Open Letter to the Troupe

[Amanda Miller]

To the Wyld Prophets Troupe:

You guys are the best Troupe ever. This bears repeating. After giving everything due consideration, I’ve decided not to call it quits. I will be back, Amanda will be back. But….in giving all the matters due consideration, I felt several weights upon my soul, things I need to say, lingering fears, and above all the need for a certain amount of OOC dialogue. In that spirit, I am writing all of you an open letter, so that I may bear my soul a bit and bring my tummy knots to the light of day.

Aside from the Werewolf games of One World By Night, my career as a roleplayer has been one unmitigated disaster after another. Ever other Troupe I’ve ever played in, except for the glorious five games I played in Serenity, I’ve stormed out, never looked back and honestly I wish I had caused more of a scene at every one of them. You guys are the sole reason I don’t hate roleplayers on principle. This is no backhanded compliment: had I not stumbled in on Baneklaive (I just shell shocked from Conclave, and Theresa Miller had just informed me in no uncertain terms she would never again willingly play Masquerade) I probably would have never, ever role played again. I love to roleplay, I have since I first played Serenity last April, but roleplayers tend to enrage me. These are mostly internet roleplayers I never actually roleplayed with, but even with some people I’ve roleplayed with, I’ve found them to be spastic, domineering mental midgets with extreme boundary issues and use roleplaying as controlled creativity for conformists. In speaking with them, in the guise of the needs of collaborative play, they will defend to the death their right to impose their restraints on me. Interestingly enough, all of their scenarios on why each player pursuing their own versions of the game and their own stories simultaneously is a bad idea just sounded fucking awesome to me. Not just awesome, but fucking awesome. I'm not sure quite why, but here, I've been allowed to pursue my vision more or less unmolested, which is something I need to openly express my gratitude to the STs for, and then you, my fellow players.


While a lot of the minutia of why I don’t mesh well in most roleplaying games (the odiousness of character class in any form, troupe inflexibility, the entire metaphysical construction of the World of Darkness) is its own issue, but the boundary issues are something I need to make plain, even if nothing changes as a result. I have a real problem with other PCs screwing with my characters. Everyone present remembers very well when Amanda shot Tango on the sparring mound. That wasn’t poor impulse control on her part: it was unwise, but that her making a point. Now, if Amanda hadn’t wanted to shoot Tango, I wouldn’t have forced her, but she did and I approved.In the same spirit, I have a HUGE issue with other people killing my characters. Most roleplayers, even people who’ve known me for a long time do not understand exactly how unacceptable I find that my character may be killed without my permission. I play anyway; I understand this is part of the game as it is played. This does not however, decrease my chaffing and bitterness about it one iota. I am increasingly comfortable with the notion of never roleplaying in another game because of how much character death offends me, how much it threatens all the reasons I want to roleplay.

So, with that said, then there’s a second component. In my heart of hearts, my darkest fears as a player is Werewolf turning into Vampire. I hate politics, I hated the pre-game roll sessions of Columbus in Darkness, I hated how there was no one that would really protect Theresa and she really couldn’t afford to trust anyone. After reading up on Harano in the Laws of the Wyld book, I can tell you definitively Theresa was going through Harano, just by virtue of being a vampire. Listless, apathetic, long term suicidal depression: I spent 3 years in Harano; I could rightly say 10, but I’m being conservative. Now, Theresa was in Harano just from being a vampire, then it got compounded by the stench of evil that waffs from every Elysium, Camarilla or Sabbat. I’m afraid of that, I’m afraid to put another character through that, I still grieve I put Theresa through it. And make no mistake, the word grieve is appropriate: of all the shitty things I’ve done in my life, putting Theresa through Masquerade is the thing I regret most. I don’t ask that you understand that, I just want you to know it. I promised Amanda when I was drawing her from the ether of Theresa’s background story that I would let her write her own story, I would give her a fair hearing, and that I would pull her out the moment she wanted out. She was about ready to bow out stage left. What happened at the last game blew me away: IC, the people who knew Amanda closed ranks around her. OOC I was asked to stay, and strangely enough I got no whiff of ‘good riddance’ from any quarter. That means so much to me! Especially in the light of my other roleplaying experiences. Thank you so much!

The thing I need to say is that just because I detest character death is not to say I want to play beyond consequence, nor do I want to play a pest that annoys the players as well as the PCs. I’ve worked very, very hard to make Amanda as (ahem) human and vulnerable as any good character. I love Amanda, I love all my characters, and I want to show the world why I think they’re so awesome. In my sig, I mention I am new to roleplay. Given my one year’s just about come, one can debate just how new, but if you have an OOC issue with any of my characters, by all means, reach out to me. I want to be a valuable part of the Troupe; I want Amanda to be a valuable part of your PC’s story too! I may be stubborn, but if you have a beef, I’ll promise you I’ll hear you out. I want to avoid that thing I was warned of in CiD were some players played so douchey so consistently that others just rolled their characters on principle. Werewolf players tend not to play like that, and I’d like not to encourage such behavior.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for taking the pile of crap that is World of Darkness n making it fun and awesome.

All the best,
Charlotte Wolery

[Audra]

You opened this up, and I'm going to speak for myself, no one else, here are my thoughts - mainly because I have the safety of being a bunch of states away:

It is very frustrating to play with someone who hates the system on an OOC level. Most of us like the game, we like the world, we do this to have fun. It's not a chore. We're playing in a shared world that you don't want to share.

