D1: Ashin's Commission (El Jefe judging)

[El Jefe]

This is grabbing him. They had him in their arms, admittedly treating him, but they had him. This is where Erekose thought they had him as well, if you'll recall.



You made him into an idiot, a complete imbecile, by not mentioning the absense of the soldier, not because they didn't have him in the first place.

I'm still struggling with this. When Zaeryl left, Michael and Eternity were standing/kneeling over Private Stander. When he next saw them, they were mounted and some distance (admittedly, not a great distance, but given the visibility...) from where Stander was laying. I did mention that everyone was mounted and that Hulgyr had a limp soldier on his horse. I don't see what I could have done differently, save to phrase it like: "Everybody is in a small clump in the middle of the woods. Everyone is mounted. Only one of the three soldiers is present; he is unconscious or dead and on the back of Hulgyr's horse, the whereabouts of the other two is not known to everyone present." Admittedly, that would have met your concern, but it didn't seem obvious to me that it needed phrasing that way. Again, my bad, but I don't see this as a "Ha, ha, the bed is missing and you just didn't notice" problem. It was more subtle than that, and because it was so subtle, I do see it as something that even the mighty Zaeryl could have missed...especially with Eternity constantly buzzing in his ear that everybody needed to stop so she could see if Squatter was still alive.

Perhaps more apropros--let's say that a Paladin is in a burning building with three orphans...

And in that case, I'd have either ruled that the paladin simply wasn't aware that the third orphan was in peril (and the character can beat himself up IC all he wants, but even his god likely wouldn't hold him responsible for that one), or else tried to find a way to retcon it. I just don't see Zaeryl in the same light...and if I do, it's more like the case in which the paladin would have every reason to believe that the child was saved only to find out to his dismay that he wasn't.

I suppose the concept of Zaeryl is still evolving in my mind even if it's been settled in your mind for months. Is it your concept of Zaeryl that he never, ever makes a tactical mistake, provided that he gets good situational information? If so, I certainly didn't understand that until the last 24 hours. And granted, Zaeryl is not human, but that's clearly a quite superhuman ability. I've seen some very smart, very "together" people make bigger mistakes in RL than he did in the game when under far less pressure and facing fewer distractions than he was.

 

[ajanders]

Oh I think it's clear from his OOC hints that Michael was right--but in character, Ashin went to the extremes of using a magic item to ensure nobody was allied with Fallon and warned us away from them, plus other NPCs said they were herding folks up into a containment camp, so IC it would have been unreasonable to take that kind of risk--it would be more in line with Ashin's assignment to avoid capture with force if necessary than to let them bring us into their camp. Even the most polite of characters should, in my opinion, have politely declined to be taken to their camp on the grounds that even the soldiers must admit it puts the characters completely at the soldiers' mercies if the soldiers were to have bad intentions.

If I find it difficult to play any of my characters unassisted I will certainly call on your expertise.
Further discussion here seems unfruitful.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I suppose the concept of Zaeryl is still evolving in my mind even if it's been settled in your mind for months. Is it your concept of Zaeryl that he never, ever makes a tactical mistake, provided that he gets good situational information? If so, I certainly didn't understand that until the last 24 hours. And granted, Zaeryl is not human, but that's clearly a quite superhuman ability. I've seen some very smart, very "together" people make bigger mistakes in RL than he did in the game when under far less pressure and facing fewer distractions than he was.

It's actually the opposite of this--he doesn't always pick the right tactical option--no one can--but he doesn't miss the facts he cares about, particularly the salient ones. This is a salient obvious fact. It is a DC 0 Spot check for someone who cared about it. You admitted that you would have mentioned it right away if I had asked for it out of character without needing a spot check, yes? This indicates, and I think that that's about right, that there was a net 0 probability to not notice this by someone who cared deeply about checking this. And thus, if you would have handed this information out immediately with that OOC question, it means you think Zaeryl didn't care, wasn't checking. This is hence my 'conflating OOC with IC' statement earlier. In my mind, it is just as egregious as the bed. I think that I've given a good case to establish that I'm not just making this up retroactively or something and that I sincerely considered not only that this was a priority for Zaeryl but that I had communicated this multiple times. Thus, I think it is exactly analagous to the bed thing in this case, or the not-looking-at-the-ceiling.

I think that despite having my image of Zaeryl destroyed, I probably would have continued playing out of obligation to my fellow players if not for the fact that I realise that I would be a pain-in-the-butt in a game that is run this way where you have to ask the GM or you lose important details. I would be constantly badgering about details with every post, and I think that would bother everyone, including me, but you see why I am essentially forced to do that when you as the GM 'pull one past us' like that unless we check with you on every detail, right?

 

[Rystil Arden]

If I find it difficult to play any of my characters unassisted I will certainly call on your expertise.
Further discussion here seems unfruitful.

By the way, and this is for anyone, not just you ajanders--if you'd rather I just stop posting here, I will. I'm getting the impression that El Jefe would prefer I post here and that is why he declared this 24 hour period. But if you're getting more grief than use out of my posts, I will most certainly cease, as I mentioned earlier.

