FinalHavenLarp.com

Tonnia,

You said

"What you're not hearing from most of the rest of the people on this thread, Vince, is that those who consistently choose to play with only one group (and some who even shun others), as well as those who just bring back in the same character reincarnated DO harm other people's roleplaying experiences with their OOG decision to not accept the termination of their character. "

How does playing with the same group of people the person wish's to play with, harm ones roleplaying experience? Please explain. For this is a game, and I play this game for fun.

I've been around Haven for a few years now, and as someone with a measure of political perspective I'll offer my two cents on some of the issues I've seen here.

First off, resources have nothing to do with power in this game. They are an end product of the political process, and due to the nature of the support system they always will be an end product. The key to power in Final Haven is popular support, pure and simple. The military points and resources massed by all of the most successful organizations to date couldn't hold a candle to the PC's of Haven itself.

I get the feeling that Aaron will disagree here, so I'll ask this - what did the Elder's Order gain by segregating themselves and wanting to withdraw from the town's resource sharing system? The ability to only barely feed their people and the joy and control of staring at a few tags that are yours and yours alone. What did it cost them? Relations with the rest of the town, mistrust, any chance at real growth, and at least four commodities. Where was the real power, in the resources or in the goodwill?

Even then, the power of any group or organization is limited by the roleplaying traits of the characters and players within it, creating an even more difficult situation to control. There are some people within Haven who have the ability to divorce their 21st Century minds from that of their characters and uphold the sort of loyalty that made medieval power work; but there are many who, either by their own disposition or their character's, do not answer to that sort of authority.

I site loyalty here because it is actually the easier of the unifying emotions to maintain. The other, fear, is nigh impossible to achieve. Even with overwhelming in-game advantages and absolute loyalty, a faction bent on taking power would have to contend with the out-of-game PC opinions. It simply doesn't work.

So it becomes a popularity contest, which is why you see the feeding frenzy every time a new PC comes into the game. If anything, this has been a boon to breaking up the out-of-game geographic factions. It also is likely fueling the frustration that many people have felt concerning pre-existing factions and repeat loyalties - roleplaying aside it prevents the balance of power from shifting in-game.

***

On the topic of laws and morality, the game suffers from two critical flaws: the disposition of its players and the lack of a moral absolute. In a world where there is no semblance of a universal compass by which to judge the actions of others, everything becomes subjective. Toss in varied character cultures and values, the contemporary perspectives of the people playing them, the absence of external enforcement, and the need for anyone in a position of prominence to maintain popular support and it's no big wonder why we don't see the sort of line-drawing our posturing would seem to forecast.

That, more than any other reason, is why someone like Amagus can succeed in Haven. Which is more beneficial to a community on the brink of destruction? A knowledgeable, useful man whose actions are benefitting the Haven and whose motivations are ridiculously apparent; or an individual who is seeking to impose their own individual morality on others and is willing to violently tear the community apart to do so? Sure, he's using dead bodies and necromancy - something that clearly goes against all the cultural taboos we don't have, the hygenic standards we don't know about, and the moral absolute that doesn't exist. Truly, he's out for himself - which in our tight knit community of like-minded Havenites is reason enough to alienate him and make an enemy out of a potential ally. Yeah, and I'm a chinese jet-pilot.

***

So why don't more people make a stand? Why aren't there more loose cannons? Why don't people like Woden just whack those they disagree with and reap the consequences after the fact? I'm not really sure, but I'll give my best guess.

Truth be told, even the most manipulative folks in-game have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Most everyone can sit back and bitch about how horribly everything is being run without ever actually having to do something about it. They can scurry off after every event and play monday-morning quarterback, proclaiming so-and-so an idiot for not doing this or that. Every victory the town enjoys is the result of them and their faction bringing the Haven together and every failure is because those stupid other guys just don't have a clue. It's comfortable that way.

Even if they did lay down the law, what good would it do? Haven and death have been only distantly associated until recently, and killing someone off does you little good if they show up the next event with a horde of pissed-off friends. All you are doing is tipping your hand to the opposition and giving up the moral high ground - which is something the citizens of Haven hold more precious than any resource. Hell, just losing the ever-present flock of in-betweeners (people who don't actually come down on either side of an issue, but certainly would if anyone ever did something dramatic like whacking someone) is deterrent enough to make almost everyone in Haven stop in their tracks. It also seems like people don't trust the other PC's not to take such things personally, and so they don't pull the trigger when their characters might otherwise do so.

