|
Post by Geralyn on Feb 14, 2015 21:42:21 GMT
Hello everyone! Krow here. As some of you may have heard, I'm the new GM for the Exodus RP. This is a very old RP ship that's been going on for years. Unlike other ships, the U.S.S. Exodus was created and launched by her captain, Tiana. The fleet has a policy that dictates the person who creates the RP ultimately controls it. And is the only person capable of cancelling the event. Therefor, the Exodus is unique in the fact that the Captain can choose the GM for the ship. As such, I might not always be the GM. There may be guest GMs thrown in as the captain sees fit. Or I may not be around for long. It all depends on Tiana. That being said, I'm SUPER excited about GMing this ship. I have a fun idea for a long term or semi-long term plotline for Exodus and maybe even the fleet as a whole. The dramatic first part will be held on Saturday the 14th at 4pm EST. But because of the recent drop off in crew caused by burnouts, personal reasons, etc, the Exodus is more short staffed than we'd like. We need more players. Now, I'm going to address the elephant in the room because dancing around things was never a strong suit of mine. I know some people have various problems with the Exodus RP, and me personally. So I want to reassure those people. IF you have an issue with me or the Exodus, please please please tell me. Or post it in the Exodus Discussion thread being opened for this purpose. As a GM, I want to involve everyone. I'm going to make this RP about the crew. I won't have a character on Exodus at all. My goal is to make YOU people happy. But I can't do that if no one tells me what they'd like to see changed or done differently. Tiana and I have talked at length about this, and we both want the same thing. The same thing I think many of you want. We want a crew that works closely together as a family. We want everyone to get along and have fun with RP. That's it. To help with this family mentality, it's important that you don't just show up on Saturdays. RP with the crew and the rest of the fleet during the week as well. It's requested that if you do join, to not do it on an Alt that you only intend to play on the one day we have Exodus. So reply to this thread, or post it in the Exodus Discussion thread being opened for this purpose. Let us know what's on your mind, questions, comments, concerns, characters you'd like to put on the ship. Be a part of the Exodus family. As requested by Krow, this thread was created for discussion on the Exodus RP ship.
|
|
krow
Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by krow on Apr 19, 2015 0:18:19 GMT
Okay, this RP didn't go to well. I was going to shrug it off and try to change things up next time, but someone said: "you seem to love holding on to the solution then hitting people over the head with how obvious it was when they dont try it the "right way"
So now I feel like I have to defend my actions as the GM of this plot today. Threll has knowledge the crew MIGHT need to combat the plague caused by Scar. Most of the RP was spent trying to convince him to share it. Now, from my perspective the players only tried one way of doing this. They re-worded it and tried to say it in different ways, but the basis of their argument was always the same. He should tell them what he knows because they're the good guys and trying to help.
Try seeing this from his point of view. First, he's old. Centuries old. So very set in his ways and stubborn. Second, he knows NOTHING for sure about the plot. The only things he's seen with his own eyes to back up the Crew's story is his sighting of the Scimitar and some brief glimpses of the Steam Wraiths. Which he already said he believed to be part of a prank. Even the abductions were rumors he heard from a friend. So when he was brought to the Exodus and told it was for his own protection, he had ZERO evidence of that. He's a scientist and inventor. Evidence and proof is paramount to him. He spent a week learning as much as he could, then was questioned quite intensely about things he said over and over he didn't know about. He told the crew three times he didn't know anything about the Scimitar. So by the time they got around to asking about the cure, he was more than a little irritated. Suddenly, he realized what they were really after. The cure to all sickness. To him, it all made sense. THEY were the ones who were abducting people, but that won't teach them anything. So they fed him some line about being in danger to convince him to willingly cooperate and tell them what he knows. His old man paranoia kicked in, and suddenly everything they said became possible lies.
It became a game of he said she said. With NO evidence except a video provided. And like he said, anyone can dress in white. And people capable of making food from nothing can easily fake images. Still, the crew continued with the same line of reasoning. We're the good guys, this can be the first step to helping your society, we're trying to save countless lives. ALL of which became pointless because he didn't believe them anymore. Like he said, desperate people will tell any lie. He offered a trade, but when told they couldn't give his people replicator tech, it only made him MORE paranoid.
The whole line of questioning started bad with the badgering of the old coot, then went downhill fast. I wasn't aware of the bio-engineered crops angle till he was on the transporter pad and I had to leave. Apparently that idea was shared in PMs, so I never saw it till it was too late.