 

[El Jefe]

This is a salient obvious fact. It is a DC 0 Spot check for someone who cared about it. You admitted that you would have mentioned it right away if I had asked for it out of character without needing a spot check, yes? This indicates, and I think that that's about right, that there was a net 0 probability to not notice this by someone who cared deeply about checking this.

Let me come back to this, for reasons that should become clear.

And thus, if you would have handed this information out immediately with that OOC question, it means you think Zaeryl didn't care, wasn't checking. This is hence my 'conflating OOC with IC' statement earlier.

This is where we disagree. I genuinely didn't know what you (RA) were aware of and what you weren't aware of. When I posted that there was a soldier on Hulgyr's horse, I thought that I'd posted everything that needed to be said. I didn't think that it was necessary to post that there wasn't a soldier on Michael's horse and there wasn't a soldier on Eternity's horse and there wasn't a soldier on Almayce's horse. Those were also obvious facts. I also didn't think it necessary to post that no other soldiers beyond the original three had presented themselves, or that nobody had switched horses with anyone else, or any one of a number of other obvious facts. I assumed that you, RA, had an understanding of the situation that was satisfactory to you. I assumed that you'd decided that Zaeryl would not stop to take inventory, I assumed that you decided that he would either proceed with an imperfect knowledge of where all the soldiers were or that you had decided that he would flee even if he didn't have all three with him. At the time, I didn't see that as inconsistant with anything you'd posted IC or OoC, and that includes Zaeryl's implied motivation. I don't know what's inside your head, and because I don't know what's inside your head I don't know what's inside Zaeryl's head either. All I can do is look at the posts, try to understand both the obvious and the subtly implied, and make my best guess. I assumed that as a player, you were content to have your character arrive on the other side of the ridge either knowing that he left a soldier behind, or willing to be surprised to find that your character had left a soldier behind. Obviously, my assumptions were wrong...your concept of the character's motivation and mindset was different than mine.

And I still disagree that this is analgous to not-looking-at-the-ceiling. It may be clear in your mind that this was important to Zaeryl and that you played him very consistantly to that effect, but looking back at the posts, it's still not obvious to me. When (a couple of posts ago) you mentioned that "Zaeryl saw the other party members grabbing the soldier", my first thought was, "How could I have ever missed that?! If that's the case, not only have I unfairly screwed RA/Zaeryl, but I've also unfairly screwed at least one of the other player/PCs as well." So, I went off and read through all the appropriate posts, looking for either an oversight on my part, or some sort of miscommunication (like the "grabbed" thing). Honestly, aside from the "grabbed" thing, I couldn't find one. I honestly believe that you, RA, read the posts where Michael and Eternity approached prone Stander and thought, "Ok, they've got him, so now I have to have Zaeryl go off and chase Squatter before he gets away." And I really believe that in your memory, you just sort of "attached" Squatter to one of those two, to the point where when I described the group as "all mounted, and Hulgyr has a soldier on the back of his horse", what you perceived was Squatter on the back of Hulgyr's horse and Stander on the back of Michael's or Eternity's (probably Michael's, since Eternity was the only one who was able to keep up with you).

It just hit me. Why am I lecturing to you about human memory? You probably know more about this than I do. Surely you can see how this was just a simple misunderstanding between us, compounded by the written nature of PbP. I was as surprised to find several players adamant that the party had all three soldiers as they were to find that in my bookkeeping, the party didn't. I really thought that every player had either made a conscious decision to have their chracter leave knowing that all three soldiers were not present or made a conscious decision to have their character leave not knowing whether all three were present or not. And I genuinely did not know which of those two choices each player had made for their character.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It just hit me. Why am I lecturing to you about human memory? You probably know more about this than I do. Surely you can see how this was just a simple misunderstanding between us, compounded by the written nature of PbP. I was as surprised to find several players adamant that the party had all three soldiers as they were to find that in my bookkeeping, the party didn't. I really thought that every player had either made a conscious decision to have their chracter leave knowing that all three soldiers were not present or made a conscious decision to have their character leave not knowing whether all three were present or not. And I genuinely did not know which of those two choices each player had made for their character.

And I do realise this. It is human nature to hallucinate things into a situation based on the way we perceive a scene--heck, I do a lot of my research on that (I just came back from running an experiment on a similar topic--ironically I was posting while subjects were doing the experiment). And I've made the same mistakes as a GM myself on numerous occasions. What ruined it for me (and this is why I tried not to say anything until after I saw your answer) is when you wouldn't let us go back and resolve this misunderstanding. It's just a different perspective, I guess. When a player first pointed out to me that I'd done this in a PbP game, my response was immediately "Oh crap! This is all my fault!" and I bent over backwards with editing a huge amount of posts (over 100) to make things right. As the GM in our games, we each have a god's eye view of everything that has happened, and we are the players' window to our world. As such, in a case of dual misunderstanding in a fairly ambiguous case, I believe as a GM and a player that the player is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, especially when it's the difference of making the game more/less fun, unless it's going to make the game less fun for the other players. In this particular case, it would have required nothing more from you than saying back when we mentioned that we thought we had him that when Eternity/Michael/Almayce was there standing right next to the guy, they did indeed grab him, and the rest of the game would have been unchanged--it's more-or-less the most unobstrusive retcon possible. (For an example of a much more obtrusive retcon--if we had already wound up fighting Fallonese who recognised us on sight as the 'Attackers' because of the left-behind guy and only then after questioning one of the fallen and being forced to kill half of them, we discovered that we left one guy behind--that's a really obtrusive retcon)

