The Cam, huh?
Cross Posted from a Comment left in Zack's journal...
1. CHARACTERS DIE
There is a difference between a character dying to story, and a character dying to being curb stomped by people because they -can-. When a character dies to story, there is closure, there is some kind of intangible reward (in most cases, with a good ST). When a character dies simply because other characters -can- kill it (rather than explore other options of dealing with whatever issues their characters have with the target). The excuse of, "Well, my character is Low Humanity, so he would do that" is a fallacy. Low Humanity characters are not stupid, and are quite capable of weighing risk vs. benefit. Additionally, just because you are Low Humanity doesn't mean that you don't know right from wrong - it just means you're less likely to feel bad about it when you do something wrong.
2. CHARACTERS LIE
Yes, characters lie. I'm not sure I understand the issue with this.
3. PEOPLE ARE BUSY AND IMPERFECT
True. That does not, however, absolve them of the responsibility to make things right if their busy-ness or imperfections have caused another person harm. Additionally, if people are too busy to perform their duties as an officer, then they need to either hire an assistant to help them with those duties, or they need to step down. Continuing in a position that you don't have time for just hurts the organization.
4. LARPS ARE NOT ALL ALIKE
Really? I had -no- idea.
Seriously, though, while I could quibble with your definition of the Forsaken Venue (due to my own strong views on the subject!), I'm just kinda curious why this is even an issue?
5. YOU ARE NOT YOUR CHARACTER
I've never said you were. Hell, I wrote a short ethnography on the subject.
At the same time, while we are not our characters, we sink a lot of ourselves into our characters (or, at least, most people do). When people are mean or cruel to our characters, it can hurt. This is human nature, and it isn't really in the realm of "right" or "wrong." A lot of people make characters that can do things the player only dreams of. They sort of live out their dreams thru their characters, and when that dream is smashed into little tiny pieces, it hurts. Maybe you don't think it's right, but there it is.
6. IT IS THE VST'S JOB TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT
Wrong. It is the VST's job to make the game fair and fun for everyone involved, not just the minorty, and not just the majority.
If you have 10 people at the game, and 7 are having a great time, but 3 are feeling totally left out, it is the VST's responsibility to try to steer the game in a direction that includes the left out few, and makes the game fun for them, as well. There should be room for multiple styles of play within the same game, and none of those styles has to step on another style if the VST does things right.
7. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENJOY YOURSELF
I disagree, but only in part. I do believe that it is the responsibility of the player to make a workable character that they both enjoy and that fits within the game they are playing. But I also believe that it is the responsibility of the VST to reach out to the players who are having a hard time fitting in, or who do not appear to be having fun, or who are bored. Why do you think that every Convention has roaming STs whose sole purpose is to find people who look like they're not enjoying themselves and bring the plot to them? Because that's what an ST's job is.
8. IT IS NOT THE ST'S JOB TO CONTROL CHARACTERS
No. But it is the ST's job to make sure that the players understand fully the consequences of their character's actions, ESPECIALLY if they are new. For instance, if a character comes in with the "bright" idea that he's going to randomly diablerize a PC, the VST should take that player aside and explain, in detail, what the consequences of such an action are within our chronicle, and then once he or she is certain the player understands what they are doing, and what may result from it, let the character do what it will.
Additionally, if a character is actively excluding other characters from plot on a consistent basis, it is the VST's job to take that player aside privately and remind the player that plot is meant to be shared. It's entirely possible that the player does not realize that they're hogging plot the ST means to be shared. At the same time, the players who are feeling frustrated by the shut out (as I know I would be feeling) need to act IC on that frustration. Exclude the original PC from plot, if they can. Work around that character. View him or her as an obstacle and simply think outside of the box. But the worst thing that can happen in this situation is for OOC feelings to fester due to a player's unthinking, inconsiderate actions. And a lot of times, players DON'T REALIZE they're doing this (which is why it's important for the ST to step in and remind them that they're supposed to be playing their characters as storytellers, too, and that plot is a priviledge - not a right).
9. IF YOU CLOSE YOURSELF OFF TO DEBATE, IT'S BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG AND ARE TOO PRIDEFUL TO ADMIT IT
This is entirely unfair.
