The Waiting Game
-
It sounds like Sam's just not into that plot. Forcing it is likely to not get you much satisfaction, as @Arkandel mentioned. It could also be that he just forgot, and another gentle nudge might get clarity on what's going on.
In general, though, how long you put your own fun on hold for someone else is more of a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer. Couple of other options to consider:
- Go ahead with the plot with someone else (perhaps a NPC) in Sam's role.
- Work out what happens off-camera with Sam so the plot can proceed.
- Try to pin down Sam to a specific date/time. "How about Tuesday evening" in general works a little better than "Let's play sometime."
-
@Arkandel said:
And you'd have been justified to, but where did you read Sam asked the OP to make Ingrid?
It is reasonably inferred from Ingrid's statement about having her background tied intimately into Sam's. You generally don't do that without Sam's knowledge or consent, so I presumed that Sam had knowledge that Ingrid was coming in as Ingrid. And if you have that knowledge -- and give consent to have one's BG tied so closely to another -- you're implicitly inviting that person into your PC's life.
Certainly, it was reasonable for Ingrid to presume that Sam would make time for her, especially after he said he wouldn't. And then he didn't.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said:
It is reasonably inferred from Ingrid's statement about having her background tied intimately into Sam's. You generally don't do that without Sam's knowledge or consent, so I presumed that Sam had knowledge that Ingrid was coming in as Ingrid.
If that's the case I'll retract my statement, but my assumption was the background ties were due to the source material - in the Maltese Falcon the two are tied together - rather than that Sam explicitly asked Ingrid to roll the character then neglected her. Yes, that'd be a very dick move to make.
In many cases staff only make sure FC game-specific backgrounds don't actually conflict though. We don't even know if they make sure players communicate when someone applies to someone they are intimately tied to in canon.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
From her post, I did not get the impression that Ingrid app'd in with Sam's cooperation; it sounded to me like the characters are linked in history/the source material, rather than something agreed on, and given it's NOT a situation like a leadership role (just playing an FC on a comic game doesn't qualify unless there are specific rules pertaining to this), I'm with @Arkandel on this one. Sam's player doesn't owe her anything, and to be honest if I were Sam and I read this about her considering asking staff to MAKE me play with her? That would not make me want to play with her more.
-
@Sunny said:
From her post, I did not get the impression that Ingrid app'd in with Sam's cooperation; it sounded to me like the characters are linked in history/the source material, rather than something agreed on, and given it's NOT a situation like a leadership role (just playing an FC on a comic game doesn't qualify unless there are specific rules pertaining to this), I'm with @Arkandel on this one. Sam's player doesn't owe her anything, and to be honest if I were Sam and I read this about her considering asking staff to MAKE me play with her? That would not make me want to play with her more.
Sunny, you ignorant slut.
No, I have no witty rejoinder here, but, for the moment, I thought it might be funny if I went all Justice Scalia on your Notorious RBG opinion.
-
@Ganymede I laughed.
Seriously, though.
I play a character in a position of responsibility on a place now, though the requirements aren't super heavy or anything. I also have a somewhat limited schedule right now. My turn-around is about two weeks for getting "second level" important scenes done (things that aren't completely holding up someone else's RP) -- this stretches out longer if I have to, say, get someone else involved first. My to-do list is currently about 15 things long. I do not mind this, it keeps me busy, though it's really frustrating to log in with free time and oh of course, nobody I need to be working with is around. I totally signed up for this and all, and I do think that two weeks is reasonably fair.
If someone were to app into my characters' family without speaking to me about it and then got mad because I hadn't gotten to them in a time-frame that they felt reasonable? The scene we had after staff made me do it (if they did; I'm pretty sure they'd just laugh at the request) would be brief. Very brief.
Now, let's say that this person has a habit of making characters trying to find one that will make me play with them...or they've been stalking me...or they're already somebody I know I don't get along with...or they're a well known whiny bitch with a serious entitlement problem. Not that any of these things are necessarily the case here, but this is the sort of red flag that goes up for me in this type of circumstance.
-
@Arkandel said:
@Ganymede said:
It is reasonably inferred from Ingrid's statement about having her background tied intimately into Sam's. You generally don't do that without Sam's knowledge or consent, so I presumed that Sam had knowledge that Ingrid was coming in as Ingrid.
If that's the case I'll retract my statement, but my assumption was the background ties were due to the source material - in the Maltese Falcon the two are tied together - rather than that Sam explicitly asked Ingrid to roll the character then neglected her. Yes, that'd be a very dick move to make.
