Quote from: Kyle AaronI was not suggesting how to make the roleplaying experience brilliant. I was suggesting how to make it not lead to intragroup dramas, like this one. For that, OOC talk of any kind is superior to no talk at all.

Very true.  I was intending to ... y'know ... supplement, rather than contest your points.  Sorry that I didn't get that across.

Quote from: David RIMO if the GM is running a very strict historical campaign, it's the GM's responsibility to let the players know before the campaign that their actions are constricted by history.

See, I don't understand the "you can't change history" attitude. I think it makes more sense to tell people "you can't have your characters behave in an anachronistic manner" - in other words, in a fashion that strikingly undermines the historical setting. So it's OK to try and convert people if you're a 1st century Christian, but it's not OK to try and invent calculus or the internal combustion engine.

In my own Dictatus Papae second edition, I'm intending to have a certain amount of discussion about this; essentially, I think that even if you want to run a strict historical campaign you should say "the timeline can and will diverge as of the start of the campaign: we're going to be historically accurate as of game start, and PCs should not behave in an anachronistic manner, but the in-character future is not set in stone".

Quote from: WarthurSee, I don't understand the "you can't change history" attitude. I think it makes more sense to tell people "you can't have your characters behave in an anachronistic manner" - in other words, in a fashion that strikingly undermines the historical setting. So it's OK to try and convert people if you're a 1st century Christian, but it's not OK to try and invent calculus or the internal combustion engine.

I don't know if it "makes more sense" but your method is one way to go. I know a few folks who are able to play within the context of a "strict historical" campaign. It's just a matter of preference, I guess. Speaking of which....

QuoteIn my own Dictatus Papae second edition, I'm intending to have a certain amount of discussion about this; essentially, I think that even if you want to run a strict historical campaign you should say "the timeline can and will diverge as of the start of the campaign: we're going to be historically accurate as of game start, and PCs should not behave in an anachronistic manner, but the in-character future is not set in stone".

...in my In Harms Way campaign the future is "set in tone" but it's not really a historical campaign because of the egalitarian gender roles. Besides this anachronism, the historical timeline is preserved. The pcs operate within an extremely specific context...but yet there's loads of things to do.

They and I have not found it constricting, in fact we could very well play it as a straight historical game, but the women in my group wanted to try it this way. There's so many ways one could run a historical game.

Regards,
David R

Huh. I've seen many, many of these types of messages before, but never one with the player and GM in question as participants. I think I'll stay way the hell out of it.

Seanchai

In terms of the specific example of Jong and the Pundit's campaign, the way I see it there's two problems here.

From Jong's end. You clearly have some kind of agenda with the PC in question, which is usually awesome. What seems to be making life difficult (for you and for the Pundit) is that you don't seem to have ever clearly stated what that is. From his descriptions of Quintus's chats with Marcus, it seems that the Pundit (and Marcus) found them a bit confusing and mysterious. Granted, the smart thing for the Pundit to do would be to say "OK, where are you going with this?" so you could say "I want to prompt Marcus to learn more about Christianity and be a bit more open-minded, so I can lay the groundwork for converting him". However, the smart thing for you to do would have been to volunteer this information in the first place.

It's probably also worth having a serious think about your character's attitude to Christianity. It looks like the Pundit has thrown a heap of different flavours of early Christian sect at you over the game, and you've rejected all of them. How many Christians does your character actually know? Does he ever worship with them? Kyle put it quite well in his own post: one man isn't a religion, he's a loony (or at best a lone philosopher). If you aren't willing to risk your character by having him risk his position in order to hook up and network with his fellow Christians (or start his own sect), it's not surprising if the Pundit concludes that Christianity isn't especially important to you or your character.

From the Pundit's end. Pundit, in this thread you've described quite well how Quintus's intervention has changed Marcus. If Jong feels frustrated, then clearly that hasn't really come out in the game yet. Granted, it's often difficult when you don't know what a player's real game plan is, but it's always best to make sure they see the fruits of their efforts (good or bad). Once Quintus convinced Marcus to look into Christianity, it wouldn't have hurt to have Marcus say "Well, I've looked at those books you pointed me to, father, and it does seem that those Christians aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be," or something along those lines. (And if you did, it seems that Jong didn't pick up on it. More nudging may have been required.)

