause trouble and you can share our fire, shelter and food". Even Elghund's ambiguously worded "I be safe too, no trouble" was a general acceptance of the woman's terms.
If we don't agree on that, then we need to address that because people clearly have different understandings of what an oath is.
Beyond that, though, different characters (and players) approach and react differently to oaths. Kló recognizes the spirit and intent of the oath we took, and that's why I made him go big on the response to the situation. It was an intentional "overcorrect" on my part, and within the bounds of how Kló would want to reconcile the loss of rep with this woman. I hope it offers some unique future revelations and options within the game, but given the lateness of my attempt, I'm not expecting it. I also hope it shows Kló's resolve and desire to step up within this group to each of the group members. Basically I'm trying to straddle the line between saying, "these people are individuals and I can't speak for them" and "but I take full responsibility for what just happened".
One last thing:
Katherson asked "what would my character be doing in this group?" It's a fair question, and ultimately one that's up to the player playing the character. That being said, this is a group game, and I hope we can all be looking for ways to build bridges to a working, cohesive group. I'm not asking for sunshine, snuggles, and rainbows; but I sure as hell am asking for people to treat each other with respect and (hopefully) have a fun time working towards creating a team that kicks ass together and has some fun doing it. I don't really have a problem with Elghund's actions in Nadya's tent (or most of his actions, in general). But as much I can understand Shifty's response to Katherson's discussion thread (self-ascribed) rant, I do expect us all to be mature, constructive, and positive with how we treat each other as players.
I actually really like the people we have in this game. Would I be besties with you guys in real life? I don't know, but there is an interesting mix of player personalities (and, if i'm reading things right) experiences. I know more about Shifty from the early-game conflict, and I've had some fun watching Elghund do his thing. I hope Shifty feels like he has gotten to do his thing… that's what this game is about, as long as we're all doing it together.
And, as Shifty so eloquently pointed out, when Kló "got on board" (interesting choice of words), things have gotten smoother from my perspective. No one suddenly abandoned their character motivations or goals, and I don't think we're all fully in sync yet. But we have acted more as a team. I hope we continue in this trajectory.
Here's what you should know about me (and Kló), though, about being a part of a team of A-players (not that I'm the boss of you, but i hope it's worth considering). I've learned over the years that only poor contributors need to be micro-managed. And I pretty much hate micro-managing. I'd far rather treat everyone as A-players and go from there. Which means I'll tell you when I think your idea or actions wont' work and—if the group can't come to a consensus—I'll make the call.
This will never be the Kló-show. I don't want it to be. That would be boring for everyone. So I'm not going to lead out on everything. If you're going to be waiting to take a cue from Kló in every situation before you begin looking for the best solution, I'd appreciate it if you stopped. Everyone will have different solutions in different situations based on their character skill set and player gaming style. In my opinion, we should be leaning into that.
I said I would step up with Kló to be the Chief (in Skäne's words) because that seemed to be what was necessary at the time to mesh this group into a working unit. To me that will mean I'll do everything I can to facilitate the best decision and action to be taken to meet our collective goal (luckily that will often include unleashing our attack dogs). Kló will step in and dictate actions when it is prudent or necessary. And Kló will take responsibility and work towards reconciliation when we fail. That's what what chiefs like Kló do… they expect and facilitate excellence from their crew, and take the fall when things go sideways.
Whew… I'm spent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kló... that brother was your Any Given Sunday speech... (kinda apt for us nei?)
Epic s**t, completely nailed and well said.
All Hail the Chief!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling if I tried to deliver that in person you'd be far less impressed. An Al Pacino I am not.
I'm just flattered you cared enough to read the whole thing (or at least act like you did). :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've had this trouble before if you recall, where the enemy was offered an oath that they would not be harmed - Elghund did not agree and wasn't interested in that oath because he never uttered it and couldn't even fathom why it was ever given. We had that chat.