It makes me (again, just speaking for myself) very uncomfortable to play with someone who does not separate IC and OOC well. These are just characters. They're not us. They're not real. It's a game. It really kinda freaks me out to be honest. I don't want to worry that when I screw over someone's character that they're going to take it personally and do god knows what.

You have to be able to separate your character from yourself if you want people to trust you as a player. Just because I defend someone's character, doesn't mean I like them, and some of the people I've screwed over the most in game, I like the best.

[Spots the Sun]

I actually agree Audra.. It kinda Scares me to worry that if I screwed someone over.. even accidentally.. that they'd take it personally and lash out.

This IS a game.. it's done to have fun and live out a story.. When that story is done, be it through death or success, you start another. As she said.. They are Characters.. not real.. Yes we get an attachment to them, but we have to be ready and willing to let them go when it is time to do so.

We're all associates and friends.. we have to be able to trust each other to treat this game responsibly, as adults.

[Amanda Miller]

I can sorta understand that. Sorta....but not really. I DO make a clean distinction between the character and the player, but I'm well aware, and been told bluntly, that not all roleplayers do, even seasoned ones. My anger at any given roleplayer is NEVER what the character does. OOC anger goes to OOC actions.

But, more importantly, my philosophy of roleplay is that each and every character is the hero/heroine of their own story. Every PC is a protagonist, at least for themselves and their player. I play close to the vest because for me the hallmark of a good protagonist is one that I root for without reservation, I never give up on, I'm in the trenches. As much as I usually hate horror, my platonic ideal of a protagonist is Robert Neville of I am Legend. When I read that classic, I was riding shotgun with Neville in his mid 70s station wagon, in my mind with lime green paint, wood paneling and sans hub caps. He looked like a ragged Charlton Heston (because of the Omega Man), his face gaunt, unshaven, and his blue eyes tired and hallow. I could see every emotion on his face, the stink of his breath. And I bled with him, every single page until the end.

I can see why some prefer to play with some level of detachment. Even if I could, I kinda think that negates the point, both in playing and experiencing the story. And this is doubly so when in horror you can only be truly scared when you fear for the safety of the main character. Good protagonists make you their partisan, whether you like it or not.

[James Stein]

This is a bold move. I think that, in general, roleplayers are fairly accepting and perhaps even mores here on the Werewolf side. We play a game that is a little more PvE than vampire, and so it both draws and engenders people with those mindsets.

That said, PC death is supposed to be alarmingly more common in Werewolf genre than Vampire. Vampire is a humanities play about deadly politics and social structures that are entirely unfair. Werewolf is Savage Horror. The sheer brutality of a world where Nature is prime and Nurture is all but abandoned. PCs murdering other PCs is rarer in Werewolf, but it's debatable on whether or not that's appropriate for the genre. Vampire actually has a rule against it, Werewolf arguably doesn't.

Werewolves, however, have this population problem. They want more, and it's harder to get them. Vampires can make more on a dime, but they don't want more. Death is utterly final for a vampire, and worse, has dire implications given their undead damned nature. Death is anything but final for a werewolf, and their consciousness is all but guaranteed to live on.

Still, simply put, if you fear PC death it's a fair thing to point out so your fellow players know what they're dealing with. I won't lie, it may cause some to avoid you or minimize their interactions with your character, but it's the price you pay for insulating yourself from consequences. Also, if players have a plan to do something violent to your character they at least know to have some support on hand to help you through the aftermath, be it an ST or player rep or something. Good on you for telling people openly and publicly, but understand that comes with a price.

You are not the first player I've come across who has these same issues. Hating the world but loving to roleplay sounds very familiar to me: I feel the same way about Mage. I play a Mage, love my PC, and love playing him. I hate Mage, everything about the system and the story. I still play.

That said, I don't force people to bend around my thoughts on the matter. When Mage things happen, I step aside and let others play that game, or I accept all the consequences of failing to conform. All of them. I do not complain.

Your view of your character as the protagonist of your story, likely unintentionally, comes off as self-entitlement and barbs other players with a responsibility to make you happy. I really hate to say this, because I know this was an attempt to be open and thankful, but something needs to be clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt: In a sea of forty faces if you are the odd person out on an issue it is your responsibility not to offend others, not theirs to protect you. Your fun is not worth the cost of the rest of the game's, and to imply such would be insulting, so as a player who understands your situation please take my advice and do everything you can to have fun alongside or even despite other players, not at their detriment. It is the responsible action.

[Amanda Miller]

Your view of your character as the protagonist of your story, likely unintentionally, comes off as self-entitlement and barbs other players with a responsibility to make you happy. I really hate to say this, because I know this was an attempt to be open and thankful, but something needs to be clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt: In a sea of forty faces if you are the odd person out on an issue it is your responsibility not to offend others, not theirs to protect you. Your fun is not worth the cost of the rest of the game's, and to imply such would be insulting, so as a player who understands your situation please take my advice and do everything you can to have fun alongside or even despite other players, not at their detriment. It is the responsible action.

Oh believe me, I understand this. This is why I want to open things up now, to try and work things out before issues come up. Truth be told, if 'insulating myself from the consequences' decreases character interaction, then done and done. I don't want that kind of interaction. I do not appreciate people messing with my characters, anymore than I myself like to be messed with. For this reason I do my very best not to mess with other characters. As I said before, this is a boundary issue. And I take this boundary seriously.