As things stand, it looks like Marcus will still end up becoming Emperor, but with a decidedly more tolerant attitude towards Christians. If his tolerance carries through to his official policies, then all's sweetness and light - Jong's successfully made Christianity legitimate within the Empire a century-or-so early. This isn't quite what he was angling for, but it's doubtless a big step forward for his agenda. Even if Marcus isn't this radical and simply lets the persecution of the Christians slide in the Empire's priorities, it's still a useful achievement. Jong will doubtless be much happier if something along these lines happens soon in the campaign (as it probably will, given the timescale you guys are playing on); you might want to reassure him that sometimes PCs' efforts will take a good long time to bear fruit (a not unreasonable thing to say if your campaign covers centuries).

Quote from: David RIt seems clear to me that there was a lack of communication going on in this campaign. Now since Jong has not mentioned any problems with any of your other campaigns, this may mean that your depth of knowledge for this "historical" campaign has intefered with the way how you guys normally communicate.

Given that Jong only plays in my Historical games right now, I don't see that as very fucking likely.

QuoteDid Jong ever express any problems with the way how things were turning out with his character? Did you notice any unease on Jong's part? Because to me communication and observation are but two skills that make a "good" GM.

Yes, I did notice that Jong got upset on Sunday night when Hadrian chose his son for adoption by Antoninus Pius as a condition for Antoninus to be Hadrian's successor. It baffled me as to why, since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Jong to be the heir (so I knew it couldn't be that), and since this would mean the NPC he'd been raising would rise to the highest position possible in the entire fucking Roman Empire.

The hints Jong gave was that he would rather it have been done through marriage and not adoption; with Marcus marrying Antoninus' daughter sometime later on (his daughter is only a child right now).  This would have let Jong continue to be the "father of the heir" rather than the "ex-father of the heir, best friend of the emperor, and all around important  guy anyways", so it would have been a bit control-freaky of him, and in any case Hadrian knew that there was no reason why Antoninus, who had been his political opposition while Hadrian ruled, would necessarily need to adopt Marcus (who had been Hadrian's last child-lover, though Jong made sure it was platonic), after Hadrian was dead.  It was a deal that could only happen while Hadrian still had the leverage to raise or not raise Antoninus to the purple.  And Hadrian desperately wanted Marcus to be emperor one day.  So it had to be adoption, right there, and right then.

It did not strike me at all that Jong was upset about the fact that Marcus won't just say he's a Christian; and I wasn't going to stop the whole game to inquire as to what exactly was bothering him if he wasn't going to say anything.  I figured he might say something after the session. He didn't, instead he ran off immediately to a cybercafe or somewhere and posted his thread here, that same night.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBThat seems sort of wasteful to me ... these are great questions, filled with drama and conflict (as Pundit and Jong are making clear).  Seems to me, Marcus should have been asking these questions to Quintus.

That's EXACTLY what happened.  When Quintus first revealed all the Christianity thing to Marcus I did a very lengthy scene with Quintus where Marcus was asking him all kinds of questions.
Later, I had others, including one where Marcus confronted Quintus with his confusion over the fact that there were all kinds of other "christianities" and they didn't seem to have much in common.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd RPGPundit, I would say that when Jong's character was writing the Gospel According To Me was about the right time to ask, "what kind of Christian are you? Or is it all just disinformation?" I mean, why else write a Gospel but to put across your view of The Man?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:  Oh for FUCK'S SAKE, I DID question him profoundly about it, at length. FUCKING OBVIOUSLY.

What I got from him was that the Gospel of Joseph was Quintus' effort to sincerely transmit Jesus' words and the truth about who he was and what he said, in an educated latin style, and to counteract the wierd gnostic stuff that has nothing to do with the Jesus Jong met. So in that sense it was closer to Thomasine christianity than anything else, but the only real point Jong kept coming back to again and again as far as moral teaching was the idea that a Christian could somehow be a good citizen, could serve in the legions, could sacrifice to the roman gods, and still be a Christian.
So naturally, his gospel was more of a history mixed with a political pamphlet than a guide to human behaviour. The stuff he might have quoted Jesus as saying might have had some moral teaching, sure, but other than seeing Jesus as a kind of divine philosopher, Jong's character has never shown any prayerfulness, ritual, or special practices. His christianity seems to be the "christianity of being a totally normal roman pagan".

