FinalHavenLarp.com

YOu do not know if you attacked and killed a group of pc's if they would just bring in characters to try and kill you.

I believe the GM staff might allow a players to bring in PC's that are against the establishment once, but after that it falls into cheese and I would get very critical.

As for the out of game politics I would say they do not create a situation where you have to work together or not work together. Infact I consider our politics very close to reality.

The reason people do not work together is because you have written your characters that way or are simply bad RP's. (I think you have written your characters that way)

Right now there is a group who has ralled behind one person. It happened, and it is not the fault of the GM's that the rest of you cannot do it.

As for enforcing the rules I would suggest RP'ing your respective characters. You can go on a killing rampage, start dialog, create a guild that is based on enforcement, work with GM camp to create a plot where some of you wear masks and go crazy.

I am just saying there is an infinite amount of options. If you have issues with how things are going then work it out in-game. Go make a difference. You can make a difference with simply being upfront, honest, and sticking to a set of beliefs.

Ok, so they can't just bring in new characters hell bent to kill you, but you can't force them to be part of the establishment either. So, then we kill them, they starve, or they live in the woods. You eventually bring in npc's to aid them and kill us. So we bring in characters to counter this, but the roles are reversed and we repeat the pattern. Sure, it makes your job easier as the pc's are driving their own plots but it's really not much fun.

Our politics maybe resemble reality, if you go with each person representing a government, but in reality, we don't have other planets worth of people attacking us. So we either work together or die.

And honestly the only reason a group rallying behind one person has worked is that it's small scale. When we try large scale, people just don't agree and remain organized enough to make it work. As well, every time we try it, we attempt to just upscale the small scale success which won't work. It's like trying to have every person in the US agree on every law for every state. That's why we have federal laws, state laws, county laws, etc. That or we try a UN type deal which do we really think ours would stand up to an outside threat of equal sized population?

Notice, this isn't a GM fault but it's also not something they should worry about. I mean the one time we blew ourselves up, we dropped our differences and rallied. You gave us some leeway, but that's to avoid havig to reset the game.

GM_Chris wrote:You do not know if you attacked and killed a group of pc's if they would just bring in characters to try and kill you.

I believe the GM staff might allow a players to bring in PC's that are against the establishment once, but after that it falls into cheese and I would get very critical.

Horse shit!

Almost consistently and invariably every single person who dies in this game makes a character who ends up playing with the very same group of people every time! There are probably four exceptions that I can think of: Fesko, Erik, Brad (Bachelor) and myself who've made characters who seem to intentionally try to break the mould of the usual people we played with with our last characters.

I'll be honest, I'm really tired of people dieing and bringing in new characters designed or STRONGLY predestined to come back to the same group of people. It's the ultimate cheese and you can claim all you want that "you'll get critical" Chris - but you don't do anything.... and you probably can't. But it's like they're bringing their cliques out of game to in game. And it's to the point now, where I could walk in and kill off all of The Phoenix Guard or The Elder's Order and I guarantee those same people would create new characters for the same guilds. It's impossible to really kill off a guild in my opinion, because they'll just keep getting reincarnated into the same guild (even if they attempt to call it another name).

Look, I'm not trying to be rude. But I'm calling it like it is. If you're from Muskegon and you die, you'll end up roleplaying with the same people in one of their many different guilds, ultimately serving Donovan/Addison. If you're in the Nelkie/Vince/Eric group, the same thing serving Corbyn. Are they terrible people for doing that? No. Let them play and enjoy themselves. But let's not pretend like there's that much variance, shall we?

Ultimately, this is the reason that not a damn thing is done in game. It solves nothing. It doesn't reduce their numbers or their power (for very long). It's just an ugly cycle of people being Character A, then Character B, then Character C, all for Guild Z.

