De Profundis Correspondence Game

[Genevieve]

You know, this reminds me of an FSF SIM I once did via email -- we were a colony, used Yahoo Groups to send email messages back and forth to the group. Each person played one character -- we interacted a lot to advance the plot line ooc in chat, and posted what we agreed to happen (or did a back and forth via chat and then posted that) or what our charrie was thinking etc. *Smiles fondly* That was actually quite fun. This is similar to that, and I think could work in a similar way. If we had enough people playing we would only take one character, but since we don't have many at this point, more than one works. Anyway, we rped in the Star Trek world but this one could really be anything we want.

[Rebma]

The whole point is to conflict stories though, and eventually through numerous accounts, come up with a picture of what "happened". The point isn't to agree with everything, if I understand correctly. That's just not any fun...

[Russell of Los Angeles]

I was working under some assumptions of etiquette (up until my last letter):

1) Don't dictate anything too severe about another PC, e.g., killing them, locking them up permanently, destroying their home (or something in the setting that is tightly tied to their character), killing NPCs that are closest to them, such as family members (or lawyers that they had just introduced :p) etc.

2) Assume that what any character writes is true until they admit to a falsehood or contradict themselves. (this rule inspired by the Lexicon game).

So, because of unwritten rule #2, I assumed that Clair had really died (though i did think of adding an additional letter from dr. ahkbar saying that he saw Clair later, but that would have been after I had already broke rule #1 myself).

The problem with PC v PC conflict is that, if they can't kill each other, they can still mess up all of each other's background and plot points, by say, directing larger and larger armies to fight over the Botanical Dome or whatever it is. So, I think that elements of SETTING and CHARACTERS (NPCs) that a player introduces should fall under their jurisdiction as something that other players cannot outright kill/destroy either.

For example, let's say I play Dr. Ahkbar and have Alpha Complex, and Genevieve plays Lilly and has the Botanical Dome as her setting, and Dudel plays Command Woordall and has jurisdiction of the orbiting space station. If I send Dr. Ahkbar up to the space station, then Dudel is something like the moderator of conflict between Dr. Ahkbar and Lilly if they were to get in an argument about something. Maybe he could introduce an NPC that intends to quarantine Dr. Ahkbar on suspicion of contracting Space Disease X, and I as a player could choose to consent to having Ahkbar locked up for a bit. I don't know, I'm just typing as I think here.

Anyway, I think the lesson here is that we have to be a little more explicit with our rules of etiquette.

Here's an example of one player messing up another player's building mystery:
"I stayed at the only motel I could find, and I didn't sleep well. During the night I kept hearing a strange scratching sound at the window. I don't know... maybe I was dreaming it."

mediocre response:
"Oh yeah! I stayed at the same motel and heard the scratching sound too! I got up to check, and found that it was just a tree branch."
better response?:
"Oh yeah! I stayed at the same motel and heard the scratching sound too. I got up to check, but I didn't see anything at all."

So, the first response sort of ruined the building mystery that the first player was trying to set up. The alternative response instead takes it and builds the mystery.

What do you think? Should we try for that sort of handling of setting and NPCs?

[Genevieve]

I think that's a good idea. I still think if you are unsure, PM the other person -- looks like all of us are on enough that it shouldn't be a problem to get a response.

[joo]

I'd say its best to avoid large groups like military organisations, or any events that will dramatically change the settings, such as a takeover and suddenly killing a whole lot of characters. The rules won't be needed as much if the plot isn't so turbulent and constantly changing.

I'd think of it as building something piece by piece, instead of a whole lot of people all grabbing a piece of putty and each trying to shape it into a different form.

[Dudel]

According to play by post rules this game IN ITSELF doesn't have etiquette as you may state ANYTHING as fact about another players character. That was my point, that in order for this to work you need "like minded people" to play.

I was working under some assumptions of etiquette (up until my last letter):

1) Don't dictate anything too severe about another PC, e.g., killing them, locking them up permanently, destroying their home (or something in the setting that is tightly tied to their character), killing NPCs that are closest to them, such as family members (or lawyers that they had just introduced :p) etc.

2) Assume that what any character writes is true until they admit to a falsehood or contradict themselves. (this rule inspired by the Lexicon game).

I'd say its best to avoid large groups like military organisations, or any events that will dramatically change the settings, such as a takeover and suddenly killing a whole lot of characters. The rules won't be needed as much if the plot isn't so turbulent and constantly changing.

I'd think of it as building something piece by piece, instead of a whole lot of people all grabbing a piece of putty and each trying to shape it into a different form.

The whole point is to conflict stories though, and eventually through numerous accounts, come up with a picture of what "happened". The point isn't to agree with everything, if I understand correctly. That's just not any fun...

That was my point, that in order for this to work you need "like minded people" to play.

[joo]

Nice mode of communication there Dudel! I don't fully see what you're trying to imply, unless you mean that those three quotes were what you were originally trying to say. I'd disagree with that, as they have their own valid points.