When I first started this game I was concerned about things when people bitched about politics. I thought it important to hammer through things. Time has convinced me otherwise. It's just not worth getting worked up about. The people here are way too cool to actually get mad at, anyway. Besides, the static things in Haven are much the same from day to day:

People will always think they could have done better.
People will always want all of the credit, glory, and authority.
People will never want any of the blame, shame, or responsibility.
People will always blame you for trusting the lying NPC that screws them.
People will always blame you for not trusting the NPC that might have saved them.
The truth telling-status of an NPC is inversely related to the amount of trust you have in them.
Someone always told you so.
Everyone is stupid for thinking you are part of a huge evil conspiracy.
Everyone else is part of a huge evil conspiracy.
Whatever it is, it is your fault.
Everyone expects to be fully appraised of all details in every situation.
Everyone wants dangerous information withheld from questionable characters.
Doug Fesko has a bitchin' costume.
Taki wants to talk about something.
Brad 2.0
Eric Reid just shows up for combat, but he stays to satisfy a deep, inner need to wear horns.
Nelkie sleeps with the rulebook and a stack of spreadsheets.
You will never have difficulty locating Julie in combat.
Phil is apparently concussion-proof.
Blondie is down again.
Chris does indeed want to kill us all.
Wayne is actually trying.
Corbyn does not work in the same office building as Vince.
The call "Resist Death" came about because of Travis. Upkeep? Pancakes and bacon.
The character you need to complete your research/plotline/organization/meeting is not here this event.
No one knows where to find the GM's.

The plotline readiness chart reads as follows:
+2 Minutes for each additional PC.
+5 Minutes for each additional faction.
+10 Minutes for each NPC waiting around town for the players to assemble.
-5 Minutes for every other plot currently being run.
-5 Minutes for every NPC that has no clue what the players are doing.

Game Break isn't.
Only the third hint is worth a shit.

Feel free to amend and add to this list as you see fit, but keep in mind that it's all in good fun.

Donovan Thynedar wrote:Only the third hint is worth a shit.

So so true...

And Onyx has an issue with Ka? Wha?

As for Tonia, you need to pay attention more. Nelkie said he conducted an experiment, not his character. Now sure his character would have different feelings, but well, that's for Nelkie to figure out.

Donovan Thynedar wrote: Doug Fesko has a bitchin' costume.
Taki wants to talk about something.
Brad 2.0
Eric Reid just shows up for combat, but he stays to satisfy a deep, inner need to wear horns.
Nelkie sleeps with the rulebook and a stack of spreadsheets.
You will never have difficulty locating Julie in combat.
Phil is apparently concussion-proof.
Blondie is down again.
Chris does indeed want to kill us all.
Wayne is actually trying.
Corbyn does not work in the same office building as Vince.
The call "Resist Death" came about because of Travis. Upkeep? Pancakes and bacon.
The character you need to complete your research/plotline/organization/meeting is not here this event.
No one knows where to find the GM's.

..........

Feel free to amend and add to this list as you see fit, but keep in mind that it's all in good fun.

Ravinal I need you!

No no, Onyx doesn't have an issue with Ka at all, other than he looks tasty just like all the druids in town. I don't think Onyx has ever even said a word to Ka.

Atrum didn't do much recruiting at all, he tried that out once and felt like a used horse salesman and hated it. He figured that the best way was to garner that loyalty from people, which seemed to work for the most part. Atrum did do what he felt was right... the past couple of years anyway, ask the guy who we tortured and stuck a dagger in for his part in a murder. Don Mayo is only alive because the GOL lied about how they were going to keep him locked up. And yeah you're right, in this game ruling by fear or resources is impossible, even with the highest level of organization you still couldn't bring that force to bear on PC's effectively at all unless you can get a bunch of people to come to the game to play your NPC body gaurds and troops. It is a popularity contest and it's nearly impossible to tell whether it's IG or OOG so why even try and decipher. And the politics of this game are not something to get all worked up over, they're a nice little side story for the few people deeply involved in it for everyone else it's stoopid postering.

If Atrum were still alive Amagus would not have dead bodies and shite all up in his Inn no diggity no doubt, he already knew Amagus needed to be watched over closely and by now we would probably have some kind of tenuos accord,(I was planning on asking him if he wanted to be an advisor to keep him close), be bitter enemies or one of us would probably be dead.