With this current 'oath', we were asked to offer a peacebond so we could join forces and help with the safety and security (build shelters etc) of both groups, which we did. You'll note that almost all of the replies were aimed at Nadya and her people. And in context that is appropriate and proper, we weren't going to start trouble for her (as in with her by us draw steel and take her stuff like bloodthirsty bandits) - we now have a mutal compact and a deal is struck. Her and her people are safe from us.
Now as far as Elghund is concerned, she way overstepped the mark now thinking this was her tent and we are her guests - no its now a communal space shared between two tribes. She is no more in a position to offer the Enemy sanctuary than Elghund would be to offer a horde of marauding Orcs some space.
What Nadya (and a few others) seem to have done is consider our offer of truce and co-operation as one of fealty, that we have bowed to her authority, which s just not the case. We have stuck to our word about harming her and hers, but the deal we struck did not extend to random passers by.
Like Annalissa and Elghunds earlier encounter, Nadya made the mistake of speaking on behalf of people that she had no authority over.
Klo,
You and I don't always see eye-to-eye but I've never failed to appreciate your well-considered and well-reasoned opinions. Keep on keepin' on, man! ;)
Clearly we disagree, but VoV asked us to drop it. Maybe I shouldn't have put in my 2-billion-word-count cents.
It just seemed important enough to say.
Klo,
You and I don't always see eye-to-eye but I've never failed to appreciate your well-considered and well-reasoned opinions. Keep on keepin' on, man! ;)
I appreciate it, man.
Personally, I'm glad you weighed in here... despite the 6th level Wall o' Text spell you threw down. :p
EDIT: lol! And then I edited my comment when I saw your addition. Just to be clear for the folks at home, I read one of Klo's comments as aimed at me and it wasn't... so I tried to clarify and so did Klo.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Lol. no sweat. i was responding to Shifty. I tried to edit in a response to you to mkea it clear… clearly my speed is lacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like wall of texts when it applies to me. It gives me a greater insight into what the person is thinking, especially when there is a lack of face to face contact for body language and tone of voice to fill in the rest. I think I've said all I've needed to say in and out of game on my view of it all, and I stand my ground on my perspective of things. I do hope, however, that we can move it along and not have the whole campaign fall to pieces.
@Shifty, thank you, actually for your last input because it added a dimension to what I have been trying to say but wasn't quite able to make clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
trying to nut this one out because it is bound to come up a lot in future too at this rate.
There's the trouble with 'deals', make sure you are 100% clear on the terms to avoid disappointment. There is no way known that Elghund would have (even for a second) accepted her as a host or authority figure, frankly this was a matter of survival and he promised to keep the peace with her and her lot to avoid there having to be a problem - which was his stated (to the party) goal all along.
A deal is not an oath, and a deal under duress is particularly not an oath. What happens had we decided not to do the deal? Which of the two parties would end up dying in the snow? Would we be all stoic and wander off to die? Or would we simply take what we wanted by force because the only thing stopping us from simply taking their stuff and leaving them for dead is our own good nature - they'd not be able to stage a defence.
Not being mean spirited, after all Elghunds position from the very beginning was not to play any shady games with them and simply turn up openly from the outset and see who they were and be co-operative, but when push comes to shove they'd have no hope.
Blowing everything up into being a bloodsworn Oath is only ever going to lead us into trouble - this campaign is dripping with 'gotchas' and we'd no sooner broker peace than find out (like we did earlier) it was the enemy we just swore it to, and what then?
As it is, the deal was to not start trouble or draw steel on Nadya; that the enemy wandered in is an aside of that - the same as if it was a hungry bear roaming in and starting to maul people (us or anyone else) - Nadya isn't in charge (or if she thinks she is then there will need to be a new chat) and she certainly isn't the host. She still has a tent above her head by our good graces, and we have a tent over our head by hers - but she has no authority to press and that was never inferred. If one was counting the cards though, we had the winning hand and she had not a lot, so to avoid a problem (for her) we did the right thing. The nice thing. The polite thing. Because we wanted to.
