|
|
Post by lechat on May 23, 2021 12:00:40 GMT
Oh my.
Lluis issues an arrest late Saturday. I put my rules in. Jason puts his in on Saturday night and I've no opportunity to arrange with him to offer sanctuary and plank the priest with his character all month to do that.
So
Does BADs sanctuary request fail? Do Father Gerards actions in weeks 2 to 4 fail? Is HLB allowed to issue such a warrant after the application deadline since it impacted on other players moves with no chance to communicate in such a short time?
Im happy to take the hit and retroactively offer sanctuary Sam, with maybe an extra weeks sermon while Father Gerrard twiddles his thumbs if that makes it easier for everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 23, 2021 12:07:20 GMT
This one's already been resolved! The warrant won't be implemented until the turn after, for the reasons you mention.
|
|
|
|
Post by lechat on May 23, 2021 12:18:47 GMT
Popcorn ordered for next month then
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on May 23, 2021 12:47:47 GMT
I understand you concern about this, but see that in the original game (that was before internet and usually played by snail mail), there was no such warning, and the CPS acted by surprise. And, afte rall, that's nothing anyone can use influence on it ,that's saved for the trial.
Id they must be warned, they must be so when the action has taken part, and it's not my fault if he did after the applications deadline. I could not delay it for next month, as, due to the rules changes, Huillaume is quite unlikely to remain as CPS.
I also must state that I had no intent to have anyone arrested (and less so Jason's, as he already annoyed me with a previous character without any provocation, and I jsut try to ignore his characters, as depite he told me then it was just an IC action, the fact he does it again makes me think otherwisenote 1), but when Huillaume, as CPS asked Dr De'Ath about which actions of the Royal Steward did he consider slander, Dr De'Ath not only did not answer, but spread ruomors about him (BTW, rumors started by the other character he threw agains Huillaume, reinforcing my suspictions he wil lkeep on it with any character he has, so not being so IC as he claims), forcing him to act.
The field of honor, despite what Dr De'Ath says, would force him to break his vow as doctor to "never to intntionally harm", and also the CPS duty is to prosecute duelists, not to challenge people to one. So it was ruled out by Huillaume, and a slander accusation, taht uses to be dealt with a fine (at most 3 months in gaol) seemed the proper action.
I also understand our game styles difer, and I won't say his is wrong and mine is right, just they are different, but if his is to target the powerful characters, he can not complain when all this power falls upon him, and if he does that when the turn is closing, then this is the moment it will fall.
Nonetheless, the GM has told me that the arest wil lbe delayed to lalow him maneuver margin. I disagree, as he has left none to me to act in other ways (as trying to volunteer his Regiment, just to give an idea), but accept it.
OTOH, will he ask church refuge to avoid this possible sentence? it's up to him, but frankly, I see it quite disproportioned action, as he wil l be out of game probably for longer than even if he's sentences to gaol.
Note 1: as a proof I try to just ignore his characters to avoid anymosity among players (PC vs PC is fine, but when it seems to be player against player, IMHO, a line has been crossed), I ignored Valentino even while he was clearly asking for bribes, and why I was feeling the CPS could no longer ignore that (I could as plauyer, but would be quite inconsistent with the character, as I would have acted against any other character so acting), as he volunteered to war, I left him in peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 23, 2021 13:21:41 GMT
I understand you concern about this, but see that in the original game (that was before internet and usually played by snail mail), there was no such warning, and the CPS acted by surprise. And, afte rall, that's nothing anyone can use influence on it ,that's saved for the trial. However, in the original core rules it's pretty unclear anyway. Generally though, when it comes to anything that directly affects other players, I don't think we can assume people are able to log in instantly; that doesn't just affect this incident, it's a general principle. The warrant will still be issued and that's regardless of whether you're CPS. The only difference is when arrests will take place. (And a new NPC will still try to carry out arrests from extant warrants. They aren't cancelled). Jason can speak for himself here, but I do genuinely think there's nothing personal going on here. If you think of how he plays in every game, he always goes nuclear with his characters when anyone denies them (think of MP selections etc.). The issue here is that as CPS you are forced to interact with his PCs more than you'd like, I think. Those are RP things and completely within your right, but both of you are free to duel under the rules. I agree with the first part, but not the second. Try and separate it from these two PCs. If another player CPS decides to charge Hulluame with a trumped up charge, would you not rather not have that allowed five minutes before the deadline? Would it be fair if people could issue duel challenges just before the duel deadline and punish for not responding? Note again this is only a delay and the exact effects are identical. The warrant is still in place, the arrest will still be attempted (and in fact Hulluame may choose to give evidence if he's no longer CPS) Similar to the duelling question, this is a RP question (agree it makes no mechanical sense). I'm seriously considering if (after this is resolved) I just ban both of you from interacting at all. What do you both think? Again, I'm not taking sides between you on this. But quite honestly I'm just bored of this whole situation between the two of you and this seems like an easy fix. |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 23, 2021 13:23:48 GMT
(I don't want to implement a general "PvP only by previous agreement" rule and I don't think it's actually necessary. This seems to be a specific issue between two players rather than a gamewide issue. The closest we've come previously is Father Lachapelle versus Helen and they both thrashed out the rules of engagement between them without any need for me to get involved).