This WOULD have been proof to a scientist that they were willing to help feed his people. If they were able to convince him they had the technology to do so, and were willing to supply him with the ability or knowledge to do it. THEN it would have moved into a Morality of Prime directive RP where the discussion would be about whether it was acceptable to help if the people on the planet never knew they existed.
When I GM, I don't spoon feed. I feel like I'm being berated for not handing people the answer when they kept trying to same thing over and over. No, I don't have one single solution to a problem. But if you don't find a solution, or come up with one on your own, I'm not going to go "oh well, close enough" and hand you the plot point you need to move on. If you don't get it, you don't get it. And the plot changed to accommodate it. Good things might come from it, bad things might come from it. But the RP is fluid. I don't start a GMed session with the thought "by the end of this RP, they need to know this this and this to move on". No. That's too linear and I don't like it.
TL;DR - Old stubborn man, didn't believe you. So the "but we're the good guys" thing wouldn't work. Yet I'M the one being called out on being inflexible while I'm sitting at WORK on a busy event day, taking time to GM a 3 hour session.
EDIT: Yes I realize I could have changed things when it started to circle and spiral. I'll try harder next time. I'm in NO WAY the perfect GM.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 0:42:43 GMT
Krow,
My intention was not to attack you, but to provide constructive criticism.
This isn't the first time I've felt you or your characters have been inflexible, and I've pointed it to you privately in the past.
We roleplayers have to strike a difficult balance. We have realism on one side, and compromise on the other.
I've always felt that you put the realism of the character first. Now sometimes this is important. Especially early when you're trying to establish a character. But it so happens that sometimes you put 'what the character would do' above other people enjoying the interaction.
I don't think you realize it but sometimes you just put up walls that other people can't see ways around, and then get frustrated that other people don't see the hole in the wall as clearly as you do.
Crafting an enjoyable experience for people is not that different than writing a proper Star Trek episode. Yes, you can build walls, yes you can introduce a danger that seems impossible to defeat. But remember, the show has to wrap it up and solve it in 40 minutes, and the players need a satisfying conclusion after 2-3 hours.
Failure can be fun if we learn something from it. Bashing our head against the wall for three hours then being told how silly we were for banging our head against the wall is not what we come to RP for.
Some constructive suggestions as to how the RP tonight could have been handled differently;
The wraith could have shown up proving Tia was telling the truth. The old man could have been awe struck and convinced by Tia's pale blue dot speech The old man could have asked to see more records or evidence from the plague ship's activities. The old man could have asked to speak to Ex alone, trusting a computer more than people Something could have happened on the planet, giving an opportunity for the away team to prove their intentions Or if all of the above is not an option - its okay to drop a line to nudge the players to go down the right path. It's not spoonfeeding. It's herding. sometimes players need it.
Some things to avoid in the future; Painting yourself into a corner by making a character refuse to engage in conversation Not trying to explore other avenues to get the RP back on track to where you want it to go
Just a little food for thought...
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 1:00:09 GMT
After reading this, my initial feeling is to be compelled to ask:
Why wasn't the crop idea shared ICly vs PMs?
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 1:09:13 GMT
Erika wasn't in the room IC, so she PMd Lim, after nothing happened she PMd me, and I replied with something along the lines of 'Nah. it doesn't matter. he already made up his mind. nothing we say matters.'
This was after Tia had given her speech and was already escorting Threll back to the transporter room, then as she was saying goodbye I decided to give it one last ditch effort and float it up, thats when krow said "oh, that would have worked, but we have no time to RP it out."
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Apr 19, 2015 1:19:53 GMT
Erika, not being a people person, was easily flustered by the crotchety old guy, so she left, fearing embarrassment for someone, and sent a padd message to Limi and Tiana describing the idea she had been turning over in her head. Limi didn't act on it, but Tia eventually did.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 1:58:27 GMT
An assumption was made that something wouldn't work, when it was never tried. One option was tried that the players were set on, and when it didn't work, it was assumed nothing else would. This indicates player inflexibility. Just because the first idea fails doesn't mean all ideas will fail. There's always other possibilities.
"Not trying to explore other avenues... " the crew are the ones who should be exploring other avenues, and one was offered and left unused. The "Painting yourself in a corner by refusing to engage in conversation" occurred, far as I can tell, when the XO - the one who had the aforementioned solution - removed herself from the conversation. And I feel compelled to point out that being easily flustered by people isn't a common trait to find in a Commander or First Officer. Working with people is kind of a job requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 9:01:11 GMT
Geri, the time that elapsed between when I told Erika in PMs 'no' and the time Tia tried it anyway was maybe 5 minutes, tops. By then it was already too late to work anyway.