Elghund will never be signatory to any deal that removes his right to self preservation. He also won't cede authority to anyone who hasn't earnt it (or can't enforce it).
Shifty. Again, I disagree. But again, I think VoV's request for a cool-off period is probably wise now that we've all gotten to say our piece.
This is the crux of the problem Shifty - because reading back over what you yourself posted... that's incongruous with what you actually said... and incongruous with what everybody else in the party expected.
Elghund likes being a shifty guy - fine... but you need to be better at broadcasting to the DM when you are lieing in character or telling half-truths. Because you need to be honest enough to give me and the NPCs a chance to see through Elghund, especially given that he's got a terrible skill at Bluffing.
I'm not talking blood oaths here - I'm talking what the reasonable expectation of the NPCs and the DM are.
"I am Nadya, storm is coming. Give me a name and make peacebond against drawing steel and you can share my furs..." pausing again for a few moments "Help put up shelter... then maybe even share my food."
"I be safe too, no trouble" he grunts.
That's an acceptance of her hospitality no? Which in normal culture carries with it the unsaid rules and expectations of being given shelter.
At the readiness at which you take to arms Nadya is put to fear "Please, do not be rash if it is not needed... the Pale Tower could as easily be alerted if a scout does not return. Let it come, speak and if there is no quarrel we can let it leave."
"We see what it wants, be besty friends. No trouble." The Orc gives his heartfelt assurances.
Heartfelt - implying honest. Words are a positive acceptance of what Nadya asked.
Elghund twice in character in thread accepted her authority as host... but now you're saying that you never did it. I'm all fine with characters being half truthful - as long as we do it in accordance with the rule set we're operating under. Nadya should have gotten a Sense Motive check to see if Elghund was withholding full agreeance, and given an opportunity to press you harder for compliance.
Note I'm not bringing up anything else here except explicitly Elghund's acceptance of Nadya as host.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before we start with who broke who's word here, lets go back to Nadyas offer.
"Please, do not be rash if it is not needed... the Pale Tower could as easily be alerted if a scout does not return. Let it come, speak and if there is no quarrel we can let it leave."
It spoke, there was a quarrel and now we can't let it leave.
***
I think this is the rub.
It was a survival situation, she had shelter, Elghunds party did not.
Right then the choice was to either end up in the shelter or possibly die in the snow, now ending up in the shelter could have been achieved through some sense of diplomacy or it could have simply been done by force - the iron price. Elghund was ok with the diplomatic path because it was the easiest for the group and made better sense - hence his comment that the mytserious travelers wont mnake trouble with us because they cannot afford to.
They didn't have the upper hand, they never had the upper hand, but he was happy to make peace with them because it was best all round. He said he wouldn't give them any trouble, and that wasn't a bluff as he'd already said.
"They not going make a big fuss, they can't afford injury in a snowstorm or making trouble, so they probably be nice for now. If not nice then...well they wearin nice jackets"
Simply put, Elghund knows that the party travelling in the snow are unlikely to be in a position to argue with the party about sharing accommodation.
As to his stated attitude:
"Some days I think you lot think I just want kill everyone and everything and not make friends, I like friends, I just not normally making them wandering out of a snowstorm covered in blood and armed to the teeth when deep in lawless country"
"Don't look at Skanes and me then when talkin about making bloodshed, not us tryin to be tricksy with a group of strangers that might have eyeballed usalready, we just in favour of walking over like nothing to hide and seeing what happens when we gets there. We not trying to play little girl lost or anything crooked - we just bein up front about things and being wary not to leave us selves exposed, one frosty nut punch was a good reminder to stay close and stay safe. No lyin' in that, we got bits of mantis still to show we are hunters, maybe that a good conversation starter anyhow. Say whats you all like, I just think Little Girl Lost is a bad move, the bandits seemed keen to hack the little girl to bits, the monsters want to make little girl permanently lost... I can't think of a good time it would work with bad people"
"If anything I not looking to coat my blade in blood, I'm looking for a bit of warmth, some fresh food, and a smith to make me a better bit of steel. We get to the blood bit later, maybe when not so cold. I already fed the Vaetir."
