City of IF

[Thunderbird]

I'm opening this 'out of game', 'out of character' discussion thread so that all may openly comment on anything related to what is happening inside the Nuthouse. Feel free to voice critiques, frustrations, and any suggestions for guidelines that we should perhaps be following. I shall return to add some thoughts of my own, but let's hear yours first.

[Crunchyfrog]

I think that some guidelines would be useful here... the only clue we have to base our characters on are what Dr. Z says at the beginning - that they are criminals, and that they are here because of some kind of altered sense of reality that causes their crimes.

Were they all supposed to be human? Or are the inhuman traits supposed to be the delusions these characters are suffering?

The other thing I think would be useful is for us all to have some kind of guidance on how much or little can we pull the strings of other characters. For example, if my character (Wendy) offers Lebby's character (Leroy) a knife, am I allowed to write that he takes that knife? Or if she asks him a question, do I write what his reaction or answer might be?

If we restrict ourselves to controlling our own characters I can see that this could lead to the string of events unfolding very slowly in a long line of short posts. But, at the same time I may find that another person's character might engage my character and write something that I might consider to be totally OOC.

Also, I am not sure whether we are supposed to develop tactics to 'survive' the nuthouse or escape it - or what the purpose of us, the 'players' really is. Although this last part is less a criticism and perhaps more down to my lack of experience text-based roleplay. :)

[Tikanni Corazon]

I completely agree with Crunchy about having limitations on how much can be done with another persons character. I'm not enjoying having traits, that I never intended my character to have, being forced upon her, and it's made me feel I have to change her myself to prevent this from happening so much.

I don't see there being anything wrong with it being used for something insignificant and meaningless to the character, but nothing that would be used to define the character, especially a personality trait, or the like.

[Thunderbird]

I agree.

It was my presumption, perhaps from having a long role-playing background, that the one cardinal rule would need unspoken, do not speak for another's character (even insignificant things can seem significant to the other player.)

When it was immediately breached I decided to allow for now and see how it played out and it has done pretty much what I expected, while improving the speed of scenario development, has created some toe stepping that was undesireable to any of us.

So I establish this as an overriding rule from here on:

NO speaking for another's character, not their actions, nor their words. This is theirs to determine. This said, I will allow exceptions, even instigate exceptions, where it has become painfully obvious a response was necessary and none forthcoming has delayed the game to the detriment of its enjoyment.

In return, I ask that those that have decided to participate thus far make every effort to regularly check in and react where it is necessary for them to do so at least. My fear in the instigation of this policy is that we will have player dead characters fouling up the works. All of us need to commit ourselves for it is even difficult for the storyteller to justify the immediate removal of a character due to an extended pause and I loath having to take command away just to move things along.

Quote: If we restrict ourselves to controlling our own characters I can see that this could lead to the string of events unfolding very slowly in a long line of short posts
This is meant to be a place where a lot of posts may take place. Keeping the length short while not ignoring descriptives is a desireable effect. This sort of thing seems to work best when we ping off each other rapidly.

This said, I welcome any to take what has been stated about their characters thus far, and any assumptions that have been made thus far regarding their characters that was not in the intention of the player who owns that character to be disregarded as the rantings of madness.


To address the following:

Quote: Were they all supposed to be human? Or are the inhuman traits supposed to be the delusions these characters are suffering?

All can appear human on the surface, and all very well may be simply suffering from a delusion of anything else. Certainly the doctors that sent them here believed these to be little more than psychotic delusions. Z is actively attempting, it seems, to dig a bit deeper with a little bit more open minded approach... why he is doing so is as much a mystery as many other things about him, including his apparent lack of moral compass as well.

One thing I can say you all have in common is that you have all been deemed 'untreatable' by those who have worked with you thus far, and many have been in 'the system' for a very small amount of time, perhaps deemed untreatable by just the first practitioner to evaluate you.


Quote: Also, I am not sure whether we are supposed to develop tactics to 'survive' the nuthouse or escape it - or what the purpose of us, the 'players' really is.
As in life itself, this has been left up to you to determine for yourselves. Z is obviously not any less a criminal than those whom have obviously been sent here to be under his guidance. Surely this in and of itself is a bit of a mystery and is supposed to be. If it offends your sensibilities, wonderful! Investigate further. If it frightens your character, wonderful! Seek escape. If you are in awe and respect of the evil doctor, wonderful! Seek to figure him out for your own purposes. Something more than 'treatment' is obviously afoot.


For those who feel this discussion thread is far overdue, I apologize. By now, I think you'd be right.

[Smee]

Good reading in here, TB.

Might I add if you're desperate for a certain reaction, or for someone's character to say a certain line, then there's always been the option of PM'ing them and asking if they might be said to respond in this way. Collaborative role play can lead to faster action even with the restrictions of some rules with a little behind the scenes chat.