What I meant by being painted into a corner was this; the old man early in the session jumped up and shouted that he didn't trust us and wanted off the ship. When that happened, I felt like things were lost. Any action taken after this could be taken as further proof that we were holding him against his will. The only moral avenue left was to release him, ending the RP. The reason Erika's idea was initially briefly dismissed was because I had initially assumed that discussion had been exhausted, and I correlated negotiation as further discussion. Since any and all evidence was summarily dismissed by Threll, the initial assumption was that any negotiation would be dismissed in his current state of mind.
It is my belief that had negotiation been tried while Threll was still angry would have been met with either accusation of lying or insisting that further discussion was proof that we weren't going to respect his wishes to be released. A lose lose situation.
Besides negotiation and discussion, the only options left were giving up, or violence. (Never in a million years would any Exodus crew resort to that.)
If everyone in the room, Lim, Ex, myself, and for most of the session up until the end, Erika as well, all tried to talk sense into the old man it was because we all felt it was the right thing to do. The Starfleet thing to do. The Star Trek thing to do. And each person tried their own tactic in the discussion. Ex tried to provide proof we were telling the truth. Lem tried to explain the prime directive. Tia tried to offer Threll and his people a brighter future. The only response we all got was 'No, no, and no again.'
This is the wall of inflexibility I was talking about. Krow later said in crossover that we could have talked to the old man differently. That's exactly what I talked about when I mentioned that Krow likes to point out the right solution after the fact. As I recall the "proper" way to talk to the old man was to flatter him, or some such.
Three hours in RP time is very little time for actual progression. I'm sure that had we had more time we would have stumbled upon the right tactic, but I'm sure longer session time is not the solution.
Sometimes players don't do what you would do, or think you should. When that happens you can punish them with failure, or you can think on your feet and deliver a satisfying experience that's different than what you intended.
|
|
Flynt
Member
I'm just here for the donuts.
Posts: 222
|
Post by Flynt on Apr 19, 2015 18:57:06 GMT
Sometimes players don't do what you would do, or think you should. When that happens you can punish them with failure, or you can think on your feet and deliver a satisfying experience that's different than what you intended. Failure in RP is not a punishment. It's a consequence of actions taken and not taken, just as it is in real life. It's up to the player to decide whether to learn from the failure and try something else at that moment or at a later time, or to continue to throw brute force emotional/intellectual effort against the issue until everyone is frustrated. The GM should never be obligated to provide satisfaction to each player that no matter what they did, something went right.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 19:32:40 GMT
Flynt, my long winded point was that the crew was constantly trying different ways to talk to Threll. They tried different approaches, they tried carrots, they tried sticks, only to be told after the event that flattery was key.
If a player decides to perform an action, yes that action has consequences, but to hold up an entire evening of RP because you wanted the players to engage in a very particular way, while possibly realistic or otherwise justified, can cause frustration, and that's what I'm suggesting we avoid in the future, by giving constructive suggestions on other ways of presenting the problems to the players in a way that's engaging.
It's easy to blame. It's harder to find and suggest solutions, and that's what I'm trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 19:52:41 GMT
Failure in RP is not a punishment. It's a consequence of actions taken and not taken, just as it is in real life. It's up to the player to decide whether to learn from the failure and try something else at that moment or at a later time, or to continue to throw brute force emotional/intellectual effort against the issue until everyone is frustrated. The GM should never be obligated to provide satisfaction to each player that no matter what they did, something went right. This. All of this. Roleplaying, unlike fiction writing, has a chance of success or failure based on the character's actions. It's not about "how do I look awesome today" or "how do I let the players look awesome today." Sometimes players don't do what you would do, or think you should. When that happens you can punish them with failure, or you can think on your feet and deliver a satisfying experience that's different than what you intended. This wording implies that failure automatically = unsatisfying experience. That in and of itself is a disservice to the core concepts of roleplaying. In a tabletop game, success or failure (risk/reward) is decided by a given game's system of task resolution, and more clear-cut than freeform RP. But ultimately the concept remains both valid and necessary to roleplaying even in freeform. If there's no risk, the reward feels empty. If the players will always succeed without thought or effort, the victory is hollow. If there is risk of consequence for the wrong actions, the victories are that much sweeter. I will put my own opinion here: I believe this is the primary reason RP in our fleet has not been as fulfilling as it should be. With no risk of consequences, with the players always winning regardless, the experience becomes hollow. This is the reason many of our players