The issue here is that we are all here for "fun". It's not a job and we expect some OOG courtesy so that while others can have their "fun", we can have ours too. I could come in as a character who just kills other folks and when he dies, make a new character who just gacks people again and again. However, that's not fun for the players, even if it is legal and "roleplaying".Wyrmwrath wrote:
I think what seems to be going on is that you are saying what happened after the elf keeled over wasnt RPing. Anything a player has his or her PC do, that is motivated by how the PC feels and thinks, IS role playing.
... If those responsible for the elf keeling over had waited when their chance showed itself, just because it would "ruin the ball", then they ARENT role playing. RPing ignored OOC influences when making decisions as the PC (or NPC actualy)
...however i think its nearly insulting to imply that those responsable for taking down the elf were motivated by a desire to "ruin a lot of other people's fun". ...Slamming somone because the event you planned didnt go as you wished, when you planned for it to happen in such a chaotic and dynamic setting, is unfair and just trying to shift the blame for your dissapointment , from where it should be placed.
The comments expressed in this thread though are based more on the idea that the "poisoning of the Elf" during the Ball happened because of GM or NPC influence more than PC influence (I think Chris mentioned a certian NPC was responsible? I wasn't there for the event, so I don't know what happened first-hand.) IF a PC had done what had happened then so be it. (They'll get the grief from the other players later I'm sure.) But if an GM/NPC created the scene that stopped the party that Players had spent time and money on in order to create a roleplaying scene that didn't have to deal with fighting or conflict (for a change), then I'd think that there is some legitimate concern. The fact that others reacted to the instance rather than saying "fuck this, we're going to enjoy our party anyways and deal with this later since we've put OOG time and energy into it" shows that they had more dedication to the Game than someone who was less understanding of their own wants and needs of the Game.
Emotional instances of roleplaying that don't involve combat are rare in our game because conflict is SOOO easy! Want to rile folks up or make people angry? Just start a combat, or aggrivate someone. Scenes of merriment, joy, pleasure and fun are much harder. Just like how some people have a hard time seeing how RP happens without combat in a LARP (or in many games), some folks really enjoy roleplaying when there isn't conflict as a catalyst. So why not let those people have some fun too? At Ian's funeral, I asked the GMs to hold off on any combat so that we could have that emotional moment. And it was INTENSE! It was a fantastic moment of roleplaying that I can honestly say would have been destroyed if Ga'vin had come in and attacked. There needs to be that sort of balance. And even though Jim's character came in as the ceremony was ending with more "antagonism", at least he waited until the end of the ceremony instead of just rushing in and wrecking the scene for the players.
Yes, all reactions should be roleplayed, but nothing (that I've read) in the rules says that I can't dump red dye (or at least water) all over a $500 costume either and claim it as "an in-character action" without some sort of OOG reaction from you as well. OOG courtesy is all I think most folks are asking for. The same goes for other OOG concerns, such as the time and energy put into the ball and the scene. Discouraging such events will lead to less attempts at it.
I think the 9-11 time slot was a great idea. I think "time management" (perhaps that the party didn't start on time due to other plots wrapping up and entrance to the party took some time, etc.) may have lead to the end of the party ending "early". Maybe for future GM plots, something more along the lines of "two hours after it starts" would work better?