Now as it turns out, Nadya was ok with making a deal, and Elghund was ok with making peace with Nadya, she is offering to share her furs (something she had little choice in) and everyone had the opportunity to work together peacefully.
Up until that point, no need to talk tough at her nor pull out a sword and take shelter and accommodation by force in order to survive, but really, if we said "No, we reject your offer and we will simply take your stuff at swordpoint" what was she going to do about it? She isn't in charge, she's offering us something she has little choice in, and we are all being polite and civilised about it. We could simply occupy her tent and she'd be an unwilling host, but either way we were coming in and it was in her interest to play nice and make friends to avoid her people being hurt or killed by the occupiers.
Now at the end of the day if nothing else changed then that would have been the end of the issue. If one of her men got gobby and started trouble with the Orc, Elghunds only real issue - hence the attempted disguise check - then he would have been in a bit of a bind, but he's still not starting any trouble.
Elghund was keen on sticking to the story of being hunters, next minute we are telling this strange woman we are travelers and revealing mystical magic powers doing auguries and divinations and generally making a spectacle of ourselves, all really dangerous stuff to a small group in a strange land unsure of who we can trust. To be honest we had already tipped our hand to a bunch of strangers, we had already completely given ourselves away to Loki knows who and but for the deals struck by the party the thought had crossed Elghunds mind that all these people might have to go too. Once they get back to civilisation, how were we to hae any faith that these strangers wouldn't tell the world about the new white witch they met on the road with an Orc and a whole show of special unique properties? We just complete gave ourselves up.
But still, a deal is a deal. As much as it was now not liked.
Any deal extends to this woman and her people, the people she is travelling with.
In walks the new arrival - rapidly exposed as the enemy.
As far as I am concerned, she wasn't 'Nadyas People' and Elghund has no obligation to tolerate things presence, the notion of peace doesn't extend to the thing - it was not present as part of any deal and therefore not party to it. We didn't bring any trouble or start it, the arrival of this thing put us in a bind. Now because he was asked to, Elghund buttoned down and played nice.
As it turned out the creature was pretty clueless, so the hope was that after a brief bit of chat it might just move on - which would be the best path.
From there we know what happened.
But lets look at where the next problem kicked off:
"Please, do not be rash if it is not needed... the Pale Tower could as easily be alerted if a scout does not return. Let it come, speak and if there is no quarrel we can let it leave."
It spoke, there was a quarrel and now we can't let it leave.
I think we throw the term 'Oath' around like Skane throws out his nuts, it's a bad habit and only gets us into trouble. We can make agreements, we can make arrangements, and they will always be subject to change - what would we do if it was a raiding party from the Pale Tower? All surrender and lay down our arms because Nadya said so?
There was no requirement to flag any other intent from Elghund as he wasn't interested in making trouble and said he wouldn't, but that's not to say the arrival of an enemy wouldn't change that, and when the enemy arrived he made pretty clear his intentions based on that stimulus.
If we are going to make deals and oaths then lets make deals and oaths with explicit and clear terms - hopefully that benefit us.
Nadya is not in charge, she will never be in charge, and only Elghunds respect for his party members was allowing her to breathe now she knows too much. The only thing he took comfort in is that she is apparently an enemy of his enemy. Why on earth we started spilling our guts at the first opportunity is beyond me. Why not just stay as quiet as possible and simply strike what we need to - we put the woman into an enormous amount of risk just being there, giving her so much knowledge makes it far worse again
From now on I will place a really large wall of subject to subject to text preceding every single post because apparently the in game chat is hard to follow. I similarly expect each player to likewise post a huge rider to explore every nuanced detail of where they are coming from.
Thanks, it has been grand, but this was billed as being on the dark side and instead this is about being pinned with ridiculously naive ideas like playing little girl lost and telling random NPC's all our s&$*nit while swearing Oaths to strangers for no apparent reason with no apparent gain.
