OOC

[Lance]

I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm not sure this is an IC conflict. Can someone with more experience than me identify my-guy syndrome?

I see Rex as not demanding to be "the Boss" -- Rsther, he takes personal responsibility for moral requirements. He was willing to take personal responsibility for the deal he brokered with the AI (which still requires someone be ID'd to be hunted and killed by the AI if this goes wrong).

He did all of this, while the characters there to negotiate, your teammates (Askor and Katusha) and your boss stood there and watched.

He is equally willing to follow someone else who is providing leadership (as a burnt-out and beaten old man) as long as their choices are also morally good.

So he's willing to follow anyone as long as they do the same thing he would?

This is exacerbated by the fact that the only "common legend" in Universal Basics is your background info.

Again, this isn't a personal attack, I just feel there's a fundamental difference in playstyle in the background.

[shaidar]

I see Rex as not demanding to be "the Boss" -- Rsther, he takes personal responsibility for moral requirements. He was willing to take personal responsibility for the deal he brokered with the AI (which still requires someone be ID'd to be hunted and killed by the AI if this goes wrong).

He did all of this, while the characters there to negotiate, your teammates (Askor and Katusha) and your boss stood there and watched.

This is my point exactly. He is taking responsibility for something 'he did' right in front of everyone else without giving them a chance to contribute. He took control of the negotiation with the AI and locked everyone else out.

[Marullus]

This is my point exactly. He is taking responsibility for something 'he did' right in front of everyone else without giving them a chance to contribute. He took control of the negotiation with the AI and locked everyone else out.

Wow. I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention, and not what I thought I did either IC or OOC.

The scene was awkward, given that we had to negotiate through the keyboard, and I tried to be mindful. I intentionally had Rex speak to the other PCs, solicit their actions, and relay their inputs as he did so (such as here, here, here, and here.) I didn't think offering to take personal responsibility for the AI here was out of line, but we backed that out quickly (and I am glad we did so). Even so, I immediately consulted OOC to make sure there were no issues. This negotiation has already been 18 days long since Rex offered to type, and I honestly tried to make sure everyone had the opportunity to participate both IC and OOC if they chose to.

Edit: I went back and re-read all the posts looking to understand better. You posted three times that Jonas wanted to not negotiate and agree to whatever its demands were immediately; I chose to continue the negotiation to arrive at better terms. I appologize if that made you feel ignored - I suppose you were ignored IC. I wasn't ignoring you OOC. I didn't mean for you to feel slighted, or for any player to feel disenfranchised. He is the group's new Diplomat and I thought he was doing his job by negotiating to stop the nuclear countdown, I worked as a player to bring in all inputs to that effect, and it seems you're saying that you didn't want him to negotiate in the first place. I can see that as a valid IC issue, but didn't think it was an OOC one. (To that effect, I've been very clear OOC that while I'm mechanically the best roll for the negotiation with the Blood, I would prefer it be someone else so as to not be the Negotiatior twice, and having Rex intentionally stand back unless explicitly asked to do the job.)

So he's willing to follow anyone as long as they do the same thing he would?

Yeah, that would be lame. I immediately edited it to soften the language, which was probably concurrent with you replying.

Again, this isn't a personal attack, I just feel there's a fundamental difference in playstyle in the background.

No offense taken. That's exactly my point. I didn't have a clear idea of the fundamental playstyle when I proposed this character, and this is the third time I've brought it up to make sure it wasn't an undesirable addition. I've deliberately taken steps to not have a "my-guy" syndrome, but also am being honest that as an intentionally moral character I want to have a plot-point about it.

I appreciate both of you speaking up. I'll make a new PC without moral dimensions.

[The Bindoner]

I'm not sure it's the moral convictions per se that are primarily the issue.

A moral character among amoral types should be interesting, if they don't mind being outvoted on most things. Having someone advocate for moral choices, pointing out the "right thing to do", could be useful - and fun role playing as the counter argument is put.

I haven't been online enough to keep up in real time, but it seems the issue is that the new character has dropped into an existing game and started to redirect it rather than fitting in to the style and mode of play. As a new player myself I was reluctant to get involved too much until I had a better feel for the group and the game, but I think it's appropriate to comment now.

[Marullus]

I agree with that.

I tried to engage on if the moral convictions would be okay before beginning (it IS a potential change in feel) and didn't get feedback. I assumed silence was acceptance, which is usually an error. The character is explicitly one who will step up and act on his convictions and that seems to me to be at the core of the issue here - there is an objection that he acted. It is NOT my intention that this should prevent anyone else from ALSO acting, and I did my best to make sure everyone could. I framed a moral code based around liberty and freedom of action (for everyone) as a principle thinking it fit the group. I can't play this specific character as someone who won't act, though, and if the accusation is that this equates to "my guy" syndrome, then I'd rather switch to a different character because that's a big OOC deal.

I haven't been online enough to keep up in real time, but it seems the issue is that the new character has dropped into an existing game and started to redirect it rather than fitting in to the style and mode of play. As a new player myself I was reluctant to get involved too much until I had a better feel for the group and the game, but I think it's appropriate to comment now.

I've had an inordinate amount of time lately and am excited - sheer volume of my IC and OOC posts is likely a factor of annoyance and I appologize for that, too. You make a good point about being reticent and I did jump in.

We were hand-waved together as a group and, looking across our sheets, I thought my group role was to play to my Diplomat strength. When the GM announced the scene switched from shooting robots to negotiating with the AI, I stepped up to negotiate because I thought that was my group role. I see the "why is the new guy doing things" and "we're the negotiator crew, not you" issues and am glad to step back and normalize.

