This is the email my friend & I sent, both in reply to the peculiar response we'd gotten to our request that the GMs talk to us OOCly before we game again, and to resign from the game... with this note we realized we weren't being listened to, nor were they interested in talking.
From: collie at netcom dot com Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:56:57 -0800 Executive Summary, for those that can't be bothered to read the rest: As per your request I have stated my concerns regarding the Sinai game. It is now obvious to me you have no intention of dealing with the issues Mike and I raised. You won't even discuss them. At this point in time I feel our interests are too diverse for us to continue playing together. Perhaps some other time. >From: lynx at lynx dot purrsia dot com >Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:00:03 -0800 (PST) > >Fair warning: we have the four-year jump coming up (starting in February) >and have not yet even received a plan for how you two plan to deal with >your situation, much less what your characters intend to do over the >course of the next four years. I mean this in the nicest way, Lynx, but -- Are you out of your mind? Have you even read the notes we've been sending you? Do you have any intention of dealing with any of the issues we've raised? Did you think I would just "forget" what we wrote and "pretend" none of this happened? Do you take me for a fool? >If you don't have a plan in soon so you can try resolving it Thursday >evening (no plan survives contact with the GM, remember) then it will be >assumed that your characters were unable to come to any arrangements or >agreement with outside powers or entities to supply their needs and the >needs of their menagerie and consequently, remained in the Earth >mage's tower, and starved to death. It's plain from your note that you (and your silent partners) have no intention of addressing any of the issues we've raised. Period. Your note states in the baldest terms that if we don't show up on Thursday prepared to "play it your way" you intend to kill our characters. >> You're welcome to sign on and ask for advice coming up with a suitable plan. You *do* have options. >> Please don't pretend that anything we suggest will be acceptable. Everything I've suggested in the past has been turned down by GM fiat. If you're not willing to discuss our plans in email, why should we believe you would be any more forthcoming when we log in? >You may also, at your option, ditch your current characters and start new >characters, who will be starting in a somewhat changed world of Sinai four >years later. New characters will require the usual GMly approval. You jest, surely. - - - - - - - - What follows is my reply to your previous note. New comments in light of your most recent note are in [brackets] - - - - - - - - >I'm sorry, but I can only feel these messages are irritating Gen and Greywolf. Gen, Greywolf -- if these messages are irritating and this discussion is unwelcome, please let me know. I much prefer to hear something like this from the purportedly irritated person than second-hand. My intention was to build understanding, not cause problems. [ Gen, Greywolf -- it seems plain that you wish Lynx to speak for you. We've tried to be as open and honest as possible, and it is now clear that this is not what you /really/ want. Sorry to have bothered you. ] >> Any lengthy 'we did what we did because it was right and you should reward us for this, not punish us' messages are only going to create the impression that you feel they should modify what already happened to suit you, and that's not going to happen. >> Lynx, did you actually read my message? I specifically state that this is not what I want, and that I do not expect this to happen. Let me quote, to save you the trouble of checking this: > Firstly, let us be clear about what is NOT a concern for us. We know that > the logs are "what really happened," and we don't want to change them. > We're not suddenly horrified at the Temple-Nagai war -- we knew that was > coming. We're not upset that there is a dilemma for Collie's character > in-game -- she /lives/ for those. You don't have to take her word on that, > of course... ask Scott Ruggels, with whom Collie's gamed for years. I think this is very clear. Why are you suggesting we want to "retcon" when we have specifically stated the opposite? We have not asked for this and will not ask for this. >> Saying that you're concerned about the GMs not understanding your characters etc. only makes it look like you're trying to play 'outside' the box. If you want to rant, have Lakshmi rant and throw things on-log... And then come up with a plan to work things out. >> Because the difficulty is not in the game, but with the communication between the referee and the players. Having my character rant and throw things seems a bizarre and unproductive way to talk to another human being playing the game, especially the referee(s). The referee's perception of things in the game can be quite different from the players'; the only way to reconcile this is by