eventually drift away or wind up spending a lot of time on tabletop games. Nothing they do in RP matters, because they're always going to win.Risk/reward gives the player a reason to feel like they did something. It gives them a reason to be proud of a victory, because they earned it, not because they believed they were entitled to it somehow, or that it would be guarantee. This is why gameplay in video games attracts people. That's why tabletop roleplaying matters. In RP, it's not the gamemaster's job to guarantee success. It's to guarantee a good RP session, and a good story. Sometimes that means losing. And THAT is found throughout the history of Star Trek. Sometimes the heroes fail. What makes them heroes is that they don't give up, and they learn from their mistakes. Flynt, my long winded point was that the crew was constantly trying different ways to talk to Threll. They tried different approaches, they tried carrots, they tried sticks, only to be told after the event that flattery was key. ... It's easy to blame. It's harder to find and suggest solutions, and that's what I'm trying to do. Flattery was one key. The crop idea was another. There was more than one solution, and the GM was open to solutions other than the ones he had in mind. Again, you didn't necessarily hit on a good solution. This does not automatically mean the GM made it too hard. GMs struggle with this kind of thing in roleplaying all the time, players not always hitting on the right idea. Again, success is not a given.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 21:04:22 GMT
Geri, I don't disagree on any particular point. My point is that in this one session the reason for success or failure felt arbitrary. Like I said in my original reply to krow, Failure can be fun. I mean that. Failure can be exciting if done well. Failure can be educational.
In this session, in this one evening, the players tried their best to have a meaningful debate to the best of their abilities in a true Star trek spirit, and their efforts were greeted with failure due to how the GM decided to roleplay his character's personality. There's a reason why in a tabletop RP the resolution to this sort of issue is left to the dice. (Roll a charisma check, amirite?)
If in a tabletop RP such things were left to the whims of the GM, players would get frustrated. Nobody wants that. When I say deliver a satisfying experience, I don't mean automatically deliver a win. A failure, like a victory, should be earned. In this one session it felt like Alex Trebeck failing the contestants because they didn't phrase the answer in the form of a question. And by the time the answer was given correctly, the contestants were out of time!
The players didn't act perfectly that evening, but I don't believe a failure was earned. Yes one question was asked one too many times (I think one of the players wasn't paying attention.) Yes one player handed a phaser when he shouldn't have. But even so, enough effort was placed in trying to remedy the mistakes, and they were arbitrarily dismissed. I think because the GM felt it wasn't realistic. What I've been trying to say is that sometimes some flexibility can go a long way. You see the players putting in effort to address the situation, but they're just not doing it the exact way "should work" so they were failed. So their efforts were labeled meaningless. That's how you make people's actions feel meaningless. That's when they might want to resort to letting the dice work it out. At least the dice is fair.
If the success or failure was factual, based on physics, or science, or the understanding of Trek lore, then this wouldn't be an issue. The failure here is based on judging personality and oratory skills. My primary point isn't "Let us win always!" My point is "Come on, you shouldn't have been so hard on us this time. We really tried our best, and you were just being stubborn for stubbornness sake. You didn't have to be."
There were other ways to go about it besides relenting on that front. Easy to see in hindsight, which is why I'm suggesting things for future sessions.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 21:18:51 GMT
As to effort and actions...as you said, someone handed a phaser out that they shouldn't. That's not a little mistake, that's a big one. And I stand by my previous statement that the XO walking away from the conversation because 'easily flustered' was an eyebrow-raising moment to say the least.
Could the GM have done things differently? Sure. But so could have the players, and not merely in a hair-splitting sense.
And deciding something doesn't work is not stubbornness on the GM's part. I understand the frustration of failure in RP, even when at the time I thought I had the best solution. Usually when I find out what the working solutions were, I had a moment of *facepalm* "Oh, right, I see it..." The thing here is: in roleplaying, just like in Starfleet, you don't say, "Oh, my efforts were meaningless" and give up. You take note of what failed and why, and what would have worked and why, and you grow.
And looking at the overall situation, I can't say I feel the solutions that the GM said would work were particularly counter-intuitive to me. And giving the guy a phaser is the biggest reason I could see for the situation turning for the worse. That action could not be without consequence.
I want to take an opportunity then to make a proposal. It would require some effort to put it together, though I'm actually okay with the idea, being one who's pondered this before. What would people think of coming up with a task-resolution system for RP? Dice aren't the best option, since computer-based random numbers aren't so random, but there's more than a few diceless systems out there. Who would be willing to work on coming up with a simple system, and would anyone be willing to test it once done?