I asked for us to remain on the quiet and simply masquerade as hunters but instead the party went off and started running their mouths and putting us AND the npc's in deep.
The BS against Elghund really annoys me.
The trees started combat.
The squirrel he tried to take alive and tame.
The travelers he suggested playing an open hand with.
He made peace with Ten-Penny.
He was the only one trying to salvage the situation when Skane fluxed it.
And yet apparently he is a mindless killer spoiling fun.
Right.
Elghund - if that's your decision then I'm sorry to see you go but I'll respect it.
I apologize on my part for not being capable of writing or explaining in a way that is able to be understood in the manner that I intended it... but I'm not going to labor the point if your decision has been made.
I think that was the problem, you saw what you wanted to see and did labour the point. I think a few people (including the GM) forgot what campaign this was and who was in it.
At some point we went from the likes of Ragnar to some kind of MLP:FiM version where we made interesting Oaths to random strangers and chose to play nice. The concept that we were strangers in a strange land on a quest against forces even darker than us - forces happy to turn little kids into nasty dollies and grind our bones to make their bread - that the grittiness was replaced by sunshine and lollypops.
The fey have shown themselves to be repugnant and unrelenting killers who slaughter the innocent for information, even their own allies - Tenpenny and the wounded bandits for example, but we have party members who forget that and simply play all our cards to strangers like Nadya. What fate does that lead her and her family to when the spies remember seeing people like us with people like her?
The suspension of disbelief can only go so far.
I wish the campaign all the best, but the complaining people who post the least and contribute the least are the squeaky wheels getting the oil. Frankly if they upped sticks and left I'd barely notice.
I'll leave you with your own words to reflect on:
The Taighean Dubha (Black House):
Given that I’d gone with a fey build in the other group, I knew that I wanted this one to be Northman heavy. There is less of an evolutionary story to the selection though – as I instead went down the list and segmented off the applications that I thought were good representations of Ulfen values and seemed to get the spirit best. The group is dour, it’s light on healing, it’s grim and it’s quick to anger – sounds perfect nei?
Apparently not, because being true to the above seems to create so much angst.
:(
I'm not going to snipe, I'm not going to quote from previous exchanges of words or otherwise. I'd like to think that I've a reasonable handle on what sort of game I'd like to run, and hopefully that translates across reasonably well.
I am taking some of the words to heart emotively, but that's neither here, there or otherwise.
Quick poll for the rest of the Black House - I'd just like some degree of reassurance of whether you are comfortable / uncomfortable continuing in light of all.
I'd be delighted to play on, without reservation.
I'd like to continue on. It was never my intention for this to end like it did, I was only venting some frustration and trying to get a handle on how I could better integrate into the group. I'm playing a character who has been smacked down by life whenever he comes to the attention of powers beyond him, and so I played him as reserved. In game only a few days have passed and he still doesn't know people well, so I've been quiet. I feel I've been true to my character but I can see how my limited posts weren't conveying that.
I'm sorry some feel that I'm dead weight, I'll work on posting more but Katherson isn't a talkative guy unless it's dire omens of a fuzzy nature. Fact of the matter is at the end of the day I'm flat out exhausted (this raising a kid stuff is rough), so firing off a quick post to keep my hand in was sometimes all I did. That's a disservice to the game and players and I will work on it if you'll still have me. If you want Katherson to bow out and Elghund to remain I'm certainly willing to do that as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Katherson I don't think that would fix the problem at this point.
I'm a little on the fence with it at this point in time. I'm not saying I'm leaving yet, but I'm not sure how this is going to stay fun at this point. I agreed with most (not all, but most) of what Shifty has had to say over the last couple of days and I agree with Skane and Elghund's character styles more than I do the more passive suggestions that have been made. I think sometimes the boys could stand to wait a bit before killing things so that we can learn what is to be learned but I think that I likewise had similar expectations for what was expected of this campaign and I created my character accordingly.