OOC discussion. If a PC takes some action based on their and/or their player's understanding of the situation, and that understanding is different from the GM's, what's going to happen when their views come into conflict? How about a (non-Sinai) example -- I was playing a fighter that was struck quite forcefully during a bar fight. The referee said that it hurt a *lot* and hinted that the arm might even be broken. Well, I've actually fought while injured and this character was a "buff, studly, take no prisoners" type, so I said that they stuffed their arm inside their shirt and fought on. The NPCs treated my character like she was a dangerous lunatic that needed hospitalization. When we spoke after the game, we discovered that the GM had never been in a serious fight and had almost no tolerance for pain. They really didn't understand how someone could continue with what they considered a serious injury. They then understood why I had my PC act as they did and the NPCs stopped treating her like a lunatic. What you're suggesting is that I should not have discussed this "outside the box" with the GM and instead had my PC rant about what wussies the NPCs were. All that would have done is pissed off the GM, because //our understanding of the events was different.// Are you seriously suggesting that I should have my PC behave in obviously counter-productive ways guaranteed to annoy the GMs, other PCs and the NPCs? What exactly are you expecting this will accomplish? >> I can guarantee that Gen and Greywolf will not kill y'all off without a fair trial and a chance to work things out... But if you wait too long, your time will run out. Now is the time to act. >> Why is it every time you send me mail about my character you always talk about what's required before Gen and Greywolf will be allowed to kill my character? What makes you think the "death" of a character in a game is the issue, anyway? [ Note that you do so again in your latest note. A recurring theme, perhaps? ] The other thing I think you've missed is that I am here because you asked me to come. If anything, your time to convince me to stay is running out. Lynx, I don't like threats or ultimatums and I suggest that you choose another line of argument. >So... What's your plan? My plan was to discuss what I feel was a problem with perception and expectations in the game. I (and my characters) form opinions based on information presented by the GMs in the game, but good communication and agreement between the GM and the player is critical. Let me give you a specific example -- When Lochinvar proved to our satisfaction that his loyalties were with the Temple and we became suspicious of him, our actions were characterized (by one of the GMs, not one of the NPCs) as "vicious." They also stated quite plainly that "I refuse to buy the notion that it was all so 'rational' that you assume he's a spy." You can't have it both ways, Lynx, either we play totally IC and annoy the people involved, or we have to consider "out of the box" issues, which includes that the GM currently thinks I'm vicious, my actions are irrational, and I always expect to get my own way. You know, if I really was vicious, irrational and self-centered, Lakshmi would have killed Lochinvar and fed him to the animals. >> I'll give you some notions. You don't have to stick with the Tower and wait for people to come to you-- you can always try taking the creatures you've awoken, if you can't figure out how to put them back to sleep, and set off in search of someone who's willing to supply you, perhaps black market types or idealistic patrons who are willing to believe your claims of neutrality... Or you can attempt to get word to the Nagai Empire... If you can figure out something to offer that would make it worthwhile for them to alienate a neutral country. You can surrender your Nagai citizenship and appeal to the Collegia to take you on. >> Are you suggesting this as a GM, a PC or as a by-stander? [ It's plain that neither Gen nor Greywolf have anything to say on this matter. Are they aware that you expect them to kill our characters for you? If this is their decision, why aren't they speaking for themselves? ] >I don't say any of these are things you *must* do. But they're all a darn >sight better than arguing with the GMs that you've been misunderstood. If the GMs don't understand what we do, how can we expect that any of the NPCs will? Considering the fact that Gen won't even talk about this, Greywolf has plainly taken sides, and you've just accused me of "irritating" the GMs with my "out of the box" arguments and suggesting that Lakshmi won't be killed "without a fair trial," I can't imagine that staying would be any fun at all. Please consider this my resignation from your game. Since it's obvious that you don't understand Lakshmi's motivations or character (much less mine) I think it would be best if you didn't attempt to have anyone else play her. I am going to assume that she and Skye escape quietly into the night. That will also save you the trouble of killing or torturing us off-stage to fit your story. -- Collie