Soco you never asked me about joining or even what our group was all about, but then again I was the "evil guy out to kill you all" LOL I would have taken Eli, Corbyn, Dallid or Gideon in at any point. No offense Aaron but Atrum thought Arthos was the craziest, most impulsive elf he had ever seen, his respect for him wained and wained as he changed the GOL around to suit what other people said they thought was right. Have convictions and be a rock or be water that conforms to whatever it encounters, Arthos was water. Ka was on a very short list of people to shank for thinking they could command him in anyway, and even that was squashed with Ka.

Very good post Taki, as usual.

Sharing of resources? Why did it not happen last session? Nobody asked to my knowledge or even suggested it. So what happened to grand idea?

As for power, you are correct in the fact it comes from the people and resources are the end results. But with out resources one power is limited. There greatest weapon in this game is a group of people who are willing to work together and get along. This is a group game, there is no one hero, but a group of people that are heroric.

As the Elder's Order, we segerated ourselves from the plotical world that is in the town. That's it. We still comminicate, work, share, talk, and trade with town, but choose to stay of the poltics. If by not being plotical with in the town means we are segerated, than we are.

General Maximus wrote:But with out resources one power is limited.

I disagree with that. Although I did have resources they played no part at all in anything political, in fact for the most part they sat collecting dust. Most of the people that gave Atrum allegiance found their own way to survive without getting resources from me at all. But we've had the buy vs. earn support discussion before.

You are correct that resources have nothing to do with poltical power, but resources are required for armies, workshops, upkeep, building of things, etc which give adavantage over people who do not have them. Thats the power of resources. To gain poltical power, you need to appeal to pepole desire to join and support you.

As for Arthos, I was never meant to be an elf, it's not in me, I feel so more comfortable being a dwarf than elf.

I have a question, the order is doing nothing more than colins merc group did by staying out of politics and living in there own tents away from the town. To my knowledge there was no problem when he and his group did it, but because the order is doing, there is a problem. What gives?

There greatest weapon in this game is a group of people who are willing to work together and get along. This is a group game, there is no one hero, but a group of people that are heroric.

Wow, that is one of the best decriptions of the FH dynamic I have seen.

All true and funny.

II really like your comments on moral absolutle. You are correct without absolutes you have real issues, but then again that is the entire point of post modernism and alot of other modern philosophy.

It is probably why we have alot of people with lack of fullfillment and problems in our society.

General Maximus wrote:How does playing with the same group of people the person wish's to play with, harm ones roleplaying experience? Please explain. For this is a game, and I play this game for fun.

There are multiple ways to answer this, but quite simply it comes down to this: When you pre-determine (by preference or intended decision) only to roleplay with and along side of one specific group it creates artificial limitations and artificial incentives to what your character would do in a situation.

"But Tonia... 'artificial'? We're LARPing! That is artificial!"

Yes. A LARP fantasy world is artificial. However, within the context of the fantasy world, we are attempting to create characters. Characters who have a particular personality and have a rhyme or reason (or perhaps consistently lack a rhyme or reason) for the things they do. Most have character histories for this reason.

Unfortunately, there are certain people who play characters, that based on how they created the characters and everything that they have represented in game and in intensive roleplaying, should choose to do certain things, but are swayed to do something else because it fits in with their group.

So when you work hard at roleplaying a particular thing and know that a character would likely respond in a certain way, but they turn around and do the exact opposite because it affects their best OOG friends, it harms the roleplaying experience. When a particular character won't even give you the time of day, even though they're in the same tribe or clan or race of peoples, because you're not in their elite group of roleplaying friends, it harms the roleplaying experience. When you work hard at eradicating a certain situation and then (just because they can) they come back in with a character to reinforce that situation over again, it makes all of the efforts worth nil and harms the roleplaying experience for others. And when the only thing you care about is your own roleplaying experience it harms others in the long run, as well.

It's a fine balance. I don't think nearly enough people have achieved it, let alone attempted to.

dier cire wrote:As for Tonia, you need to pay attention more. Nelkie said he conducted an experiment, not his character. Now sure his character would have different feelings, but well, that's for Nelkie to figure out.

Unfortunately, Eric, it seems that you don't understand what metagaming is. How can one person conduct an experiment to see what would happen if he (being his character) didn't do anything... then he (being his character) doesn't do anything and that not be his character? I'm not even going to get into the specifics of Nelkie's character since I can't know him since he stays to his group (see above about ruining others roleplaying experiences), but I will say you cannot conduct an experiment without altering the status quo. Sorry...