We would (necessarily) need to go with the 'rules-lite' method, and it would have to work without getting in the way of gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 21:41:13 GMT
There was such a system suggested before with single use player skill cards. It was eventually rejected for being too cumbersome.
I don't believe that systematizing the RP is the key to the solution here, Geri, but rather understanding that the role of the GM is to provide an experience, and that his job isn't to outsmart the players, or educate them, or point out their faults. It's to work with them, help learn from mistakes (from both sides) and move forward. I find it disheartening that so far so much of the discussion is focused on the failings and shortcomings of players and their characters instead of other ways to have GMd this scenario.
It's really easy to point out faults in others. It's easy to judge from the sidelines, but at the end of the day we're here to have fun, and some did, and some didn't, and the player's that didn't have fun didn't do so because they didn't want to, or because they insisted on behaving in an inappropriate manner. It was because early in the session one player made a mistake, and correcting that mistake was discouraged, punished, and made futile. No other avenues were open to explore. There was nothing else going on in that session besides the guest below decks. It didn't feel like there was nothing else to be done. And that's the problem. That feeling. That wall. To be later told "You should have done X."
It's important that we understand what went wrong so we don't repeat it. On the player's side I've asked Lim to write up a Starfleet officer document of conduct and I will help to make sure our newer players on Exodus have read and understood it.
On the GM's side I'd like to discuss ways of addressing player screwups and what to do when the players hit a wall.
Can we do that, or is this discussion as futile as arguing with Threll?
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 22:09:22 GMT
Discussing how to address RP concepts is always worth doing. But I'm compelled to point out: you're reacting to constructive criticism about the player's actions as if it's finger-pointing and blaming, when it's not. This is not an attack on the players, or a redirection of blame, nor is it any kind of official ruling or judgement. It is merely the other side of the discussion.
It is easy to assign blame, true. It's also seeming that blame is being assigned to the GM. And that's why this discussion was opened. And I don't feel it's fair to criticize the GM, if the players' actions are not also considered. You have pointed out what you consider issues with the way it was GM'd, it is only fair that the other side of the discussion be heard.
I will acknowledge that you felt there was nothing that could be done, at the time. But that was not how it was intended to feel by the GM, and that should also be acknowledged.
It's not the GM's job to educate or outsmart players. I acknowledge that as a truism. But the other side of that coin is that if the players do err, it's not their job to fix it, but to take the story from there. The issue of willing suspension of disbelief is an important one. Could it have been handled differently? Yes. Was it handled wrong? I don't believe so, from reading the log.
I highly encourage a collaboration on the officer conduct document, it's been suggested before and it's probably a long time coming. I've found that having things like that to give a common framework for us to build RP upon has consistently been helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 22:36:55 GMT
Geri,
My objection isn't to the constructive criticism towards the player. My objection is that it is the only discussion we seem to be having. It's the primary focus and it shouldn't be.
We will always have players who mess up. So long as there are humans on planet Earth, humans will make mistakes.
I have acknowledged the role that the player error played in the events, and yet I still will have to insist that on some levels the response was handled wrong. There's times when it's okay to sit back and let the players run around in a sandbox. Other times the GM needs to keep the story train on tracks.
The RP should have shifted from sandbox to linear just long enough to make the sandbox worthwhile again. It's a fine balance, and this is why the GM has the entire outside make believe universe at his disposal. Otherwise the RP could have for all intents and purposes taken place on the Starbase.
We can and should strive to elevate starship RP into something bigger and better, limited only to our imaginations. Unlike the TV show, we have an unlimited special effects budget. Let's use it. Let's do better.
We can be better players, too. We should hold our characters to higher standards. Unfortunately not all players have actually gone to naval academy and learned to be officers. That's where the mentoring comes in. That's where a bit of hand holding and training wheels come in.
The officer who handed the phaser was new. I'm afraid that making a federal case out of such mistakes can discourage roleplay. I don't want that, and I think you don't either. I think a GM should find a balanced way of dealing with such issues.
|
|
mobius395
Member
In life, you need to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
Posts: 47
|
Post by mobius395 on Apr 19, 2015 23:01:43 GMT
Regarding the Phaser, if no one corrects the behavior IC, it will happen again. If you want something to stop, you need to take action, not just sit back and hope it'll work itself out.