That said, if I was totally incapable of enjoying the Werewolf story, I wouldn't play. I could never, under any circumstance enjoy Mage: the Ascension. The metaphysics are so dumb I have to scrub the fact that it happens in the same universe as Werewolf or it destroys any sense of realism. Believe it or not I had a scant few good times with Vampire, but I'm not allowed to deal with the accruing vampire problems in a realistic manner, and...I need the Cam to be Lawful Neutral instead of Neutral Evil with pretensions of being Lawful Evil. If you can't play the good guys, what's the point? Under no circumstance will I play a monster: I've designed a dozen PCs for World of Darkness, and they are all designed as heroes, even the vampires. Surprisingly I've found the Garou are often true heroes instead of merely designated heroes. I really like that.

[Chione]

Oh believe me, I understand this. This is why I want to open things up now, to try and work things out before issues come up. Truth be told, if 'insulating myself from the consequences' decreases character interaction, then done and done. I don't want that kind of interaction. I do not appreciate people messing with my characters, anymore than I myself like to be messed with. For this reason I do my very best not to mess with other characters. As I said before, this is a boundary issue. And I take this boundary seriously.

If you don't want people messing with your characters, this is not the place for you. I'm not being mean, nor am I saying that for any other reason than it is the truth. Your character is not immune to the repercussions that can and will (and have) come down the pike from your actions. You've seen what your own actions can do, and you've watched what happened in CiD when you take actions that don't end up being the right ones. But to talk about not appreciating people messing with your characters is like saying you don't appreciate it if you tell someone they are an asshole and they tell you that they aren't. You're going to do things wrong, and people are going to come back at you for that. We're not perfect. But you have to know that people aren't just going to ignore issues or break the fourth wall because it will upset you or because they see you don't like being messed with.

[Amanda Miller]

If you don't want people messing with your characters, this is not the place for you. I'm not being mean, nor am I saying that for any other reason than it is the truth. Your character is not immune to the repercussions that can and will (and have) come down the pike from your actions. You've seen what your own actions can do, and you've watched what happened in CiD when you take actions that don't end up being the right ones. But to talk about not appreciating people messing with your characters is like saying you don't appreciate it if you tell someone they are an asshole and they tell you that they aren't. You're going to do things wrong, and people are going to come back at you for that. We're not perfect. But you have to know that people aren't just going to ignore issues or break the fourth wall because it will upset you or because they see you don't like being messed with.

I understand that. I understand that very well. I understand why there has to be consequences, and I totally support dropping the hammer on truly egregious behavior. My point was not to say 'this needs to be changed' rather to say 'this is what is on my mind.' Truth be told, when I saw Never-Tired-Of-Running not being put to death after seven months, I arrived at the conclusion the Troupe is forgiving enough that a character and player can make some boo boos without the train going off the rails. That is important. In bringing this up, what I was trying to say was, 'If there really is that big of an issue, please, by all means, speak with me OOC instead of smiting my character IC.' You know, I kinda freaked out last week, and just talking with Panda at the end of game did LOADS to calm me down. I think this is a good thing, so maybe there should be more of it.

[Speaker]

There's a philosophy of gaming that recently came to my attention. It's one that I very much adore and I feel like it fits this situation well. It's a social agreement spectrum that ranges from "I will not abandon you" to "nobody gets hurt." Here's a link to an in-depth discussion of what that means but I'll also go over it quickly in this post:

http://www.fairgame-rpgs.com/comment.php?entry=32

Nobody gets hurt: On this end of the spectrum there is a social agreement to not cross the boundaries of another person. When a player feels like their lines are being crossed they relate that to the people they're playing with and it then becomes the responsibility of the other player to stop the uncomfortable interaction.

I will not abandon you: The other edge of that spectrum is "I will not abandon you." At this end there is a social agreement that buttons will get pushed and whether or not you are the one pushing them or getting them pushed you will remain engaged in the interaction until the end. It can be just as jarring to someone who is playing the antagonist to suddenly have their protagonist walk way.

Of course this is a spectrum so there are many places one could go with this. In the end it's a social contract that can be worked out implicitly or explicitly as needed. The difficulty in larp is that you're not talking about two people working something out, you're talking about a whole group of people some of whom have a preference for very different edges of this spectrum.

You strike me as the sort of person who plays in the "Nobody gets hurt" side but you still want to push boundaries. You're playing a character who actively disbelieves in the fundamental truths of the world that we're all playing in. To say you want to play that way but you don't want to deal with people messing with your character is difficult for everyone else that you're playing with because it interferes with how our characters react and interact to the world that we're playing in.

I think you need to take an honest look at the world that this game is set in and how your character reacts to it and then look at how people will react to that. There's no problem playing a deviant concept, the problem is playing a deviant concept and not expecting other characters to react to it. It sounds like you have very firm boundaries on what does or does not make a good character or story. I applaud those boundaries but unfortunately they aren't true for everyone you game with. Some people enjoy playing the monster for all the reasons that you and I have discussed in the past. That's where some people's enjoyment comes from.

Figure out what you're trying to get out of this game and then honestly figure out whether the other players are able to give it to you. That's the best advice I can give.

[Chione]

In bringing this up, what I was trying to say was, 'If there really is that big of an issue, please, by all means, speak with me OOC instead of smiting my character IC.'

I don't understand this - can you clarify?