I don't like the tone that Rikka chose to take with Annalisa, and I do see that as creating a rift between the two women in any future interactions. Her interactions with everyone else are tumultuous with Elghund, Skane, and even Klo. Non existent at best as with Katherson, but she actually really liked Rikka.
I'm sure that I won't enjoy the campaign as much without Elghund, but the question I have is will I still be able to enjoy it all with the way things stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is an unfortunate turn. Like I said, I want everyone to have fun. But this uneasiness aside, I am having fun.
I'm game with moving forward. My main concern at this point is actually for you, VoV. I imagine this is more than a bit frustrating and disheartening. If it's any encouragement, I'm enjoying the game. Pace, difficulty, tone, and all. If you're still up with putting up with the Black Hus, I'm still in.
Annalisa, I certainly hope you're at least wiling to give it a shot. Nobody's feelings will be hurt if Shifty leaving makes you uninterested. I don't think anyone is wanting to suddenly be playing a care-bear game, and there's definitely a place for our fiery Ulfen warrioress.
In my opinion, the same goes for you, too, Kath. Well, not the warrioress part.
Skäne, you still gonna darken our day? >:D
I do intend to give it a shot, definitely. If I can feel comfortable and have continued fun with it, excellent. If not, I'll let you guys know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the tone that Rikka chose to take with Annalisa, and I do see that as creating a rift between the two women in any future interactions. Her interactions with everyone else are tumultuous with Elghund, Skane, and even Klo. Non existent at best as with Katherson, but she actually really liked Rikka.
I'm sorry that you are on the fence about staying. Personally, I like your character and think you are an asset to the game so I'm hoping you'll choose to stick around. Looking at your comment above, I'm unsure what you'd like from me, either in terms of an action (IC or otherwise) or an assurance. From my (and Rikka's) point of view, we exchanged one set of cross words based on an honest difference of opinion. As far as I'm concerned that's pretty much the end of it. Rikka doesn't dwell on clashes or hold grudges so I don't see her being hostile or even unfriendly to Annalísa going forward.
Annalisa isn't one to hold grudges normally, either once she's had a chance to cool down so as long as it isn't a reoccurring thing then perhaps it won't be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to play Rikka as a 'low drama' character in general, leaving the 'rawr' to the party reavers. :) Her outburst was due to the extreme circumstances and the severity of the situation, so I think you don't need to worry about it happening much.
Honestly, I rarely play 'drama' characters and I have no interest in taking Rikka in that direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty gutted to be honest - enjoyed playing alongside Shifty/Elghund and felt he brought a great deal to the group.
I think that the interactions between Skane and Elghund obviously showed some synergy as the "attack dogs", whilst the love/hate with Annalisa is one that would continue to develop (and have fund with), Klo has my vikingr's respect as chief - while Rikka has useful skills and needs to be defended to allow them to benefit all. Katherson has been distant and icy as befits, but probably needs to step up more in a rp'ing sense as discussed.
Going forward I'm a little on the fence - I don't plan to curtail or cow Skane's black hearted ways, and if the tone of the game or direction means this will be an issue for discussion akin to the saga we've seen then I'll likely just step away - have too much sh1t shoveling in RL to deal with on a ongoing basis here...
My 2 runes worth on the subject. Shifty sorry to see you go mate - look forward to playing alongside you again.
Ultimately as Klo mentions it's Mark's call and I'm hoping this hasn't killed off his enthusiasm for the game.
I'm still here, and the game thread is still being updated (waiting on Skane's delicate touch at the moment). The snow situation should soon be resolved one direction or the other... and we can then get back on track as far as resolving in character what happens next.
FYI - I've been on slight pause with respect to the situation in the tent due to that timeline being ahead of (and potentially dependent on) what happens outside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going forward I'm a little on the fence - I don't plan to curtail or cow Skane's black hearted ways, and if the tone of the game or direction means this will be an issue for discussion.... I'll likely just step away...