As I said all the way at the beginning, I guess it's a different playstyle. You may in fact lie less extreme on the continuum than the "You didn't look up" GM, but you're over there on that side--when a disagreement occurs due to misunderstanding on everyone's part, you side with the status quo (which implictly sides with the GM). I can see why someone might do that. The GM is, after all, in control of the game and making the final decision, so it could seem reasonable to always err on the GM's side. For me, however, it isn't that simple. As I said before, I believe in verisimilitude too, and thus the GM is the window to the world he or she creates. As such, any time there is a double-misunderstanding, I believe that it is the GM's burden that this occurred, in a sense, a failure of the window to convey the full scene to make everything clear, and the GM, unlike the players, can act with perfect knowledge, since the GM is in control and makes the scenarios. Thus, I err with the players.

 

[El Jefe]

All right, it's been 24 hours and then some. I realize that this might still settle out some over the next day or so, but I do think we've all had a good opportunity to air our frustrations and make some decisions for ourselves.

I do want to address RA's last post, because it leads in to what I feel is the best resolution of the situation I can offer. To wit:

What ruined it for me (and this is why I tried not to say anything until after I saw your answer) is when you wouldn't let us go back and resolve this misunderstanding. It's just a different perspective, I guess. When a player first pointed out to me that I'd done this in a PbP game, my response was immediately "Oh crap! This is all my fault!" and I bent over backwards with editing a huge amount of posts (over 100) to make things right.

Under different circumstances, there is no question that this would be the right thing to do, painful as it might be. My question is, is this the right thing to do for these particular set of circumstances? RA offers some insight:

As such, in a case of dual misunderstanding in a fairly ambiguous case, I believe as a GM and a player that the player is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, especially when it's the difference of making the game more/less fun, unless it's going to make the game less fun for the other players. In this particular case, it would have required nothing more from you than saying back when we mentioned that we thought we had him that when Eternity/Michael/Almayce was there standing right next to the guy, they did indeed grab him, and the rest of the game would have been unchanged--it's more-or-less the most unobstrusive retcon possible.

Well, let's look at just what each player perceived, based on OoC comments starting at about post 909:

Xael: Based on the Almayce sblocks, which had Almayce present when Michael and Eternity tended to Stander, and also when the mounted group had only one soldiier, Xael believed that the party only had two soldiers and had left one behind.

Rystil Arden: Based on the Zaeryl sblocks, which matched the Almayce sblocks described above, RA believed that the party had all three soldiers.

ajanders: Based on the Michael sblocks, which matched the Almayce sblocks described above, ajanders believed that the party had all three soldiers, speculated that one might have regained consciousness and slipped away when the party was distracted when confronted with the possibility that the party only had two soliders, and didn't act offended (although somewhat surprised) when that suspicion was confirmed. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position, it was somewhat less clear to me than some of the others.)

Erekose13: Based on the Eternity sblocks, which matched the Almayce sblocks described above, E13 believed as RA did that the party had all three soliders.

Patlin: Based on the Ironwolf sblocks which placed Ironwolf away from the disputed action, Patlin counted two soldiers and assumed that the party had killed the third.

B4cchus did not explicitly weigh in on this subject.

So, which player/PC reality should I respect here? E13's, whose character was right in the thick of things, or Xael's, whose character was just a few feet away? I don't think Solomon could figure that one out, so I'm not going to try. Rather, I'm going to just ask each of you to look at what you posted and recall your state of mind/understanding of the situation at the time, consider your state of mind at the present after having hashed this out, and give a simple (one paragraph please!) description of what you would want retconned, if anything. If there's a majority, I'll take that as a consensus and make it so; if there's no majority but a plurality then I'll work toward establishing a consensus. Once a consensus is established, if anyone is so dissatisfied with it that they feel they have to leave the game then I'll respect that and work with you to script a plausible and graceful exit; elsewise let's get back to the game and try to have some fun with it.

 

[Erekose13]

I personally could continue playing either way and enjoy it. Though I do agree with RA that allowing us to have carried off the last soldier, on probably my horse, would allow for the least disruption. As it looks like that direction would make things more fun for all involved (myself included), I'll vote that way.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I want to stress to everyone not to feel any sort of pressure to vote the same way I would like--vote for the thing that makes you happy. Also, if the thing that makes you happy at this point is to just get rid of me, then in that case, please let me know! If even one person wants me to go away because I've been annoying them (especially if that one person is El Jefe!), I will.

 

[ajanders]

I really did think we had all three, but either one is perfectly acceptable -- Michael didn't want to haul a prisoner around the country and certainly didn't expect anyone else to either.