Hey there Company members

[thormagni]

Mark, on your way out the door, you made the comment about complaining about your playing style. I hope you realize that I am trying to play Thorm complaining about Olan's style, not ME complaining about YOUR playing style.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I see him as the combination of a rich snob and a pampered athlete, with a bit of overbearing frat boy and conservative wingnut thrown in for fun. I just started throwing in lines tonight that someone might hear on certain TV networks and it really felt like it fit him. The whole thing about "not being too weak to use your enemy's tactics against them" and "acceptable civilian casualties" and such were my attempts to express that attitude.

As far as tactics, I think I have fully embraced Thorm's role as the tank. In City of Heroes, the online superhero game, there is even a class called a tank. Their specialty is absorbing lots of damage and drawing attention to themselves, so the bad guys attack them and not the weaker characters. Some even have the ability to infuriate opponents to more effectively draw attention to themselves.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

In City of Heroes, the online superhero game, there is even a class called a tank. Their specialty is absorbing lots of damage and drawing attention to themselves, so the bad guys attack them and not the weaker characters. Some even have the ability to infuriate opponents to more effectively draw attention to themselves.

That sounds like WoW.

 

[Grimhelm]

Okay. Forgive me. I am hyper-sensitive to that sort of comment. Historically, for whatever reason, I tend to sort of impose my will on a group and assume the leadership role. This has not always been fun for me. Many times it results in carping, back-biting, and finger pointing which is aimed at me. So, when I hear that sort of comment, I guess I feel that it is aimed at me. Also, I can't distinguish Thormagni's character voice from your own. I can't tell when you're in character. I don't know if it is that way for Olan or not, either. Can people tell when I am "in character"? I have no idea.

Anyway, no big woop.

 

[thormagni]

Also, I can't distinguish Thormagni's character voice from your own. I can't tell when you're in character.

Suffice it to say that everything about innocents, dead civilians, prisoners, patriotism, tactics. being ordered about like a servant and such was all coming from "Thorm." My personal beliefs on most of those subjects are about a 180 away from his. Maybe I need to develop a snobby voice for Thorm. Something suitably formal. Because I certainly wouldn't want to own most of the crap I have been having him say. I just assumed everyone knew me well enough to know that I was playing a role.

Personally, on the leadership issue I'm neither a leader nor a follower. My natural inclination is to bristle when given orders and to seek cooperation or consensus when given the option to give orders. On the gaming side, I tend to figure out who my character is and try to do what I think my character would do. Whether that fits into someone else's plans are, is to me largely irrelevant.

For recent examples, Yuri (Conan) was a schemer, so he schemed. Kid Quick (Mutants and Masterminds) is impulsive, so he acts impulsively. And Thorm is a pompous jackass, so he acts like a pompous jackass.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "I tend to sort of impose my will on a group and assume the leadership role." I think those are two very different things. Either in-character or out-of-character I don't have any desire to be the "leader" of our group. I neither have the energy, not a character who is a leader type (he is more likely to get fragged than to be followed.) In-character, Thorm may THINK he is leader, but his leadership decisions will be so blindingly, stupifyingly bad that I would hope no one takes them seriously.

But as far as "impose my will on a group?" Do you mean like involuntarily? Like we are going to be so overwhelmed by your force of personality that we are going to just be sucked along? Well that just isn't going to happen. There is no danger of this becoming the party of Mark and his five NPC followers, who are inconveniently played by players. I think people are going to do what they want with their characters. So don't worry about that.

I mean, the only problem I could see is if you are saying you intentionally plan to do this and we need to go along or get out of your way or something. If I felt like someone expected me to show up for the game and move my character where someone else said, fight when someone else said and talk when someone else said I could, that wouldn't be much fun and I certainly wouldn't take time on a Saturday to come do that.

But I haven't seen any evidence that you are intending to do that, so I have to assume you mean unintentionally. And again, I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

 

[thormagni]

Along these lines, the biggest source of conflict I saw in Saturday's game was in two places. And I thought both of those were legitimate, in-character disputes we had.

1) in the decision of what to do with the pages from the book. I saw Thorm as being reluctant to give up a weapon we could use in the future, the Owl as being greedy for the knowledge it contained, Olan opposed to the idea of enslaving another creature, Thuma was OK with giving the pages up and Madlawa was neutral. I assumed the conversation we had was in-character and we worked it out.

2) Whether Thorm would be cajoled into standing in front of the dragon. Again, I assumed our conversation was in character. The party convinced Thorm that being the Big Hero meant doing the right thing and he did it.

In both these cases, I think the decision was ultimately up to the player (Dave and I) to do what we decided to do with the items under our control. Or we could have played out the fight among our characters to see who wrestled the book, the sword and the shield way from us. (Thorm would have taken the Owl's side, by the way.)

But I would have been opposed to a "leader" deciding unilaterally what we did. Again, I didn't see that as being what occurred.

 

[Grimhelm]

It's all good. It's just a historical thing for me. I have been perceived in this way, and so expect to be perceived in this way. And let's face it, I am a bull-head, and I like to push adventures in the way I want to go. If this perception is lacking, then I am glad, for I don't want to be the party "heavy".

 

[chachi]

These types of conflicts just illustrate that the party ISN'T being bullied around. We have our separate identities and outlooks. That's a good thing. That's the wonderful advantage of having a group of experienced role-players running around in a textured and interactive environment. I like the way that this party is working and I think that those in-character arguments sometimes help us to make better decisions. I don’t have a problem with Mark or anyone else in the group.

The Owl and Olan don't see eye to eye at all. Olan is just too darned idealistic for her to take seriously. In her eyes, he is some creepy Inzeladun equivalent of a televangelist. He's a wonderful companion when he's hitting things, but when that stops, she finds him pretty insufferable. The same goes for Thorm, but at least he understands the concept of glory and profit. Olan is a leader, and he has a plan. To this point, she's been honing her skills, picking up some new tricks and getting some loot by playing along with him, so it works out. And besides, she doesn't like those Enslavers either. They ruined her, and the life that she wants won't really be possible until they are either broken down or chased on to greener pastures.

 

[Grimhelm]

Sounds good to me. I'll make everyone a deal. I won't be so thinned skin about these sorts of conflicts anymore. Cool?

 

[Fyrestryke]

Cool!

Someone should tell Bob and OG what they're missing on these adventures...

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

Well, I've been thinking about rejoining the games. If that is, I'm welcome.