|
|
|
|
Post by Monique Adelina De'Ath on May 23, 2021 15:07:38 GMT
Gosh, I thought people may have recognised my somewhat predictable gameplay by now, Sam and Gary seem to be au fait with it but Lluis you still think I am being personal to you, as a player! As you mention I have tried to explain this to you before it is GENUINELY nothing against you, I only know you as a player, not as someone I have ever met so why on earth would I have anything personally against you my friend.
Sam says - 'If you think of how he plays in every game, he always goes nuclear with his characters when anyone denies them'..there, you see, that is exactly the case and take comfort Lluis that you are not me who has to 'give into the game voices in my head' with every version of En Garde that I play and always end up having my characters go...well...sort of mad! Plus...plus...usually my characters are of a low(ish) SL and don't have much power within a game so normally end up getting arrested or thwarted by others. So I am not personally targeting you but you just happen to have the highest SL and most powerful character in the game, a character who is also CPS. As CPS BAD sought you to assist him vs the Royal Steward after that Steward was stated in the Applications results comments as saying Dr De'Ath shouldn't be allowed into the Palace....lord only knows why as I'm not sure what he did to pee off the Royal Steward?!
Anyway as CPS you dismissed BAD's entreaty so, hence his reaction. That is not against you personally any CPS who did so would have received that response from BAD. Garrett (coltreadhead) felt the same in Jim's game of Britian en Garde that I was targetting him, to be fair I was having my character regard his character as a personal nemeses BUT only for gameplay, nothing personal to Garrett. It's probably true to say in that game my character was viewed as being against all of the others! One thing I do trust fellow players see is that I never insult a player, only their character and no-one ever receives anything personal as that would be totally unacceptable and I would expect to be excluded from a game for doing so.
May I finish by reassuring you Lluis I appreciate my characters may be damned annoying sometimes (ok maybe most of the time!) but I run them within the confines of the rules and the overall object of playing is for enjoyment, something we surely all participate for such purpose. As we're all different people we approach our playstyles accordingly, it's a fact of life that we'll encounter those who demonstrate the extremes or erratics of social behaviour so En Garde is a reflection of life in a game world environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on May 23, 2021 15:36:30 GMT
Oh boy...Jason uses my name in vain  Jason has been clear in both Linimal and EG! Britain that his actions are not personal but to the player whose character is the target, it can feel that way. In a real world example, I might mean nothing by a sexual epitaph with a young woman but she feel distress by it. The fault still lies with me for not considering the impact of my "meaningless" use of the epitaph. This is not to say that Jason shouldn't be allowed to play his character in a manner that he enjoys but it is incumbent on ALL of us to interact in a manner that allows both players to enjoy the game. I can attest to emotions at odds with logic when my second character became a target for Jason's character. I enjoy cooperative game play much more than PVP. I have recently tried to employ my character's position and wealth to help other players, offering to patronize JL, employing BAD as a doctor and city official, recommending GC for promotion, taking VV to court. Should any (or all) turn against JBO, I would play out his reaction even though I prefer to be helpful. I strongly second Sam recommendation to set the rules of engagement between players as soon as possible and to continually check-in that players are enjoying the PC's interactions. It is something that I should have done with Jason in EG! Britain rather than letting it fester. I think that the current situation is exacerbated by poor timing, coming when players had already submitted their orders. Points to Jason for providing a little entertainment while we are awaiting returns but I would have suggested a slower build up to allow all characters a chance to react. Sam's pushing the impact of the pending arrest to the beginning of February seems the best choice. Garrett |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on May 23, 2021 16:30:16 GMT
However, in the original core rules it's pretty unclear anyway. Generally though, when it comes to anything that directly affects other players, I don't think we can assume people are able to log in instantly; that doesn't just affect this incident, it's a general principle. The problem when comparing with original rules is that the world has changed since then. .. The first game I played was (as most then) by snail mail, 1 turn a month, and due to communications constrains the group I was on, many of them fro mthe same gaming club, has a distinct advantage of coordination, something unthinkable for other players, some of which didn't live i nthe same city. EPMB has solved this, of course, as we can now communicate nearly instantaneously (imagine this same discussion taking place by sending postal letters  ). I agree with the first part, but not the second. Try and separate it from these two PCs. If another player CPS decides to charge Hulluame with a trumped up charge, would you not rather not have that allowed five minutes before the deadline? Would it be fair if people could issue duel challenges just before the duel deadline and punish for not responding? This problem will always exist, as one has sent his turn and there’s little time to change it before deadline any such incident may well change things, and I’m not accusing him of waiting to last moment. Probably he didn’t log in before (real life has precedence), but fact is that my answer was several days there before he answered, and by then little time was left for me to react. I'm seriously considering if (after this is resolved) I just ban both of you from interacting at all. What do you both think? Again, I'm not taking sides between you on this. But quite honestly I'm just bored of this whole situation between the two of you and this seems like an easy fix.