With the Sandbox vs. Linear, IC actions should have IC repercussions. If a group uses the same method over and over when it's bee proven it wouldn't work, the GM shouldn't let it work. It's immersion breaking, and honestly a cheap way out. Letting the players figure it out for themselves gives the triumph more meaning, and is subsequently better RP. People feel as if they've earned it.
It's not a GM's job to spoon-feed the players information related to the plot. They need to guide it, but not micromanage. If a group is failing to complete a task, the GM shouldn't just say "Here you go, move on" because frankly, it makes the RP worth less. The players would feel as if their actions had little meaning, and will dislike the story as a result. In short, it's the cheap way out, and people don't like it.
I want Exodus to succeed as much as the next person, but blaming the GM for the mistakes of the characters themselves is just wrong. It's lying both to others and to yourself.
(My two cents.)
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 19, 2015 23:13:13 GMT
Mobious, I'm sorry that I have to say this but I responded point by point to everything you said in all of my earlier posts. I will ask that you read my responses and then give more insightful input. No progress will be made in addressing the same points again.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on Apr 19, 2015 23:37:02 GMT
As to whether or not a story should be in sandbox or railroad mode...that would be something that the players as a whole should discuss. Not everyone likes railroad stories, because then the players truly do not have any options, any say in what happens. There's only one way to go, and in that case there's no chance for a player to have a moment to shine. There's arguments to support both sides of that. Yes, players will make mistakes. But failure is not punishment meted out to the player. It's an opportunity to create a new story thread, such as the various losses Kirk suffered throughout ST II: WoK. One of the more famous tenants of Star Trek, the Kobyashi Maru, is based on the idea that a crew may face a no-win scenario, and the officer is not judged on having failed to succeed, but on how they handle the failure. As to the primary focus...the primary focus of this thread is Exodus. Part of the discussion took place in Crossover, and that part seemed to focus primarily on the GM. As discussions will, the focus shifts around. When one sub-topic is talked out, focus shifts again. This thread hasn't been open that long yet. As to the one player's mistake...yes, a big deal has been made of it. Because the repercussions were not just IC. From the OOC perspective, based on timestamps on the log, about half an hour was spent RPwise dealing with diffusing that situation. Actually, more direct involvement with new players has been under recent enthusiastic discussion by the mentors. That's going to be under active discussion going forward as well. That officer conduct document is going to be valuable in that regard, so I look forward to seeing how that turns out. And other documents are in the works as well, to build that framework I mentioned earlier. As to limits vs unlimited...as a fleet, we started with the idea of unlimited. Without guidelines or boundaries to what was roleplayed...things got wildly away from Star Trek in a hurry and stayed there for a long time. And it led to at least one former longstanding member leaving in frustration at the lack of cohesion. Do we want to encourage creativity? Yes, absolutely. Do we need some framework of guidelines within which that creativity can be channeled? Also absolutely. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'd like everyone involved in this thread to remember: this not intended as a fingerpointing session, but a constructive discussion that's airing concerns and questions people in our fleet have been wrestling with in RP for years. There's been no agreed-upon standards for GMing or playing, because initially the fleet was a small group of friends just having fun. We're over 110 unique players in one fleet. We're not that small fleet anymore. These questions are touching on how the fleet RPs as a whole, not just Exodus.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on Apr 20, 2015 0:03:46 GMT
Thank you Geri for being on point and moving the discussion forward.
I agree that both sandbox and railroad have their uses, and as with all things in life, I believe in moderation, and using the right tool for the right job. It's a judgement call. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it isn't. This is where reflection can be useful. The question we should ask isn't "What do you want" but rather "Okay, how did this work out?" and "Would it have been better had I done it differently?"
I agree that failure can be an opportunity, which is why we should focus on how to go about that. If we judge people based on how they handle being in a tough spot (I just have to sneak that word in, don't I?), I think most of the people involved handled it well by owning up to it and doing what they could to address it. I feel that such efforts should be rewarded. Instead what seemed to happen was that instead of the RP going in a new direction, it felt like it became a "But thou must" situation. I know that wasn't the intention, but I digress. I feel that this topic has already been covered.
I applaud and support any efforts at mentoring. More than one person has expressed that we need to nurture and encourage believable interaction.
I agree that there should be guidelines and limits to stories. What i meant to say wasn't that we should go all out crazy but that we should feel compelled to explore things we could never see on screen, or examine events that you could never air on primetime television. I want to encourage out of the box thinking while remaining true to the core spirit of the franchise without alienating anyone. This is true also for Exodus and also for all the other roleplays.
|
|