Because what this sounds like to me is that you want people to come and talk to you OOC if they get to a point where there is such a large issue IC that they're going to kill your PC over for it.

[Audra]

I think it is important to remember it isn't all about you - it's not just about you or your character, it's a cooperative environment.

IMO, this has disaster written all over it.

[Kintpuash]

Charlotte-

One of your points resonated strongly with me, and I wanted to let you know that the stronger cooperative focus of Werewolf is a massive draw for me as well- I started LARPing in Vampire, and Werewolf was a delightful respite from what I thought was BS political intrigue. The first time that Werewolf developed what I, personally thought was BS intrigue, it felt so much like Vampire to me that I ran. I understand the gut reaction to watching someone's politics start to chew into a character you've spent a lot of time developing.

That being said.

While I remain reluctant to approach Vampire again, I no longer have the same reaction when politics crop up in Werewolf, because- as was stated, it isn't "lethal politics- the game," it's survival horror- and politics are very much a part of the genre, just not the focus. PCs are responsible for enforcing the in character laws of the game, from "respect peeps or they'll whip yo ass over it" to "humans are friends (or not), but not food." It's a rare circumstance that generates an entirely ST-run consequence for actions. In fact, in a very real sense, since the majority of the game is unguided social interaction, the STs- despite being responsible for EVERYTHING BESIDES PLAYERS- still are only behind about a third of what occurs- the other sources being player actions, and player reactions.

I think you'd do well to take a look at what Anya provided, that interaction spectrum, and when you do, please remember that we are a troupe, but we are part of a persistent, player-driven, supervised universe. As you experienced recently, when Jacob arrived intending to take Calms to task over his tribemate's complaints and implied accusations, what happens in WP does not stay in WP. If someone misbehaves on a grand enough scale, there will not only be PC actions to attempt to stem the hijinks before something devastating occurs (fall of the caern, multiple deaths, Gaians dancing the spiral) but also OOC pressure on the STs to ensure that the NPCs in the area react appropriately as well. If PC antics leave the caern exposed or damaged, even if every single person here agrees to treat it with NGH and put on kid gloves, there are NPCs who would not react that way, and our STs are excellent enough at their jobs that those characters would not do so.

One of the IC costs of proceeding through the ranks and years is each character having to really start to internalize the realization that this really is all bigger than they are- and that they very well may have to sacrifice themselves- or others- to protect something that is worth every death and more that it costs to protect. The Garou are at war, and one of the horrors of leadership is understanding that you might not have the privilege to sacrifice yourself- you might have to send others to their deaths. And as utterly unfun as it would be to be one of those on the suicide mission, sometimes it's just gotta happen.

To play this game with PCs in all positions of authority means that while in smaller cases, things could be worked around to help keep players with a violent aversion to PVP conflict, be it social, behind-the-scenes or simple fisticuffs, away from their anathema, to preserve the integrity of the game as a whole, the bigger something gets, the less likely a "nobody gets hurt" resolution realistically becomes. While I completely understand wanting to be playing a game where at the end of the episode, Franklyn gets up and talks to the tweenage viewers about not doing drugs or picking up their litter, this game is shades of Starship Troopers, not G. I. Joe. Asking players to hand-waving egregious attacks- or even mistakes- compromises the integrity of the game world, and by extension, every character within it, including yours.

[Amanda Miller]

In bringing this up, what I was trying to say was, 'If there really is that big of an issue, please, by all means, speak with me OOC instead of smiting my character IC.'

I don't understand this - can you clarify?

Because what this sounds like to me is that you want people to come and talk to you OOC if they get to a point where there is such a large issue IC that they're going to kill your PC over for it.

That would be the long and short of it.

Anya-

In the spectrum of things, you've hit the nail on the head. I have yet to find any game where I can get the 'nobody gets hurt' treatment, but ultimately that's what I want. In writing that part out, I understand, AND ACCEPT, the rest of the Troupe does not have to abide by my wishes, but I believe I should at least make my wishes known. For my part, I'd be willing to pull punches if someone came up to me directly and asked me to, and had good reason for it. I'd do it, Besides that I've found that a lack of clear communication always hinders things.

Everest-

I should make some clarifications in light of what people, especially in light of what you said. If Amanda were undergoing punishment rites, I'd have no problem with it. If Amanda gets sent on a mission where she might not survive, then it's up to me to keep her alive. That's on my shoulders. If Amanda gets a neat fetish, and it gets taken from her for no good reason, I can play that. If Canning had just wanted slice and dice Amanda on the Mound, that's sketchy, but I was prepared to deal with it. No, my problem was that Canning wanted to kill her on the Mound. Anything short of kill/irreversible maim, I'm totally cool with. Totally. The thing with Tango: that came out of nowhere, it evokes very bad memories for me and what you saw was some major PTSD kicking in. It was also an adjustment issue.

As to the deviant character design: I'm actually trying to play the Lost Cub trope as straight as I possibly can. Amanda clearly, CLEARLY lacks the Garou cultural baggage, and it's her reaction to the nation that is the ultimate course of my character study of her. I as a player know this setting is the World of Darkness, but the characters don't know that. Amanda in particular is actually at war with the themes of the World of Darkness, because the thought of living in, and accepting, a Crapsack world is totally odious to her. Not to me, to her. I don't think I've made her do anything she wouldn't have done by herself. She sees the world, particularly the modern world, and draws strength from it. The world is a beautiful place, only the douchebags fuck that up. And they will be held to account. Even Theresa believed that the world was a wonderful place....just without a place for her. I play my characters without a theme, I try to let them react as organically as possible as long as it isn't going to get them killed. That's why Amanda is such and utterly consistent character, I let her make her own choices.