I have to agree with Tonia. It happens, because there are people who prefer roleplay with certain groups of people, and really, it's a larp, it's all for fun, and people should be allowed to do so if they choose. It's not groundbreaking material, but it happens, no big problem with that here. Also, with that no metagaming rule, there is no real way someone can say that something "is cheese." No metagaming essentially means that you TECHNICALLY have access to information your character might not have access to, which might affect your decisions on a new character. I personally don't choose to play that way, I like to keep IC and OOC seperate, but there is no real way to judge that. Also, a lot of people have the same idea of a type of character they like to play, it happens in P&P all the time, where people don't change roles very radically. If their new character has a lot of the same ideals of their old one in a new package, it's inevitable that they may wind up with the same people. It's hard to break away, and to people who manage it, I really admire that. I have to give mad props to Doug, who went from playing a being of great goodness and light to, well Amagus and pulls off both with amazing alacrity and does so convincingly.

I personally like to roleplay with as many different people as possible, so if I came back as a different character, I have no idea who I could join up with without being accused of doing the same, hehe.

I can honestly say that from Ravinal to Tullus, I've created a character I felt was totally different. Not too mention, won't deal with just one group of people. I think that your statement is untrue for myself.

Tullus will never join the phoenix guard and is actually looking to find a way for himself not to be part of any guild what so ever. Where Ravinal was a soldier of the Phoenix Guard...pure and simple. I've always tried my best to create interesting characters that are very different than past characters.

...characters who seem to intentionally try to break the mould of the usual people we played with with our last characters...

I stand by my assessment and will state here I do not care to indict particular players or characters - it's a massive problem (and yes, I think it's a problem) across the board. Do I think there's a solution? No. Do I think we need to hunt for a solution? No. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen over and over again and that it doesn't contribute to the immortality syndrome, even when "death" is more likely and more final now.

It's not really killing them when they're just going to be the same damn person, albeit with a different name, next event.

I was going to write something long and meaningful regarding this subject, but then realized Tonia had already said everything I was thinking. That bitch.

Oh I never said people would not end up playing with each other again, what I argue is it could be possible for a group to be more inclined to join whoever "won" the fight. Maybe not right away, but eventually they might.

Tonia, most og the people who have died have died at the hands of a group of NPC's. I have never seen, in any game I have been apart of, 1 group of PC's get to the point where they killed or kicked out a different group forcing 1 group to rewrite.

I am not advocting this happen in our game, BUT if your character feels it needed to happen, but you felt because of OOG reasons you should not do it then I say bad form.

To be honest it isnt about getting everyone to agree, you only need a majority. Sometimes I feel you guys are always trying to get everyone to agree. Then again as Erik pointed out I really have no idea. I can only comment on what I have seen.

Tonia Glowski wrote:Almost consistently and invariably every single person who dies in this game makes a character who ends up playing with the very same group of people every time! There are probably four exceptions that I can think of: Fesko, Erik, Brad (Bachelor) and myself who've made characters who seem to intentionally try to break the mould of the usual people we played with with our last characters.

And that kind of holier than thou attitude is one of the reasons I so would bring in Ka Jr. when I die (in all honesty, I already have my plan, which is different but fun). Bachelor and Fesko I can see as they went to go do something vastly different. You and Erik seem the same to me. All I ever saw of Atrum was a big guy running around with a couple weapons and hey look, he's still there! You were prone to talk for hours, and ding! still talking. Now maybe internally, you are different with the people closer to you but some of us on the outside (and by some I mean me) don't see it. The changes are too subtle. It's like watching a stage play and seeing an actor once, then having them change clothes but still do the same mannerisms. Unless I follow closely, I'll never know.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with playing with the people you enjoy being around. Nor do I care if someone brings in the same character. I'm not about havign whole events of role-playing interaction amongst ourselves. I like the combat and the puzzles.

Coming from a man who has personally professed to me and others on occasion that he doesn't go to Final Haven to roleplay, nor does he even feel comfortable "roleplaying" and that "I'm just here to kill shit," I give your comments little weight. Especially considering you've never once had a conversation with 3 of my 4 characters, I'm even less inclined to care what you have to say on this matter.