Sometimes people are simply too upset to think coherantly. Do you want to have a debate with someone who is so emotional that they can't even understand half of what you're saying, much less formulate a coherant response? It is unfair to expect such a person to respond to a debate immediately, and it is far better for them to take a step back and say, "I really can't talk about this right now."
Just because someone cannot emotionally deal with a situation doesn't make them wrong. Think about this, Zack - would you rather I came at you with all the emotion I'm feeling, or would you rather that I sat back, calmed down, and came back later with a logical and coherant response that COULD be debated?
As Luke said, everyone deals with everything differently. Just because your way of coping is having a reasoned, logical debate, doesn't make someone else's way of coping wrong.
10. THE WORST FORM OF ARROGANCE IS THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD CHANGE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO
Actually, I would say that the worst form of arrogance is assuming that just because you are "right" in your eyes, it's okay to stomp all over the feelings and desires of people who disagree with you (and I am guilty of this myself).
You are entitled to your own beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of a situation. You are not, however, entitled to hurt other people because you disagree with their viewpoints. You are not entitled to stomp over their beliefs, their desires, and their dreams. We really should consider the feelings and hopes of other people to be as sacred as our own, but I guess that it's a lot easier to just treat people like dirt because it makes us feel better.
I sometimes wonder, as well, why it is that people never seem to realize that when someone lashes out, it's almost always out of pain. I do not believe it is in the nature of most people to hurt without cause (unless they're sadists, but then there is a cause, amirite?). When people lash out, it's usually because they're hurting. Lashing out is a defensive mechanism - "Get away from me or I WILL hurt you to protect me!" It's just really hard to remember that when you're feeling your face get melted off by the venom being spewed by someone else.
P.S. No, we're not all friends anymore. But we were, once. I don't know what has happened to the organization that I joined in 2002, but the Camarilla I'm currently looking at isn't it. This disregard for other people, this focus on selfishness and the "me" in everything makes me sick. It used to be that we told stories together. Now it seems like we're playing Vampire: the Requiem OOCly. Something's got to give. Maybe you enjoy the Cam as it is now, but a lot of other people don't. I know I don't.
1. CHARACTERS DIE
There is a difference between a character dying to story, and a character dying to being curb stomped by people because they -can-. When a character dies to story, there is closure, there is some kind of intangible reward (in most cases, with a good ST). When a character dies simply because other characters -can- kill it (rather than explore other options of dealing with whatever issues their characters have with the target). The excuse of, "Well, my character is Low Humanity, so he would do that" is a fallacy. Low Humanity characters are not stupid, and are quite capable of weighing risk vs. benefit. Additionally, just because you are Low Humanity doesn't mean that you don't know right from wrong - it just means you're less likely to feel bad about it when you do something wrong.
2. CHARACTERS LIE
Yes, characters lie. I'm not sure I understand the issue with this.
3. PEOPLE ARE BUSY AND IMPERFECT
True. That does not, however, absolve them of the responsibility to make things right if their busy-ness or imperfections have caused another person harm. Additionally, if people are too busy to perform their duties as an officer, then they need to either hire an assistant to help them with those duties, or they need to step down. Continuing in a position that you don't have time for just hurts the organization.
4. LARPS ARE NOT ALL ALIKE
Really? I had -no- idea.
Seriously, though, while I could quibble with your definition of the Forsaken Venue (due to my own strong views on the subject!), I'm just kinda curious why this is even an issue?
5. YOU ARE NOT YOUR CHARACTER
I've never said you were. Hell, I wrote a short ethnography on the subject.
At the same time, while we are not our characters, we sink a lot of ourselves into our characters (or, at least, most people do). When people are mean or cruel to our characters, it can hurt. This is human nature, and it isn't really in the realm of "right" or "wrong." A lot of people make characters that can do things the player only dreams of. They sort of live out their dreams thru their characters, and when that dream is smashed into little tiny pieces, it hurts. Maybe you don't think it's right, but there it is.
6. IT IS THE VST'S JOB TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT
Wrong. It is the VST's job to make the game fair and fun for everyone involved, not just the minorty, and not just the majority.