[Speaker]

A boundary can be a small thing, not just a large thing. One of your boundaries is that you don't want your character to become a monster for instance, one of my boundaries is that I want the world that my character exists in to be this darker, horrific place. I feel like my boundaries are pushed when Amanda is played as that lost cub who denies the darkness around her.

That's not a problem for me. I am very much on the end of the IWNAY spectrum. I'm here to play that story out with you if that's what you want. What I understand from reading what you've written, though, is that you want that story with an NGH safety. I feel my boundaries being pushed but you don't want my character reactions to that to push yours. That's a difficult line to negotiate and it's one that comes up a lot more often than people are explicit about.

I would go out on a limb and wager that Fred wants to play the more monstrous type character. He's created that in Canning. He's created a person that would kill over a dispute because that's a part of the story that he wants to tell. If you decide to engage him by having your character press his character's buttons, it's not fair to his experience to then turn around and doubt his in character reactions. It's not fair to his experience to ask him to change his story because you don't want your character to be permanently maimed or killed.

You're telling a story with Amanda that is going to push people's boundaries. I really like where you want that story to go but if you're going to cross lines the way that you are you have to open her up to the possibly world changing reactions of the other PC's. Ultimately what I'm saying is that your desires are incongruous with your actions and that's a conflict that you need to mediate and solve before you continue forward.

[Soren Saga-smith]

Boring, tawdry, secret, unmourned death is a possibility in this game. That unmourned death can come at the hands of the people your character loves and trusts. At least in that respect it's like real life, and as in real life, I'd advise against putting the protagonists of stories like that in the hands of people you could even remotely think of as spastic, domineering, mental midgets.

Find people you trust, and roleplay with them, and play a game where nobody but the bad guys dies, and agree beforehand that none of the good guys kill any other good guys. Tabletop is awesome for that sort of explicit agreement.

LARP isn't. We take everyone because we have to. The RP area we occupy is necessarily neutral and arrived at by a consensus of people with whom we haven't worked out these issues explicitly. To powergamers, that consensual RP area can seem talky and boring. To character RPers, it can seem awkward and contrived. To you, it can seem overwhelming and threatening. To me, it can seem texturized and bland. We do it that way so we can all get a little of what we want and reach for the much-longed-for grail of 'player driven plot.' Most of the time we fail. Most of the people who LARP will tell you this if you ask them. Most of the people who LARP get together every couple of weeks to have fun failing together.

There's no dishonor in forming small tabletop and email RP groups that do what you want to do with roleplaying. I do it as often as possible, and sometimes I err on the side of thinking of LARP as a stepping-stone to those small groups...where I can get what is, for me, the high-grade RP crack. I encourage you to do the same.

[Amanda Miller]

That's fair Anya.

So how do I resolve this?

I know for instance that Amanda will never again voluntarily interact with Canning, for IC and OOC reasons. As to the rest? Amanda does not deny the darkness, Amanda chooses to fight it at every step. And sometimes this is difficult for me because Amanda really is higher minded than me.

It's not that I am demanding any character of mine be shielded from unpleasantness. Life is unpleasant, life in the World of Darkness moreso. And Amanda is not in denial of the unpleasantness or darkness around her. She just refuses to let it define her. Thing is, there's a huge difference between hurt and dead. Panda pulled a punch for me, in return I will respect that by not interfering with his story anymore. We set a boundary, and we both will respect it. And this is good.

And Paul,

I don't think of you guys as spastic, domineering, mental midgets. If I did, I would have checked out before Amanda's Rite of Passage. And I would have never, ever looked back. As for tabletop, I've never found anyone that wants to roleplay the way I do, I've heard they exist, but I've never actually met one. I have more than a few friends who roleplayed for a while, and for reasons similar to mine, will never, under any circumstance, ever roleplay again. That said, I enjoy the LARP format SO much more than tabletop. I can play tabletop, but it doesn't offer nearly the same immersion I get from LARP. Also...I'm a freak here on the boards. I'm here all the time because my bread and butter is soft roleplay. If I had any thoughts of going to the thing in Connecticut, when I learned the game we would be having here would be almost entirely soft roleplay, my heart sang in delight! I need a plot to bounce off of, but soft roleplay is what I want to do.

[Guest]

Charlotte,

On a purely OOC level, I like you a lot and enjoy playing with you. It is wonderful for people to have different gaming approaches and mindsets. Diversity of thought is what makes the world go around. And, to a certain extent we as a society and as participants in a group hobby need to embrace differences and work with each other.

But there needs to be some level of basic understanding that because of the wide spectrum of players and mindsets, that there will be clashes. For instance, I am not sure if you have noticed, but I play a very devious character. In life, I am generally a nice guy who is honest, forthright and liberal. That is life for me, so when I play a character I tend to want to explore my 'dark side'. Hence, I play a Giovanni elder who loves his family and will kill anyone- internally and externally- who opposes his view of the world and the Masquerade. Or I play a really gay and insane Mage who has 2 personalities- a nice guy with a c'est la vie personality and an evil MIB who uses the other personality to entrap his enemies in the Mage world. Or I play a Vampire who is religious in a fundamental, creepy, hellion way and will make sure everyone in his city damn right follows the laws of his faith or dies trying to violate it. Or I play a Shadow Lord who has takes a pied piper approach to Garou society and wants to make everyone around him dance on strings for unstated reasons.