Damn, man, I'm bummed you're on the fence. I've really enjoyed your character and his interactions with Rikka. I was always grinning when Skäne would 'lend a shield' to up my defense and I like your surly, semi-bitter, portrayal. It gives Skäne a nice depth. I was hoping that as Rikka comes into her own magically, we could team up in the front-lines to dish out a combo platter of magical and steel death. As you may recall from the battle on the bridge, I didn't build Rikka to be a shrinking violet and she definitely has bloodthirsty moments. So, I'm still hoping that happens, if you choose to stay.
It just occurred to me that you might have felt I was 'tarring you with the same brush' when I was tangling with Shifty. That was never my intent nor does it reflect my feelings. I should have made that clear in my first post - so epic fail on my part. If you felt that I was gunning for you and/or I offended you, I am most sincerely sorry and I apologize.
Obviously, I don't set the tone of the campaign and I only speak for myself, so take this for what it is worth: I like Skäne as he is... cantankerous, sharp-tongued, fell handed - the whole nine yards. I don't want rainbows, ponies, or us walking naively into every trap in this campaign. What I would ask of the players is that when we see an opportunity for someone to shine with a little used and dusty skill, we give our characters a reason to take just a moment so that guy has a chance to step up and try it. That's it.
...have too much sh1t shoveling in RL to deal with on a ongoing basis here.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have zero interest in the creation or perpetuation of player drama.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[ Rikka's thoughts on Skäne ] .. semi-bitter …
Semi-bitter? He's damn near vomit-inducing.
And I obviously mean that in the most flattering way possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just aren't seeing the creamy, squidgy heart underlying his crusty iron core surrounded by that mantle of pure hate. :)
You could always cut it out for a better look ;-)
Ah, expanding the boundaries of medical knowledge - one corpse at a time. :D No offence but I really hope you aren't on my HMO list of 'Preferred Providers'.
Sorry guys for the US-centric joke there.
Hey, a thorough exploration of the relevant anatomy is the sine qua non of a true understanding of the body :-P
I'll try not to take it personally, even though I am actually a registered medical practitioner ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very sorry to see the conflict in the Black Hus group. I have not been following any of it and so have no opinion other than my heartfelt wish that you all have fun and continue to play together.
I have an eight hour test Sunday that's a pretty big deal. I will try to post but I may not rhyme until then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got to enjoy Skane in a previous incarnation, so it would be good to see him stick about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok - Shifty and I have been exchanging a few PMs on bits and bobs... and it's driven me to clarify on a few points publically to clear the air. Hopefully this allays some of Shifty's concern with respect to me, as well as makes things a little clearer for the others that may be continuing with the PbP:
1) In my eyes Skane and Elghund have done nothing overtly wrong. There were opportunities for other characters to step in and restrain / guide / take initiative, and for one reason or another those characters were passive - therefore it's fair enough that the pair did not check their actions.
The only point that I regret with how the scene played out was not giving more time for other party members to act before having the visitor reply to Skane's initial statement. The posts that followed from everybody except Skane and Elghund were passive and they were ultimately what allowed the situation to unravel differently than some wanted.
That was the thrust of my initial post of clarification - that if you want your voice heard, speak up. And also that despite someone posting first, that interruptions were still possible and would be considered.
2) I have harped on about hospitality alot... but I'm trying to make that point predominately from the NPC's perspective and understanding.
Elghund has a fair point that the situation devolved to a point where a shanking was necessary to protect the PCs (and potentially also the NPC from blowback)... but she'll still view it in a way colored by what she viewed the scene.
3) It's been alleged that I'm trying to railroad a situation one way or another... but I'm really not. At each step of the encounter I am actually attempting to honestly interpret how things play with half an eye on RAW, half an eye on RAI and a full eye on how things should really pan out. But I am a flawed human being - so sometimes it doesn't work out as best or as evenly as I hope.