… That would be OK for me, but I see it difficult to enforce. Just to give some examples, if one of us is CPS and the other commits a crime, interaction is unavoidable, or if one of us is on an office that decides others and the other aspires to them, same situation arises. (I don't want to implement a general "PvP only by previous agreement" rule and I don't think it's actually necessary. This seems to be a specific issue between two players rather than a gamewide issue. The closest we've come previously is Father Lachapelle versus Helen and they both thrashed out the rules of engagement between them without any need for me to get involved). While I (like Garret) prefer collaborative play, I’m not against PvP game, when it relates to PC vs PC, but when several characters form the same player curiously target the same character, or when one character curiously targets the several characters of another player, things seem to have crossed the character to player line… To give another example (as Garret says from EG! Britain), there,as CM, I’ve had some problems with some characters, be due to regimental issues, even leading to some duels (and nearly kill and latter nearly being killed by one of the Roberts), or with someone that didn’t like merchants; but I had not the same problems with their players’ other characters when they both died due ot other actin (none of them related to CM, BTW). Gosh, I thought people may have recognised my somewhat predictable gameplay by now, Sam and Gary seem to be au fait with it but Lluis you still think I am being personal to you, as a player! As you mention I have tried to explain this to you before it is GENUINELY nothing against you, I only know you as a player, not as someone I have ever met so why on earth would I have anything personally against you my friend. I understand this, but the fact several characters of yours are targeting mine without provocation seems to hint the opposite, and you seem not to understand they are different people, with different backgrounds and knowledges and probably different interests. BAD told about the “emperor’s” curse on HLB. If we think on the situation, this occurred months before BAD reached Paris, and the most probable think is BAD wouldn’t even know about it (after all, it was just a madman’s incident as many occur in all cities) Same about the accusation about HLB having embezzled from the Lottery. This was (again) a rumor that died months before BAD reached Paris, and he would be quite unlikely to even know about it. That’s what I mean, you don’t seem to know the differences among your characters. Sam says - 'If you think of how he plays in every game, he always goes nuclear with his characters when anyone denies them'..there, you see, that is exactly the case and take comfort Lluis that you are not me who has to 'give into the game voices in my head' with every version of En Garde that I play and always end up having my characters go...well...sort of mad! Plus...plus...usually my characters are of a low(ish) SL and don't have much power within a game so normally end up getting arrested or thwarted by others. So I am not personally targeting you but you just happen to have the highest SL and most powerful character in the game, a character who is also CPS. As CPS BAD sought you to assist him vs the Royal Steward after that Steward was stated in the Applications results comments as saying Dr De'Ath shouldn't be allowed into the Palace....lord only knows why as I'm not sure what he did to pee off the Royal Steward?! Anyway as CPS you dismissed BAD's entreaty so, hence his reaction. That is not against you personally any CPS who did so would have received that response from BAD. Garrett (coltreadhead) felt the same in Jim's game of Britian en Garde that I was targetting him, to be fair I was having my character regard his character as a personal nemeses BUT only for gameplay, nothing personal to Garrett. It's probably true to say in that game my character was viewed as being against all of the others! One thing I do trust fellow players see is that I never insult a player, only their character and no-one ever receives anything personal as that would be totally unacceptable and I would expect to be excluded from a game for doing so. In fact, HLB didn’t, as you say, dismiss, nor ignore BAD. It would probably have been the easiest way to go… If you read my post, HLB. as CPS, asked where the slander was, as the only think I’ve read was BAD had been banned from the Palace, without giving the specific reason (or if there’s written somewhere, I’d have skipped it) and that’s not slander (I wonder how was he admitted the first time, BTW, as not everyone is admitted there). Asking for a clarification is not dismissing nor ignoring anyone. He also warned BAD that as RFG member he would have to deny BAD the entrance to Palace while the ban is I neffect, but that’s (among others) the RFG duty… May I finish by reassuring you Lluis I appreciate my characters may be damned annoying sometimes (ok maybe most of the time!) but I run them within the confines of the rules and the overall object of playing is for enjoyment, something we surely all participate for such purpose. As we're all different people we approach our playstyles accordingly, it's a fact of life that we'll encounter those who demonstrate the extremes or erratics of social behaviour so En Garde is a reflection of life in a game world environment. I’ve noticed, and if I’m allowed to say, it may be funny once (as I said in RG! Britain, MBT remembered me about Edmund Blackadder), but a bit repetitive the second time, and boring afterwards. IMHO, new character means different one, but, as said, that’s each one’s game style, and you’re in your right to play the way you like, I can just ignore it, but taking the vendettas of a player to the next one, is, again IMHO, crossing lines that shouldn’t be crossed. |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 23, 2021 17:03:38 GMT
Honestly, I'm not really interested in apportioning blame on this. From my perspective, this is an issue between two players that needs a workable solution for the good of the game.