Call it sick, call it twisted, but thats how I get my jollies in game- playing devious politics and watching the repercussion (both good and bad- I enjoy nothing more than being caught or punished by my own plots). And to some point, I can try to play well with others on an OOC level. I cn go to game and say 'OK, Alyosha really wants to mess with Amanda. He wants to see her hurt. He wants to show all in the sept the danger of being weak etc' (this is actually not the case, just an example) and to some extent I can also say 'however much Alyosha wants that, that will not create a pleasant gaming experience for all involved so lets table that impulse for now.'

The problem comes when it is not capricious. Let's now imagine another scenario. As Alyosha: 'Amanda heckled my rite of accomplishment. She caused me to frenzy and stopped my progression. This is all I really cares about. because of this, I want to see Amanda in pain and bleed. Then I want to see her die.' (once again, not really happening, just a plausible example). How would you prefer Alyosha to react? Should I ignore what happened ICly, should I lessen whatever revenge I am planning?

Part of what makes the WoD and Garou specifically enjoyable is how the different tribes, breeds and auspices react to things. i do not want to speak for other players, characters or tribes that I know less about, but for instance: Screw over a CoG and she might be upset and angry and passive agresive. Screw over a Get and he might challenge you to the mound. Screw over a SL and he might plot and plan your demise in the worst method possible.

Even better, your actions have consequences far beyond your control. For example, I wanted to give Tom a little difficulty. he was my auspicial alpha and I wanted to start going for that role in a few months after I ranked, so I wanted to hurt him a little ICly so I denied him the right to tell a story. I honestly expected a little anger, a little discomfort ICly for Tom and the Silver Fangs. But it blew up to be much bigger than I planned. That time it worked to my favor. Another time it could lead to my character's death or have no impact at all. Actions have consequences. Hell, two years from now Alyosha might die for what he did to Tom and someone waited a long time to get revenge. Who knows!

This is where I find it hard to figure out a way to game with someone who wants to play, and is willing to take some consequences but only to a certain level. I like Alyosha, and I don't want to see him dead. If he does die, I will be bummed out for a few days- maybe even a week or so. Hell, maybe even in my heart of hearts I might be bitter with the STs for a shitty roll call, or the player that killed me, whatever. And I might be bitter about that for a little while. But on a real and conscious level, I know that the STs did not mean to hurt Chris, just Alyosha. Or the player's character that killed Alyosha killed Alyosha, not Chris.

Emotions are emotions, and they are hard to control and are usually legitimate. I like you, and I want you to continue to play. I will even- to some extent and within reason- regulate my own actions ICly so that you can have an enjoyable time. But I want to, as Chris, caution you that Charlotte's character Amanda might die. And it might be in a completely shitty way, or a heroic way, or a tragic way, or a petty way. Thats the WoD, and that is Garou. I have never really played anything but Wite Wolf, but I am sure there are games and LARPs out there that might not function that way, that might not have character deaths or genre that does not encourage characters to be underhanded and devious.

As is often (over)stated, this is the world of darkness, not the world of light. Crap happens. Magnify that even more when you play in a LARP. Magnify that even more when you play a game that has the title 'Apocalypse' in it.

I just worry a little bit that you might not be prepared for something really bad to happen to Amanda. Once again, I like you on an OOC level, and do not want to in any way sound mean. I hope you continue to play, but would suggest that you prepare yourself that in any LARP WoD game you play, your characters will likely die in some way. And usually, it is not in a heroic or happy manner.

Chris

[Soren Saga-smith]

I need a plot to bounce off of, but soft roleplay is what I want to do.

I want the camaraderie of the foxhole. I want to be shocked as severely by the senseless deaths of my character's beloved friends as by the seeming callousness and bankruptcy of all moral, spiritual, and political authority. I want despair of a completely different character from everyday despair. I want a slow pan over an impossibly difficult terrain of suicide and addiction. I want Yeats's "The Second Coming," and I want it in Technicolor.

I'm not gonna get it at a LARP.

The price of the immersion of LARP is a relatively middle-of-the-road RP space. What you pay in return for being able to walk around IC is having to roleplay in a world to which all your co-LARPers agree - so that they too can be immersed.

I'm asking you to take on the risks of that agreed-upon world so that I can play an antagonist that inhabits a world internally consistent enough to be immersive. I'm asking, if I'm to play an antagonist in your character's immersive story, for your character to be subject to the same dramatic threats that her antagonists all share. I ask it so that I can play the antagonist in such a way that his motives make sense.

[Audra]

If you don't like table-top, and like the boards, there are also on-line only games that might suit what you are looking for. They tend to be more like LARP, IMO, in feel - they're bigger groups without an ST watching over every move you make. They run on TT rules usually, but that's just because roshambo is really hard to play online. There are online games of all different flavors and genres and styles. Plus there are also board-only and play-by-email games.

It might be able to give you a more satisfying experience, without impinging on the fun/RP of others.

[James Stein]

I need a plot to bounce off of, but soft roleplay is what I want to do.