Jong insists on Quintus being his own kind of Christian (as in, not connected to any other church or sect and without any followers); unless Quintus secretly doesn't believe any of it and this is all some kind of scheme of Jong's that he's decided to keep secret from the GM for some reason.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurSee, I don't understand the "you can't change history" attitude.

You CAN fucking change history in my campaign. AND JONG DID FUCKING CHANGE HISTORY. How many times do I have to say this?!

QuoteI think it makes more sense to tell people "you can't have your characters behave in an anachronistic manner" - in other words, in a fashion that strikingly undermines the historical setting. So it's OK to try and convert people if you're a 1st century Christian, but it's not OK to try and invent calculus or the internal combustion engine.

Yes, that's a rule too.

RPGpundit

Quote from: WarthurFrom the Pundit's end. Pundit, in this thread you've described quite well how Quintus's intervention has changed Marcus. If Jong feels frustrated, then clearly that hasn't really come out in the game yet. Granted, it's often difficult when you don't know what a player's real game plan is, but it's always best to make sure they see the fruits of their efforts (good or bad). Once Quintus convinced Marcus to look into Christianity, it wouldn't have hurt to have Marcus say "Well, I've looked at those books you pointed me to, father, and it does seem that those Christians aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be," or something along those lines. (And if you did, it seems that Jong didn't pick up on it. More nudging may have been required.)

*sigh* holy motherfucking god.. I said that. Multiple times. I had Marcus specifically say that maybe as Antoninus' son he could try to soften Antoninus' very reactionary anti-christian position, and save the christians from persecution.  I didn't hint it, I didn't suggest it, I said it just like that.

So clearly, that's NOT what Jong wanted out of all this.

QuoteAs things stand, it looks like Marcus will still end up becoming Emperor, but with a decidedly more tolerant attitude towards Christians. If his tolerance carries through to his official policies, then all's sweetness and light - Jong's successfully made Christianity legitimate within the Empire a century-or-so early. This isn't quite what he was angling for, but it's doubtless a big step forward for his agenda. Even if Marcus isn't this radical and simply lets the persecution of the Christians slide in the Empire's priorities, it's still a useful achievement. Jong will doubtless be much happier if something along these lines happens soon in the campaign (as it probably will, given the timescale you guys are playing on); you might want to reassure him that sometimes PCs' efforts will take a good long time to bear fruit (a not unreasonable thing to say if your campaign covers centuries).

I think that Jong knows this by now, which tells me that his actual goals here must have been something different than all that.

RPGPundit

Having read both sides of it, bearing in mind that RPGPundit and JongWK's stories aren't contradictory, I am having a hard time seeing RPGPundit as unreasonable.

I, for one, am saddened, but not disillusioned to see yet another [Hypothetical] thread that really wasn't.


What the fuck, man? Do people actually think anyone falls for that hypothetical protestation anymore? And what about Jong posting it on this site of all places?

Jimbo complaining about his players here I can see, he had no idea they frequented the place, but Jong's gotta KNOW, if anyone does, that Pundit reads shit here.

Makes for good drama though.

Entertain Me, Motherfuckers!

So I got this friend who's in this other RPG group and he...I mean she's just having this terrible time....

Quote from: SpikeI, for one, am saddened, but not disillusioned to see yet another [Hypothetical] thread that really wasn't.

I posted it as a hypothetical because I wanted it to be a hypothetical--I'd already made up my mind about the real situation. OTOH, it soon became obvious that I should have been more specific from the start.

I tried meeting with Pundit today, but he was busy taking over the world or something.  Until then, I won't comment about it on this thread. This has already ballooned out of proportions.

QuoteAnd what about Jong posting it on this site of all places?

You want me to post it on the Forge? :haw:

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that Jong only plays in my Historical games right now, I don't see that as very fucking likely.

*shrug* fair enough.You think that Jong didn't not state his goals clearly. Jong on the other hand has said that he did.  Obviously there's some kind of communication issue here.

Regards,
David R