4) Revisionist? History - I'd just again like to go on record that Elghund and Skane have both been played respectfully and reliably in line with their character concepts and have for the most part taken on board any of the rest of the party's views with respect to approach and conduct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resolution of the present situation in the Black House has left me with a Cornelian dilemma.
So at present I am trying to decide which direction to take (while trying to think of a third option) hence not updating yet. I post merely to keep all informed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much appreciated comments from all, for my part I'm happy to continue on with my (cough- our) quest to forge Skane a red-handed name in the North (or where ever the Hel we end up).
Glad everyone is on-board with the cantankerous nature of my vikingr's portrayal - not doing it to annoy, rub people up the wrong way etc... very much a character driven approach and as a player I'll pay attention to how it ripples in gameplay and upon others enjoyment etc.
Will be interested to see how the dilemma plays out DMVoV... if we can assist please let us know nei?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't peeked at the details in the other group, so don't know enough to comment, but was trying to think of existing fiction where a team involves a highly aggressive, bloody member - and that member is collared somewhat by whomever the leader is of that group for the greater good.
Belkar from Order of the Stick comes to mind, where the more lawful and good members of the group have to keep an arguably Chaotic Neutral (Evil?) member in check.
I tried to imagine a Star Wars where Chewbacca was a bloody rager, and Han using his "angry voice" to keep him in check, but I don't think that's a good reference.
Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly came to mind, the couple of times he had to tug on Jayne's leash when he was being inhospitable to the rest of the crew.
Again, I'm not an informed commenter on the situation, but have seen some groups of Lawful and Good types coexist with a brutal, bloody chaotic member... it usually involved "caging" that member somewhat. It's certainly an extra hurdle requiring roleplay, so it would necessitate a commitment from the whole group to buy in to that approach of building the continuing story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kelgar, we are the Black House. We have a team of highly aggressive bloody members - it was just we then had two people who wanted a different playstyle who came in and wanted to change it. We had a party leader keeping the attack dogs in check, and the party gave the nod for them to slip the leash. We had done what you say because what you are saying is sensible :)
Now that we have nutted out the differences I would just like to wrap by saying thanks to my crew.
I was happy that Klo ended up as 'Poppa-Bear', it was nice not to play party leader for once, and it was good that he stepped up to the challenge and played the role really well. I thought we got some good harmonics going in that and that the campaign was now rolling well as a result. We had the hellhounds, we had the decision maker - and when the situation called for it the hellhounds were unleashed to do their thing. He kept the reigns tight and we kept barking to make sure that his words were always backed up by the threat of our presence. That was strong stuff.
Annalissa was a bit of a den-mother, she had carved out some respect from the hellhounds, she backed herself and 'proved' her chops in their eyes - the banterwas fun and fiery and once again contributed to party ambiance and fun - she was as cut-throat and fiery (if not ironically more-so) as the worst of us. Who'd ever forget the classic moment where Elghund was dead proud to have captured the enemy leader alive - for questioning like the party told him they wanted - only to have her come ripping in and kick him to death out of spite for the guy without actually asking him any questions - that was campaign gold right there.
Skane and I always had a great working relationship, getting thick as theives early on and really building a grim buddy-flick vibe really quickly that always felt authentic and genuine - I really repect Black Dow's talent as a player that he rides the line of dark and bloody but still consistent - a method to the madness, kind of like a good episode of Dexter.
Kath, sorry you felt the way you did, and as we have since nutted out offline the door was always open to come talk to us about change etc. unfortunately (as I explained) your retraction didn't come across as an apology but rather as a further attack, which probably fuelled on the actions of another person.
GM, thanks for running a good game, I think you have got the chops to pull it off - and I think it should go well. Its unfortunate we were unable to resolve our difference on that one remaining point.
I wish the players mentioned all the best.
I also have best wishes for happy team cupcake, and have been rather entertained by their crazy party dynamic. Its good that all your players have the moral courage to actually be honest enough to tough out conversations rather than simply resort to cattiness and dishonesty.
Salut.
Who the smurf are you calling cupcakes?