[Crunchyfrog]

Indeed - I had just such a collaborative agreement with another author over a post so that he could write that my character responded to a particular situation by slapping his character in the face.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

*Bows head* I'm sorry about Setsu. Delusion or no, as long as Dr'Z lets me I'ma make him as 'real' as he can be. If it's overwhelming agreed upon that no one likes the idea of a vampire in the group, I'll have him volenteer to die....

I wouldn't want to mess up the game for other players with a -Not mad madman- In fact, I intended on haveing it a delusion, but when Thunder-kun seemed open to making him real, I couldn't resist!

Oh, and just so you know, haveing just eaten, Setsu can go several months without drinking blood wothout advers reactions. He just needs some liquids....

As I said, I'd love to stay in the story, but if you all think it would ruin the whole concept, I'll let Setsu be his noble self and be the sacrifice....

[Tikanni Corazon]

I personally don't see any reason for Setsu to die, any more than the others. Even if it was portrayed as delusions, you've not really done anything that couldn't be easily explained as such, even the draining of the young boy. I have heard of people who want to be vampires, having dental work to have permenant fangs put in. I don't know if it is possible to drain a body of blood in such a way, but this is fiction, so I think we could get around it. So I wouldn't give yourself up just yet. ;)

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Yay! One vote for my continued undead-life!!!!!

[Thunderbird]

I'd say, at least for now, there's nothing wrong with suggesting your character might be imbued with various powers of supernatural origin. However, it is probably portrayed best if 'proof' of such powers aren't ever given in such a manner that can't be otherwise explained. In otherwords, I think it would make it more interesting if a reader couldn't tell if the character was deranged or if there were some reality to what he believes.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

I'a wanna see me transmutate? That's not humanly possible :P

[Masterweaver]

I am trying to keep my character ambiguous, in such a way that nobody is sure whether he's crazy or actually evil. But as an evil, I'm also having him notice things and say them in his own way. He refers to Setsu as Bloodfang and having a contract because that's what he believes; whether it's true or not is up for debate.

I am sort of in agreement about character control, but there are some small things that need clarification. At one point, my character interrogated Amber and I had her react by staunchly looking away; I did this because there were multiple statements and just throwing them all out there without any reaction would ruin the flow, but I didn't want to force Amber down a path her player would disagree with. Perhaps I should have asked permission for that... should we PM each other over things such as that?

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

That actually sounds like a good idea. The only unpleassantness I found the the character controle, was the assumption that Setsu is anything but a gentalman. He han hold off fer more than 5 mins from eating and all....

[Thunderbird]

I would suggest pming on such an issue I suppose, so that we may maintain the rule without allowing it to drift too far.

[Lebrenth]

I'd like to share my perspective on what I think my role is in this story.

Leroy is a character in Thunderbird's story and I have the privilege of writing about him sometimes. I don't own him any more than a factory worker owns the machines that he works with. He is a character and as long as he plays his part well, I don't mind if someone else writes about him or for him. I am not approaching this roleplaying game as a player, but as a collaborative writer who focuses on one character more than others.

Leroy is a character, not a prop. He has a personality, a story, and his own motivations. There have also been subtleties referring to his secrets. If you haven't guessed what his main secret is, and why he is in the Nuthouse instead of a normal mental institution or a 'fat farm', then you have missed the subtleties and you should re-read his parts before considering writing a lot about him. I have another plan for him that hasn't really begun, but I will happily concede this plan if another good one takes root first.

Short and sweet: if you want to write for my character, just do a good job. It's Thunderbird's story, after all, so we should be working together to help him make it a good one.

[Thunderbird]

Excellent comments, Lebby, both here and your most recent in the Nuthouse thread... strong characterization coming through there!

I must admit I haven't worked out what you've been shooting for but have been watching with interest to see where you're headed there.

[Thunderbird]

At this point, the author is needing some feedback. Voting has progressed nicely throughout the week, but I'm a bit concerned about the lack of posts. What's losing us here?

[Cyberworm]

Don't know Thundie, I'm just waiting for the end result, seeing how I already voted. :)

[Crunchyfrog]

Thunderbird wrote: At this point, the author is needing some feedback. Voting has progressed nicely throughout the week, but I'm a bit concerned about the lack of posts. What's losing us here?

Dr. Z's uberness, I think!

At the moment, it appears that the only way to stay in the game is to keep pressing the OK button, but where's the fun in that? Anything else seems to be stalling the game until Z gets his way.

For that reason, it's beginning to lose its appeal... at least for me.

[Lebrenth]

If there isn't a result for the voting, we have a stalled DP, which isn't fun. Plus I don't see how we're going to get a unanimous vote without someone electing to kill him or herself, and we only need one vote off to continue being stalled.

