magicaddict: (B&W 2)
Doug Millington-Smith ([personal profile] magicaddict) wrote2015-07-23 08:44 pm

Am I The Only One...

...who didn't particularly enjoy last week's game?

Disclaimer: The game was fine - good premise, good selection of monsters, simple and direct narrative. I'm not commenting on the game design or OOC management.

But I still didn't particularly enjoy myself.

Thyrian is a nothing character. On games, he's no more substantial than Juilin was. The only challenge he represents to me is remembering his spell vocals and not cheating (failing to remember my stats correctly). Given that I get this wrong on a number of occasions (as I did last week, spending one more mana than I needed to on every spell I cast), it leaves me feeling less of a person as a result of playing him. Possibly having Eirlys present would provide an outside stimulus that is otherwise lacking, but all of the interactions he had felt staid, forced, and pretty much unnecessary. Had I handed the stats sheet to someone else and gone home, little or nothing would have changed. I don't care that he's effective - anyone with those stats would be, so the statement means nothing.

The party's combination of castings was so world-bendingly powerful with respect to the game that I never felt remotely in danger (not since Nimbus before the rules changes have I felt so invulnerable). With the exception of getting paralysed repeatedly (perfectly reasonable - I was playing a mage - but then made me invulnerable to the rest of the encounter as it is Bad Form to hit paralysed characters), nothing had a great deal of effect. I took, at most, three points of damage in a single hit, and that was to my chest, so I barely had to react, and I never dropped below half life or half wounds on any location. No fear. No danger. No risk. Unstoppable force meets target rich environment - only one possible outcome. I have fun by getting trounced, coping with adversity, succeeding in a pinch. This wasn't. This was a methodical and relentless destruction of a game's encounters by a party that wouldn't take no for an answer. I couldn't engage with it. Even IC lamenting on the abhorrence of the situation was met with a cheery IC response of "This is fun!", widely echoed.

There was a very unpleasant incident approaching the final fight in which the party become so spread out due to varying OOC ability to keep up that one section had to be paused while the the other was able to continue. As one of those pushing to move forward quickly on this occasion was one who has in the past insisted that the game stops so they can catch their breath and remain part of the game, this was irritating to me. In a society that has a culture of inclusionism OOC, using IC reasoning to justify the OOC exclusion of those who did not have the required level of fitness to keep up with them (which really was the reason for the group being strung out), also irritated me. More than a little. Then it changed, and the force so unflinchingly determined to press on at all costs suddenly insisted on not going forward any further until those behind had been notified of what was going on. What changed?

This isn't out of the ordinary - this is a variant of what I come away from most games (particularly my own) thinking. What if? If only? Why did they do that? How was this acceptable? How was that gotten away with? What were they thinking? Are they mad?

I must be missing something. If I walk away from a game no less despondent than normal when everyone else is busy singing its praises, I get the feeling it's very much on me. This is why this is here, and not emailed to the committee, or posted on the boards.

*Looks at calendar.*

Oh good - my game this Sunday.

Part 2

[identity profile] magicaddict.livejournal.com 2015-07-29 12:09 pm (UTC)(link)
It is what I see as the absence of this - what I see as a lack of consideration of IC (or worse, OOC) consequences, lack of thinking about the IC (or worse, OOC) implications of what is being said or done - that I find removes my fun. Actions are taken that shouldn't be gotten away with (legally/morally/guild-based restrictionally), but are because 'they're characters' or 'it's IC', or 'it's a laugh' or 'oh, it's not important, stop worrying' or 'dubious yet sufficiently murky justification no. 312', and it irritates me, as they should be pulled up for it but no GM is going to, because that's not fun for the players in question (and may indeed be fun for other GMs - I don't know). A case in point would be the Pirate Island 24hr, in which 'light-hearted' was used as justification to ignore a laundry list of deadly serious IC risks to the wider populace (I don't think the GMs effectively considered the implications of their plot in this regard) and to each other, and what I perceived as the lack of consideration of these by pretty much everyone else present (or considering them and subsequently going 'meh, I'm having a laugh instead') consequently represented the least fun I have ever had at a LARP.

They'll go on getting away with it, because this represents the majority view. There are more of them than there are of me, so cramping their fun so I can have mine is unfair on the majority. As mentioned, I am acutely aware that the person who has to deal with this, and possibly change to accommodate it, is me, and my opinions, rather than anyone else and theirs.
xanthipe: (Default)

Re: Part 2

[personal profile] xanthipe 2015-07-30 11:39 am (UTC)(link)
Something to bring up at the GMing forum, perhaps? I know it's a way off, but if we can encourage people to start enforcing IC consequences as GMs during games as well as between them it might help sort this sort of thing out again. I know that there's been a few games recently where the NPCs have effectively felt hobbled when dealing with player obnoxiousness, and it is a persistent problem between players as well.

I admit I am resisting asking some pretty pointed questions right now though, but only because I know you'd be willing to have taken the IC consequences if I'd had the balls as a player to hand them out.

Re: Part 2

[identity profile] magicaddict.livejournal.com 2015-07-30 12:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Had she left him dead on the hillside with a couple of stab wounds in his neck, I'd probably have thanked you.
xanthipe: (Default)

Re: Part 2

[personal profile] xanthipe 2015-07-30 01:11 pm (UTC)(link)
...the sad part is I can't actually work out which combination of characters you're referring to.
xanthipe: (Default)

Re: Part 2

[personal profile] xanthipe 2015-07-30 01:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Thinking about this some more, at least some of it is because, on the whole, people want the game to continue, ideally at least vaguely in the direction that the GM wants. As a consequence, consequences aren't what they should be, and thus it's okay to behave in particular ways. Likewise, getting IC consequences for actions is very difficult and GM dependent (never mind the CRs), so there's no enforcement there either.

If you can't make the next forum when I arrange it, prod me about this? It's worth discussing properly.