[Debsy]

haha joo. I didn't quite catch it either.

[Dudel]

They were not what "I was trying to say" but are what I was trying to imply or get the gist of.

The first and last only make the ones between more validating.

A game "like this" wont work to well unless everyone is "on the same page" or think in a similar manner. Otherwise someone might get mad when something "drastic" may have happened.

Which is why Love Craft's works... work.

While the standard play by post rules state that you may NEVER control a fellow Rpers characters in ANY MANNER this one does not. The "unwritten rule" was a common think I did not subscribe to as the game itself "breaks etiquette".

soo...

That was my point, that in order for this to work you need "like minded people" to play.

I was the "odd man out" as Russel was implying by the fact other players should have ignored me all together. Because I "did not fit" with the group mentality.

This is common when others have control over another character, even NPCs. Usually the DM/GM has "final say" but NPCs are "free game" for most parts in play by post. STILL I did NOT ACTUALLY KILL the player character of Carla or the lawyer. THAT was y'alls doing, not mine!

You did not think in a manner as I, when I almost ASSUMED someone would claim my character full of shit, as that was the rules to begin with.... that is, of course, not including the unwritten ones that I disregarded because of the core rules of this game contradicting them. Not to mention that writing in character is by the CHARACTERS POV NOT THE PLAYERS. I as the player NEVER kill PCs and I did not think a "note" was needed to explain based on the rules of the game.

joo's copy-paste quote was only to show compromise to meeting everyone on the same wave of thought. If everyone IS NOT thinking the same thing... then there is issue.

This, however, makes the game limited fun... at least for me, as then there is no more contradiction among characters. Unless you wish to fully format the game, in which case you are no longer playing a game but witting a story and in that event it should be made more clear. Again, I was not thinking in a manner which you were.

Note: I am not upset, only explaining.

[Genevieve]

Hm, good point Dudel. Wow -- who knew I'd say that? JK

Anyway, yeah, I guess the point there is that we made it true by following it up in our own posts...in which case I guess we can always say "Can you believe what so-and-so said! SO NOT TRUE" or whatever -- and leave others to play along, thus making one true, or another.

[amika-babilfrenzo]

When can we start this up again? It looks interesting.

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Dudel, don't try to shirk your responsiblity of killing off Carla by saying that it was actually other people who did it. By making such a strong implication that she was dead, that's the way other players took it. You may, however, shirk your responsibility of killing off Carla by saying that she's NOT ACTUALLY DEAD. The closest thing to a "rule" that I could find on the first page is this:

I think the guiding principle would be that whatever gets referenced IG by more than one character becomes cannon for the setting.

Carla's death has not yet been referenced by a second character, in writing, as far as I can see. So, it's still possible for anyone to claim she's alive without breaking the above "rule".

Anyway, Dudel, I'm still not really understanding your point about needing like-minded people. It seems that, if you had wanted to, you could have chosen to be of like mind with the rest of the group. Instead, you seemed to play in a way to demonstrate that we need more explicit rules.

Do you want more rules? Or do you want to "play nice"?

[Russell of Los Angeles]

When can we start this up again? It looks interesting.

Yeah, I hope we can start up again as soon as we get the Rules For Dudels hammered out.

Pardon my Dudelism.

[amika-babilfrenzo]

Dear Diary,

It feels like I haven't slept in days. I don't know now, it all rolls together. Anyway, I saw this creepy guy outside, then when I came in I kept hearing these noises. Tinny or something. I freaked out, but I'll write more about that in the morning. I hate working on a prison planet like Grakwath.

Daniel F.

---

DEAR SAMUEL,
IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT YOU HAVE NOT RETURNED ITEM 'Legends of the Kuiper Belt' FOR FIVE MONTH(S). THE FINE IS NOW $10.64. IF YOU DO NOT RETURN THE ITEM AND PAY YOUR FINES, THE CHARGE WILL BE HANDED TO A COLLECTION COMPANY.

LIBRARY OF SOL AUTOMATED RESPONSE SYSTEM

[Russell of Los Angeles]

Okay, looks like a great continuation! I lawl'd at that overdue notice.

How about this for rules: There are no rules but for the rules of any other forum thread. You are free to respond however you like, including ignoring the entries of players. If you don't want your entries ignored, I would recommend being respectful of the settings, characters, and plots that are shared by other players.

IG conflict is great; that's plot*. But plot should not be confused with competition between players.

If it should arise that a number of players want to take the plot in a direction that a number of other players disagree with, then the story may be regarded as having two or more alternatives, or split universes, that may intertwine, merge, and split again.

I'm done writing rules!

Dear Carla,

The Science Commission has asked me to take a sample of crystals to Grakwath to help with the agriculture there, and I accepted. There's been some research into potential for using the crystals for rehabilitation of the population, as well. We'll see how it goes.

Yours,
Richard

*edit: conflict is a part of plot; plot also has resolution. 1. conflict 2. resolution 3. repeat