Dictionary.com
Experiment: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

The controlled conditions are the Hell Fury's lack of action against a Necromancer to see what the rest of town does and how long it will take. So ultimately it's MAXIMUS not Nelkie who's conducting an experiment with Maximus' inaction when otherwise he would act.

Hmm I have not seen anyone do anything against a character concept they choose to play just to help or stick by their OOG friends.

Infact I do not think Tonia or anyone else on this board except for other GM's can make that statement since we are the only ones who have access to the "true" character histories, and everything else you guys tell us in secret.

There have been questionable times but those times have spanned EVERY group including:

The orcs: Group of OOG friends created to work together
Guild of Light: Group of friends created to work together
Pentag's group: Group of people with 1 set motive
Phoenix guard: Group of friends created to work together.

But that was at the beginning. Once a year went by, for any of the above groups, things have broken up and characters have matured and we are now faced with a very complicated structure that only the GM's can have FULL knowledge and appreciation for.

CHris

There's a law in quantum mechanics, that states the act of observation alters the outcome. If Nelkie performs an experment, he alters the actions of General M and thereby alters the outcome, because he prevented the action that General M would perform. (not that I'm argreeing with her. ) I'm just packaging her statement in scientific terms.

Tonia Glowski wrote:The controlled conditions are the Hell Fury's lack of action against a Necromancer to see what the rest of town does and how long it will take. So ultimately it's MAXIMUS not Nelkie who's conducting an experiment with Maximus' inaction when otherwise he would act.

Ah, but how do you know Maximus' inaction was purely a cause of the experiment? How do you know that there wasn't an outside factor that caused Maximus' decision? Since you admit you don't know him, you couldn't. I'm not saying there was (as I honestly don't know) but considering he's no longer a Hell Fury (last I heard anyway), something changed.

And I do know that we have no metagaming in FH, so I don't have to care about it beyond that (its so nice). Beyond that, I've had to cut that hair finer than most, both recieving and giving.

GM_Chris wrote:Hmm I have not seen anyone do anything against a character concept they choose to play just to help or stick by their OOG friends. Infact I do not think Tonia or anyone else on this board except for other GM's can make that statement since we are the only ones who have access to the "true" character histories, and everything else you guys tell us in secret.

Actually, Chris, don't take this the wrong way, but I think the GMs (in general) are in the worst position to make a judgment about how a character will likely react because they're not in the situation where they are roleplaying intensively with the players and having in-depth conversations in game. They may have access to character histories and see things that not every single player sees, but more often than not there is WAAAAAAY more stuff going on that the GMs never see and only hear half-stories about. As an example, I think Woden and Nathanael would have much more luck in guessing what Talana would do or how she would react than all of the GM staff put together, even though I turned in a 10 page character history when I started playing her.

Furthermore, just because something is in a character history doesn't mean that the character necessarily executes that in their roleplaying of their character's personality. So do GMs have an advantage over most of the player base about Character X's history and development? Yes. Do GMs have an advantage over those PCs who interact on a constant basis with Character X and who have had extensive roleplaying and interactions with them? No. Practice is more important than theory here.

And unfortunately, Chris, people have in the past done things contrary to their character concepts because it facilitated their playing with OOG friends - it has happened and will continue to happen. I'm clearly not the only one to have made this observation and that includes other GMs who've also made similar statements. But I have no interest in indicting specific PCs here, as I've already mentioned.

Your list doesn't address my point either. I have no problem with people coming up with a concept or backstory and bringing 2 or more people in together or even reuniting them in game. What I do have a problem with is when the same people do that over and over and over again and when others intentionally exclude others from joining their reindeer games.

dier cire wrote:Ah, but how do you know Maximus' inaction was purely a cause of the experiment? How do you know that there wasn't an outside factor that caused Maximus' decision?

I don't care if it's purely or even just a little bit. Any amount of OOG factor that is taken into account to determine how your character should act in a situation is too much. That's the whole point here.

And thanks, Travis, for putting my statement into quantum mechanics, even if you don't agree with me.

dier cire wrote:And I do know that we have no metagaming in FH, so I don't have to care about it beyond that (its so nice).

This is a whole different discussion. But I'll make one comment here. As much as I love the GM staff and their game, this is the worst policy I've ever heard of. Or at least the most poorly worded one. Metagaming happens all the time. We know it does. Just because the GMs decided they don't want to have to deal with arguments over it doesn't mean metagaming doesn't exist and that it's not shitty when it happens.