We've since stepped back, and have the opportunity to intentionally create an IC group dynamic before moving forward into the Negotiating with the Blood scene. I encouraged this and asked for it. I expected this to help create intentional IC norms and I asked explicitly that we establish OOC norms. I think if we have OOC consensus on Rex integrating with the game and an IC scene normalizing the two groups (which is/was currently happening) then I still think Rex is fine and I'm excited to play him. Right now, I see objections (thus not consensus) that Rex shouldn't be here and I've sent new character options to the GM. I'm happy either way - I honestly want the group to express preferences and I will follow them as a player.

[The_Wanderer]

I stayed mostly quiet yesterday while you guys talked through this. In the end I asked Marullus to roll up a new character for a couple of reasons. First, I was always skeptical of adding that character archetype to this group. Our session 0 type discussions were definitely more focused on morally gray decisions and stories. Still though, I allowed Rex in as a character because of the counterpoint that was mentioned above. In the end though, PbP makes some parts of roleplaying heavy and I think this might be one of them. Second is just a reflection that it's not like there aren't a million other character types that can fit in here. So in the interest of finding common ground, Rex will shortly be replaced. As a reminder, I always intended this to be run more of an adhoc west marches style game so the New Character may just get dropped in media res.

As always, thank you all for your participation here. I have a pretty full work day today but will try to get Marullus squared away and figure out some story continuity today. We should be back on track either Friday or Monday.

[Faanku]

I don't think Rex's concept was a bad fit for us given his burnout status. I saw him as leaning just to the right side of the law, compared to most of the party leaning just on the wrong side. Two sides of a neutral coin, if you will.
That said, if everyone's happier to retire him I have no objections.

[shaidar]

I just wanted to apologise if I have in anyway come over as rude, grumpy, or just downright awkward in this discussion. If I did it wasn't my intention.

[Marullus]

I just wanted to apologise if I have in anyway come over as rude, grumpy, or just downright awkward in this discussion. If I did it wasn't my intention.

*hug* You're good by me.

I asked for input on if the change the character would cause was acceptable and you provided input that it wasn't. I don't fault that at all. It was always in question, even if it didn't resolve until play.

[The_Wanderer]

I just wanted to apologise if I have in anyway come over as rude, grumpy, or just downright awkward in this discussion. If I did it wasn't my intention.

Not at all. It's ok to share opinions and you shouldn't feel that you were the one who booted Rex here.

[shaidar]

Thanks. Sometimes I'm just not very good at expressing myself and I come over more hostile than I intend.

[Faanku]

Distributed War Mind and Reflexive Action

[Marullus]

733d4e1215dcbf0117fbfcc39b8393dd_w200.gif (193.68 KiB) Viewed 648 times

[Marullus]

"As Ms. Sem mentioned, I represent both The Blood and the Federal Government of Mer. It is confusing for those outside of government, I understand. "

Ahhhh. Thanks for the clarification. (I assume he's not lying.)

As the appointed meeting time approaches however, there is no sign of a representative of The Blood. Then, with little warning you hear a soft knock at the door right on time for the meeting. When you go to open the door you see a short, immaculately dressed man waiting to enter.

"Hello, I am looking for the negotiation team representing Ms. Malik. My name is Sharif Katib and I will be representing the planetary government."

• The Blood are the original founders of Mer and a major faction but are NOT the planetary government.

From the info you provided, I assumed you were drawing the line between the Blood and the Government to see if we picked up on it.

[The_Wanderer]

It's intentionally confusing here (although I'm hoping it isn't too confusing for you guys).

The Blood is a faction, potentially larger than Mer
The Blood founded Mer
On Mer, they are more like the ruling political party

Does that clarify?

Now reading through those quotes, I do see one unintentional mistake which might make it tough for you guys:

As the appointed meeting time approaches however, there is no sign of a representative of the Government of Mer. Then, with little warning you hear a soft knock at the door right on time for the meeting. When you go to open the door you see a short, immaculately dressed man waiting to enter.

[Marullus]

No worries! You clarified he is representing all parties. That's really all we needed to know.

[shaidar]

Jonas is just trying to point out that the representative is trying to persaude us to agree the new price with a job offer plus an unspecified amount of money.

It's a bribe, but phrased very losely, and using the word probably and not giving an amount.

Also their willingness to unilaterally change the agreed arrangement is not great. All told, Jonas does not want to work for them. They don't strike me as trustworthy.

[Marullus]

I think Jonas suggesting a private IC conversation is good. (Can we just do it?)

If it is a private conversation, I won't add Sem unless she is explicitly invited IC.

[The_Wanderer]

You guys are picking up on the situation here. I clarified it in game. Also any private conversations you want to have can just be labeled that way in game. Having them here would probably just complicate things.

[The_Wanderer]

We have the list, have we actually assessed the value of the inventory? Obviously we cannot know the market value of such pre-Scream artefacts, but we can price the modern equivalents and start from there.

I'm going to jump in here as the GM (not as Mr. Katib since this was PRIVATE). There's a couple of things you know based on the rolls made and common sense:
-Effectively the items are priceless. So I guess they are definitely worth more than what is offered but it also means that they are only worth as much as a a buyer is willing to offer.
-The job offer was to close the deal with the government to sell the site. You did not discuss with Zulehka what would happen if you couldn't agree on a deal