...characters who seem to intentionally try to break the mould of the usual people we played with with our last characters...

But you and Roi are getting my point wrong. I'm not arguing about whether or not people are making characters that are the same or vastly different in personality, characteristics, or philosophy. I AM saying that regardless of what their new character is about, they end up PLAYING WITH THE SAME PEOPLE.

And that kind of holier than thou attitude is one of the reasons I so would bring in Ka Jr. when I die...

Don't know what I said that made me so arrogant all of the sudden. I'm not discussing the quality of roleplaying of those 4 people, I'm discussing the ACTUAL ATTEMPTS to rolepley with different people. If stating a fact makes me snooty, I guess I'm just one obnoxious bitch. But let's not pretend that me offending your sensibilities is the reason you'll bring back the same character when you die, Eric. And let's not pretend that anyone who has ever discussed killing Ka hasn't said nearly the same thing: "Yeah, but if we kill Ka, Reid will just bring in Ka Jr." Amusing... you've confirmed my point. It's useless to kill a character when the same player is going to bring back the same force to support their previous establishment or the same damn character. Why risk your own character's life and resulting consequences when ultimately others will just cheesedick and make your efforts pointless.

Are other people using this OOG reasoning to make in game decisions? Yeah. Is that cheesy, too? Yeah. But it's still happening and it explains this phenomenon that Chris seems so perplexed by.

First off this is a pretty good discussion, but I can see it is getting a tad heated so we kinda need to tone it down.

1) It is all good what you want to play
2) Not everyone has the same skill level. (RP skill)
3) People enjoy different things

Let us say there is a big political fall out and 2 groups of PC's go into open war and 1 side wins.

The next even the players who died want to run a "resistance" plot

Eric you are correct in that we would help them. We would design the event to cater to the PC's in power and to have an interesting story about resistance.

Now lets say that the resistance is crushed by the PC's in power. Now I would encourage players to bring in characters that fit into the "world" of those in power. These characters can have the same personalities, wear the same stuff, I do not care. The thing that would have to change is the acceptance of the new order...at least for a time.

As usual, Chris, you're jumping to conclusions about people getting angry.

I like Reid.

I just disagree with what he's saying.

I was starting to get testy

I thought I did say that I roleplay with everyone, where before with Ravinal I roleplayed with only certain people. I jumped out of that box with my second character, Tullus. Ravinal spoke mainly with Donovan and other phoenix guard. Tullus has spoken mainly with Amagus. For um.....certain reasons. Im don't feel I misunderstood you. It seems forums like this that have words get in the way of no voice tone or facial expression make people testy in general. Im not saying your arrogant or even angry at anyone. 'I just didn't want to be counted as a person who plays the same character with the same group of people all the time. i.e. immortality.' Is all I felt I stated in my small paragraph.

If you still wish to put me in the catogory of playing the exact same character with the exact same people to roleplay with, which I disagree....I suppose that is your view. I only stated this for myself. I don't disagree with your first statement at all. I only disagreed that I was part of that problem.

If it's all Diablo, of course you don't see anything different from your stone building.

I would definitely add Rav-Tullus in that assesment.

I don't like Ried and he doesn't like me but that's ok.

Chris you say the system is designed to have one person leading, well if you play by strictly #'s and try to min\max everything then yes it is. Luckily, most people choose to play their character instead of making character political decisions by how they can maximize pts. Which is exactly why there will probably never be cohesion in the town. I really don't understand why anyone thinks that any group of people could hold any amount of power for a significant period of time. Fair or not people tend to blame things on whoever is holding the power at the time. I'm sure there are more factors that are not under Bush's control than are but he's the leader so his winning 45% has fallen to even lower levels. Chris you're proposing dictatorship politics in a democratic\oligarchal system, they don't blend like that. Do you think Kadafi would still hold power if the people had anything to say about it? No, he just crushes any resistance to his rule because he controls the resources and the mililtary and noone can do anything about it.