Even if you want to return to another round of voting, something inbetween would give us something to work with. We could argue over who gets killed, but I don't think anyone really wants to do that. Rupert started making suggestions on who to kill, and ended up with the largest number of votes against him. Leroy essentially said "Go ahead and kill me" and had hardly had any votes.

[Smee]

I tend to agree.

I was impressed with the concept of this current DP as it came out, but in practice it seems the forum nature of the story is stalling it.

In a real life situation, or perhaps a faster paced chat environment, the arguments could come rapidly, allegiances formed, a decision made. But as Lebby said, the one vote against dying would come from the victim chosen by the rest and it won't ever be unanimous unless someone is willing to be a sacrifice.

A tricky one.

[Thunderbird]

Thank you all for your commentary! That perspective really helps and some of it I've suspected.

CF wrote: Dr. Z's uberness, I think!

At the moment, it appears that the only way to stay in the game is to keep pressing the OK button, but where's the fun in that? Anything else seems to be stalling the game until Z gets his way.

For that reason, it's beginning to lose its appeal... at least for me.
I can understand where you're coming from. I was thinking that as a player you might use the character to resist this lording over the group that Z has been imposing. I'm not asking you to 'stay in the box'. He's good at making himself seem omnipowerful here... that's a big part of what he's trying to do with this, asserting his ultimate authority. But if you can think of ways to resist, by all means I invite it. The story shouldn't end up staying so linear over time. Still, without the 'stats' and some gamerules established, such as was done for Superhuman, which many of you might note Z comes from, I can see how it may be a bit difficult to moderate some conflicts that may arise. I shall be considering this and ask the rest of you to consider how that may be addressed.

Lebby wrote: If there isn't a result for the voting, we have a stalled DP, which isn't fun. Plus I don't see how we're going to get a unanimous vote without someone electing to kill him or herself, and we only need one vote off to continue being stalled.

Even if you want to return to another round of voting, something inbetween would give us something to work with. We could argue over who gets killed, but I don't think anyone really wants to do that. Rupert started making suggestions on who to kill, and ended up with the largest number of votes against him. Leroy essentially said "Go ahead and kill me" and had hardly had any votes.
I can see your point. In otherwords any strategy is likely to backfire so how can you begin to strategize? I have an idea on how to address this quandry that shall come ingame. Z is testing various theories here and even he is taking note of the near impossibility of such a concensus being possible.


Smee wrote: In a real life situation, or perhaps a faster paced chat environment, the arguments could come rapidly, allegiances formed, a decision made.
And this was what I was looking for only to find the futility of this situation overwhelming the capacity for useful discussions. I wonder if a mid-game storychat might solve some of this... any likelyhood we'd all be able to get together for that?

I've been interested in this storychat revival but unable to promise any commitments so far. That said, if a gridlock persists we might have to do something of that nature to break it free...

[Cyberworm]

A question, if I may ask. Seems like my character is on the no-death list, now does that mean I can still vote? I mean, how can you tell if someone voted for himself to stay alive? I doubt anyone would do that, but still I'm unwilling to vote in any poll that regards me as a writer or my characters.

[Thunderbird]

All within the room may vote. I don't see why anyone wouldn't vote for themselves to survive. And I wasn't sure how to interpret what you meant by that last bit.

[Cyberworm]

What I meant was that I usually don't vote in a poll in which there is something that regards me personally (be it SGoTM or something) or my characters in a roleplay. :D

[Thunderbird]

Well, in this case, Cy, consider yourself a character in the room, one of the few who has a vote at all.

And to all... this is a puzzle, really. The first question is exactly what CF asked ingame... what does he stand to gain from this? Any theories?

[Thunderbird]

My Lord that was a great post Lebby! Amazing character depth coming through there!

[Lebrenth]

Thanks TB, I bet it would even be better if I didn't switch back and forth between past and present tense too.... I better go fix that now. While I'm at it, I better double check MIG, as I've forgotten this is a regular problem I have....

Masterweaver, you still around? What do you think of the situation? Leroy and Rupert have already had conflict, so bunking together would be insane right? Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Crunchyfrog]

Smee's not around much at the moment either - but my character has just asked to bunk with his.

What will happen if a character's author disappears for a time?

[Thunderbird]

MW's been a bit distant as well... I'm considering this already. Any suggestions everyone?

[Cyberworm]

I suggest tranquilizing the characters whose authors are not present for, let's say, 4 days. :) Or doing something really, really mean to them. :D

[Lebrenth]

Well, a proper storygame is intended to be a mass media interactive story. If the original author isn't available, give the character to someone else. Actually, I originally thought no one had their own character, except perhaps TB, who controlled the puppetmaster, so to speak.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

I think TB should take over inhert characters...more than a week of no activity, and he should make a few of the simpler decissions for them!