I want the camaraderie of the foxhole. I want to be shocked as severely by the senseless deaths of my character's beloved friends as by the seeming callousness and bankruptcy of all moral, spiritual, and political authority. I want despair of a completely different character from everyday despair. I want a slow pan over an impossibly difficult terrain of suicide and addiction. I want Yeats's "The Second Coming," and I want it in Technicolor.

I'm not gonna get it at a LARP.

The price of the immersion of LARP is a relatively middle-of-the-road RP space. What you pay in return for being able to walk around IC is having to roleplay in a world to which all your co-LARPers agree - so that they too can be immersed.

I'm asking you to take on the risks of that agreed-upon world so that I can play an antagonist that inhabits a world internally consistent enough to be immersive. I'm asking, if I'm to play an antagonist in your character's immersive story, for your character to be subject to the same dramatic threats that her antagonists all share. I ask it so that I can play the antagonist in such a way that his motives make sense.

Holy shit I've never had someone sum up my aspirations for WoD LARP so vividly and accurately. You and I should be friends.

[Tango]

If you enjoy our company so much Charlotte there are other ways to hang out and go on adventures. Bowling nights, cookouts, camping, hiking trips, Having a MST movie night etc. If game is so stressful and you hate WoD why do it? If it's because of us? Have a cook out or something and we can watch Twilight and give snarky commentary on it.

I role play for many reasons. I love storytelling so it became an outlet for that, it also became a place where I can learn how to read people's faces and deal with social issues in a contained environment. I like soft RP too that is why I text RP a lot if you prefer that and still want to be n a urban fantasy

http://crossroadscity.proboards.com/ this is a good place for that. It's all text collaborative storytelling. It seems to be right up your alley.
LARP is exhausting and emotionally draining I get that, I love it though. You don't seem to like it not without big boundaries on it at least, so don't put yourself out for us.

[Sir Maximilian Canning]

Now I know why I kept sneezing and my ears were burning...

[Amanda Miller]

Hey everyone!

Been at Marcon over the weekend. Spent most of today sleeping it off. I’ve had a lot of time to think over the responses here and well…Corbin, thank you so much for you advice. But, I need to make something absolutely clear, things that I don’t think have quite gotten through. This is mostly directed at Paul, but like everything else I’ve posted in this thread part of the open letter.

First, I have asked for a boundary. And frankly, it’s not an unreasonable request. I was upset with you for not wanting to respect that boundary in the name of good roleplay, but I’ll get to that in a minute. I’m mostly over it, but I chewed over your response and tried very, very hard to see things from your perspective. I’ve come to figure that there’s a lack of perspective in order. In light of that, here are the other three points:

Second, I have made this clear for some time: my characters talk to me. They have hopes, they have dreams, and occasionally they try and give me advice. After attending Marcon, and having met with some published authors in the paranormal romance field, not only does it seem that he notion of the talking character is common among writers, I was actually asked how one can make a good story without the characters talking back. Ha! So, it seems I’m not alone. Now, for a long time, Theresa’s greatest fear was that I was going to put her back into Masquerade. Theresa is my character, I have total power over her and I can do with her whatever I want. There were times she begged me to kill her rather than put her back in that game. Briefly, ever so briefly, my foray into the World of Darkness went Lovecraftian, and in that moment, I was the Cosmic Horror.

I want you to take a minute to take in the implications of what I just said. Go on, I’ll be here….ok. My characters are not my masks, they are not my tools, they are my children in the same sense I am a child of God. Just as God will not leave me to my fate, so I would be remiss in leaving Amanda to hers. I would be like the wicked servant of Mathew 18. And yes, this is a religious and ethical grounding as to why I have a duty to defend and protect my characters.

To Wit: Amanda Miller and any other character I bring to play is under my protection. If any PC that maims or kills my characters, whether they be PC or NPC, I will take this as a personal affront, and I will not be pleasant in dealing with the aftermath. Anything less that that is water under the bridge. I have responsibilities to my characters, and none of them are going to die for your jollies.

Third, I want you to take in the IC ramifications of playing a fratricidal douche. Even the World of Darkness is a vast, vast place, and there are enough Ronin stories just in Wyld Prophets to show that even Garou have a choice. These are supposed to be the last days, the Wyrm grows strong. However, homid born Garou, the majority of the Nation, are the children of the modern world. The doucheyness of some of these characters might have been accepted in less civilized times, but homid Garou now have been raised in a mundane society that demands restraint, respect for the individual, civil discourse and the rule of law above and beyond the peon barbarities of the Challenge Mound. If Amanda, and by extension, any young Garou, cannot feel safe among the Garou with which she is expected to fight and die with, they’ll leave. Amanda has options, up to and including going Ronin. This kind of douchey IC behavior makes it very hard to justify why any sane Garou (homid, lupus, or metis) would voluntarily join and remain in the Nation. Furthermore, it undercuts the two most important themes of Werewolf: the Apocalypse: valor in the face of death, and the brotherhood of battle that makes such valor possible. That level of doucheyness IC is a kind of putrid selfishness and narcissism that pollutes the good parts, and dignity of, Garou life.

Fourth, I know after all the shitfests I’ve had with other roleplayers these reason are unlikely to so much as ding your desires. So now I’m going to illustrate why you don’t want to play that way with me in terms of your own self-interest. We all have different reasons to play, there are all things we want to do, to explore, and to feel. You are forgiven for thinking that I play because of the OOC camaraderie, to explore the notion of being Garou, to level up, but while these are motivations, they are supplemental to the core of why I love to play.