And a lot of it comes down to the fact that I think you're outliers as far as playing styles are concerned. (It's a pity Dec/Father Lachapelle isn't still in the game as I think he and Jason could have had a whale of a time attacking each other).
Yeah, that's fair, but I think we can keep it to a minimum.
So going for the same position is unavoidable as you say, but things like interaction on the forum can be avoided as can directly clashing in PvP.
I don't think, for example, that you necessarily need to post about the RFG banning him from the place to do your job. Equally, I think it's fair that Jason's characters can find other people to fight with.
It does involve a bit of metagaming, but I think metagaming in this way is actually reasonable. Because sorry, but when "but this is how my character would react IC" is causing OOC issues, that's when I think you have to consider how to handle this OOC.
You aren't enjoying your interactions with Jason's characters. I'm sure he'd actually rather do PvP with other people that enjoy it.
And I don't think anyone else (including myself) wants to see this kind of tension between players.
It is probably going to help that you're stepping down from CPS soon. I think that (along with Inquisitor) are probably the two positions a PVP focused player is most likely to end up fighting with!
To help me decide, can either of you actually think of something you enjoy in the game that stopping you interacting as players would take away from you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on May 23, 2021 18:43:54 GMT
Ironically enough, it was my character, Robert Hardwicke, that Charles McGee had the duels with |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 23, 2021 18:51:47 GMT
It was also my first character that poor Charles had to deal with anti Merchant snobbery from.  |
|
|
|
Post by Monique Adelina De'Ath on May 24, 2021 5:18:19 GMT
I'll do my best not to try and unintentionally (or, indeed, intentionally!) provoke or irritate Huillaume /LLuis in future, although that may not be practical if some in-game development arises. Perhaps a duel between the 2 characters may help clear the air and both parties consider the matters between them resolved.....what do you say?
In my defence I did seek to make some connection with Huillaume recently as Dr De'Ath sent a personal (player to player) message asking if Huillaume would become his patron but no reply was received, that was before this arrest warrant business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on May 24, 2021 9:43:45 GMT
I don't *like* having to do it this way, but I think it might be best if any future in game developments are run by me before it's assumed they're reasons to escalate things.
My instinct is probably to let the current situation play out (warrant is out and will be implemented the turn after) and then you just avoid RPing with each other.
However, if both of you would prefer a duel or alternatively just to retcon the clash out entirely. (I don't normally retcon, just for the record, but in this case I think it might be a better possibility than OOC tensions). I would rather that if we're doing either of those though it's something both of you agree on.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on May 24, 2021 10:25:44 GMT
Ironically enough, it was my character, Robert Hardwicke, that Charles McGee had the duels with It was also my first character that poor Charles had to deal with anti Merchant snobbery from. Right, it was with your characters, and neither CM ha naything against your latter characters note1 nor they against him. Note 1: while this enterily true, the fact Sam's latter character has enterend CM rival regiment may lead to some "disagreements", but it has nothing to do with previous ones.To help me decide, can either of you actually think of something you enjoy in the game that stopping you interacting as players would take away from you? I've already tried to keep interactins to minimum, so, not on my part. I'll do my best not to try and unintentionally (or, indeed, intentionally!) provoke or irritate Huillaume /LLuis in future, although that may not be practical if some in-game development arises. Perhaps a duel between the 2 characters may help clear the air and both parties consider the matters between them resolved.....what do you say? However, if both of you would prefer a duel or alternatively just to retcon the clash out entirely. (I don't normally retcon, just for the record, but in this case I think it might be a better possibility than OOC tensions). I would rather that if we're doing either of those though it's something both of you agree on. This may be more IC, but, as stated before, Huillaume would not challenge someone who has sworn "not to intentionally harm anyone" ( Primum non nocere), as this would be, in his view, a ture dishonorable act. This aside, he feels, as CPS, he has to avoid duels while keeping this post, as it would be a bad example of law enforcing. In my defence I did seek to make some connection with Huillaume recently as Dr De'Ath sent a personal (player to player) message asking if Huillaume would become his patron but no reply was received, that was before this arrest warrant business. True, and I didn't answer because ,as already said, I tried to keep interaction to minimum, and because Huillaume is in no position to patronize anyone due to his economical situation (I guess a proof he has never embezzled ) |
|
).