If you have 10 people at the game, and 7 are having a great time, but 3 are feeling totally left out, it is the VST's responsibility to try to steer the game in a direction that includes the left out few, and makes the game fun for them, as well. There should be room for multiple styles of play within the same game, and none of those styles has to step on another style if the VST does things right.
7. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENJOY YOURSELF
I disagree, but only in part. I do believe that it is the responsibility of the player to make a workable character that they both enjoy and that fits within the game they are playing. But I also believe that it is the responsibility of the VST to reach out to the players who are having a hard time fitting in, or who do not appear to be having fun, or who are bored. Why do you think that every Convention has roaming STs whose sole purpose is to find people who look like they're not enjoying themselves and bring the plot to them? Because that's what an ST's job is.
8. IT IS NOT THE ST'S JOB TO CONTROL CHARACTERS
No. But it is the ST's job to make sure that the players understand fully the consequences of their character's actions, ESPECIALLY if they are new. For instance, if a character comes in with the "bright" idea that he's going to randomly diablerize a PC, the VST should take that player aside and explain, in detail, what the consequences of such an action are within our chronicle, and then once he or she is certain the player understands what they are doing, and what may result from it, let the character do what it will.
Additionally, if a character is actively excluding other characters from plot on a consistent basis, it is the VST's job to take that player aside privately and remind the player that plot is meant to be shared. It's entirely possible that the player does not realize that they're hogging plot the ST means to be shared. At the same time, the players who are feeling frustrated by the shut out (as I know I would be feeling) need to act IC on that frustration. Exclude the original PC from plot, if they can. Work around that character. View him or her as an obstacle and simply think outside of the box. But the worst thing that can happen in this situation is for OOC feelings to fester due to a player's unthinking, inconsiderate actions. And a lot of times, players DON'T REALIZE they're doing this (which is why it's important for the ST to step in and remind them that they're supposed to be playing their characters as storytellers, too, and that plot is a priviledge - not a right).
9. IF YOU CLOSE YOURSELF OFF TO DEBATE, IT'S BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG AND ARE TOO PRIDEFUL TO ADMIT IT
This is entirely unfair.
Sometimes people are simply too upset to think coherantly. Do you want to have a debate with someone who is so emotional that they can't even understand half of what you're saying, much less formulate a coherant response? It is unfair to expect such a person to respond to a debate immediately, and it is far better for them to take a step back and say, "I really can't talk about this right now."
Just because someone cannot emotionally deal with a situation doesn't make them wrong. Think about this, Zack - would you rather I came at you with all the emotion I'm feeling, or would you rather that I sat back, calmed down, and came back later with a logical and coherant response that COULD be debated?
As Luke said, everyone deals with everything differently. Just because your way of coping is having a reasoned, logical debate, doesn't make someone else's way of coping wrong.
10. THE WORST FORM OF ARROGANCE IS THE IDEA THAT OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD CHANGE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO
Actually, I would say that the worst form of arrogance is assuming that just because you are "right" in your eyes, it's okay to stomp all over the feelings and desires of people who disagree with you (and I am guilty of this myself).
You are entitled to your own beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of a situation. You are not, however, entitled to hurt other people because you disagree with their viewpoints. You are not entitled to stomp over their beliefs, their desires, and their dreams. We really should consider the feelings and hopes of other people to be as sacred as our own, but I guess that it's a lot easier to just treat people like dirt because it makes us feel better.
I sometimes wonder, as well, why it is that people never seem to realize that when someone lashes out, it's almost always out of pain. I do not believe it is in the nature of most people to hurt without cause (unless they're sadists, but then there is a cause, amirite?). When people lash out, it's usually because they're hurting. Lashing out is a defensive mechanism - "Get away from me or I WILL hurt you to protect me!" It's just really hard to remember that when you're feeling your face get melted off by the venom being spewed by someone else.
P.S. No, we're not all friends anymore. But we were, once. I don't know what has happened to the organization that I joined in 2002, but the Camarilla I'm currently looking at isn't it. This disregard for other people, this focus on selfishness and the "me" in everything makes me sick. It used to be that we told stories together. Now it seems like we're playing Vampire: the Requiem OOCly. Something's got to give. Maybe you enjoy the Cam as it is now, but a lot of other people don't. I know I don't.