It runs like this: beyond all the apologies and theologies of the Wyrm, the Wyrm is a douchebag. His minions are douchebags, Vampires are douchebags, Mages are often douchebags. And as a Werewolf, Amanda gets to kill all of them. I get to see shitheels bleed, and suffer and die for being shitheels. So to be utterly clear: you want to play a douche, and I play to kill douches. Perhaps I’m developing a psychic twinkle, but I foresee potential conflict here. My douchebag meter does not, and never will, make a distinction between real people and fictional characters, between designated good guys and designated bad guys, between PCs and NPCs or even whether it happens to me or someone else. It only detects douchebaggery, and homicidal rage follows.

Now, I had to ask myself why I was so miffed at you Paul, cause Anya asked me the same thing and I wasn’t all that angry with her….and then it hit me. I’ve been pulling punches. Alyosha and Joshua Drake are both douches, but each has their own charms. Soren Ottosen is an even bigger douchebag than both of them, with absolutely none of the charms. If this were Masquerade, I’ve have rolled him by now. Soren is not without talents and competency, but to me he occupies the same echelon of useless waste of flesh douchebag as Never-Tired-Of-Running. Soren continues to breathe because I am not in the business of killing PCs. And yet you seem intent on making it my business.

Do understand that my niceness is a choice. If I were less charitable, a façade. I don’t react well to being messed with, I never have. I don’t play nice, I don’t treat malice as a joke, and truly loathe every douchebag I meet. From 5th to 8th grade I have a career of beating the shit out of them. Cause, in the end, there is no excuse for being a douchebag. None, and I will accept none. ‘Well, I’m a vampire!’ Don’t care ‘I’m a Get.’ Don’t care. ‘I’m entrapped in the Weaver’s Pattern Web.’ I’m still not giving a shit. And I do make a distinction between player and PC, but in IC terms it doesn’t matter. In Columbus in Darkness, there was this guy named Dave. Dave was nice to me; Dave tried to show me the ropes. I wouldn’t be averse to meeting up with Dave again. But I swear before the Living God that had I continued to play, I would have dedicated my every Larping moment to killing his Setite Trey MacArthur. Strike one, being a vampire, strike two, being a Setite by creed and strike three not following Humanity. This wouldn’t have been friendly either, it would have been pathological. I believe that civility is both necessary and paper thin; I believe that morality requires mutual adherence. By reserving he right to roll my characters, you are removing the restraints (especially Amanda’s niceness) that keep Gaian douchebags safe from ME. I promise you I am a bigger asshole than anyone else in this troupe and when I am roused into anger, I spit upon the notions of restraint, mercy, decency and for the most part, any but the most sincere repentance. I will take Savage Horror and a much needed civics lesson and wrap them up in a nice neat bow.

Now, that’s the emotional Charlotte, here’s the rational, semi-humane Charlotte: we’re adults here. We play pretend, but we are adults, and I expect us to act like it. In the first place, I’m not trying to tell you how to play in general: if you truly want to play those douche games, there is everyone else in the troupe. Just leave me and mine out of it. That’s a big compromise on my part, and don’t pretend otherwise. Two, I’m not above reason. We can and should negotiate on how to deal with unpleasantness, I am willing to talk, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how much suffering I’m willing to allow my characters to go through. Look, we are not merely co-gamers, Halo multiplayers are merely co-gamers . We are also co-storytellers, and while he ST staff is responsible for the overriding story, we are all responsible for our PCs individual stories, and how we all interact with each other. We need to make this work, and to do that we need to be respectful and mature. For me, that means a boundary.

[Audra]

Seriously, with all that you have just said - seek a game that respects your boundary. OWbN isn't going to be it.

Your rant frightens me, as a player.

[Kate Yurov]

First, mages aren't minions of the Wyrm. Just saying.

Two, I'm with Susan here. You cannot distinguish between IC and OOC actions, clearly, and that makes you detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. We can't all be 'good guys', Charlotte. You wouldn't read a book where there were only 'good guys' or watch a TV show or a movie with only positive characters, because then there would be no story. People don't play 'bad guys' here because they want to be douches and don't care about anything else, they play bad guys because it generates story. Simple as that. Every person you just labeled as a douche has capacity for great character growth, redemption, failure, tragedy, love, and enlightenment. Denying them any other path but the 'right' path is close-minded and very elitist, which is how that all just came across. Your path isn't everyone else's path, and saying yours is the only right way is not even Christian, much less kind to other people. If you single-mindedly go after someone who damages or kills your character, what does that make you? Vengeful, cruel, and hurtful.

I write quite a bit as well, as I'm sure anyone who reads here would see. My characters likewise develop their own personalities beyond what I envisioned for them. Oftentimes, I have to tell someone "Kate just wouldn't do that" because she wouldn't. I understand that. However, Kate does not and SHOULD NOT have any control over what the others do in her life. If Brian turns around tomorrow and tries to kill her, and it was plot and storyline-based, I would have no control over that, nor would I suddenly develop a passionate hatred for Brendan. I may text him some dirty messages, but still. Now, if Brendan specifically targeted me for no reason, sure, I'd have a problem. But that chances of that happening, to any of us, are pretty damn slim. No player here has it out for another player. We do this for the story, period. And if that's not why you are here, for the story, I don't know why you are here at all.

[Sponsored content]