Mostly, this thread reminds me that it's been way too long since I watched The Maltese Falcon.
-
@sunny How would you feel about @mail that said that hey we can have met IC, the new PC is fairly reasonable etc, and unless there are very specific questions that must be addressed, nothing is urgent?
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
@Misadventure It's my understanding the OP already tried this (and even had other characters do so on her behalf)?
-
I've been on the more negative end of this kind of scenario. A new player apped into a game and reached out to me and other PCs to let us know that she wanted to base her BG on a shared background history. Our PCs didn't know each other in the BG but came from the same group/location.
I should have asked for more information but just... didn't. Work, life, an assumption that the player wouldn't be crazy about it. But no, they were totally crazy about it and turned into a gratuitously grimdark bog of awful that included human trafficking and torture porn.
So when the PC wanted to RP on grid, my exact response was 'fuck no, take that elsewhere.'
I'm not saying that's what happened here to that extreme but there may be something about the PCs background that Sam is in disagreement with and they're uncomfortable with RP with the PC as a result? This might be worth examining.
-
@Sunny I don't think anyone but @Arkandel suggested staff make people RP together. He just likes his straw men.
What I said was... If you (in this case, actually you as your persona on KD) accepted a position of authority/power/etc (such as you have) and went two weeks without giving someone something other than "yeah we should totally RP eventually" despite their repeat efforts, AND you failed to go to staff or otherwise find an alternative to RPing with this person, then I would want staff to take action, mostly in the form of removing you from that position.
Again, since apparently I was unclear, if you stand up and say "I will do this thing" in an RP community and then do not do this thing, I think you should no longer be in charge of this thing. No one is suggesting forcing two people to RP together, because that's absurd. To quote myself: "Don't want to have to RP with anyone? Don't sign up to be a leader. Don't want to RP with a specific person? Talk to staff. Agreeing to do something then not doing it is rude."
Now, @Arkandel has pointed out that we're apparently talking about a Maltese Falcon game, or playing characters from that story, which I honestly know nothing about (which I guess makes me the ignorant slut). Nowhere in OP's prompt did s/he mention this, so I only have OP's prompt to go off of. If it's the case that this is a preexisting character, it brings up a whole lot of questions, mostly around how obligated are you to stick to whatever your source material is. I got no idea. I've never played a pre-made character, or a character from literature, or etc. I would like to believe that any game that uses premade/literary/etc characters would already have a rule about this very situation, because it seems like it would come up a lot.
My whole point was based off @Arkandel's statement: "No matter what you are never obligated to play with one specific person."
I believe, again, that if we agree to the obligation then we are obligated. Instead of RPing with someone, you might be able to pass off the duty/responsibility/scene. You might be able to work with staff to find a solution. You might be able to work with the individual player to answer questions (or approve a story) without actually having to do the scene. But, ya know, if someone steps up and says "I'll take X duty" they ought to do it, or handle not doing it.
-
@Misadventure said:
How would you feel about @mail that said that hey we can have met IC, the new PC is fairly reasonable etc, and unless there are very specific questions that must be addressed, nothing is urgent?
Handling things via @mail or the like isn't a particular issue I have. I definitely don't mind doing that when schedules don't work or the like. If the question is more about somebody coming in knowing my PC without talking to me FIRST?
Light it on fire.
I believe, again, that if we agree to the obligation then we are obligated. Instead of RPing with someone, you might be able to pass off the duty/responsibility/scene. You might be able to work with staff to find a solution. You might be able to work with the individual player to answer questions (or approve a story) without actually having to do the scene. But, ya know, if someone steps up and says "I'll take X duty" they ought to do it, or handle not doing it.
I can agree to a general obligation without agreeing to specific pieces of it. When I signed up to play a Duchesse, I didn't sign up to play with my stalker, who is using my position as a Duchesse to try and force it. I do not have any specific obligation to that player to play with them.
-
@Sunny said:
I can agree to a general obligation without agreeing to specific pieces of it. When I signed up to play a Duchesse, I didn't sign up to play with my stalker, who is using my position as a Duchesse to try and force it. I do not have any specific obligation to that player to play with them.
Of course. But I imagine you communicated with someone about this person? Staff, someone else in your house? This is why I had originally suggested it's important to know if this other player is ignoring you as an individual, or just being derelict in their duties.
-
@Sunny I don't think anyone but @Arkandel suggested staff make people RP together. He just likes his straw men.
Alright, maybe I was wrong. Let's see.
What I said was... If you (in this case, actually you as your persona on KD) accepted a position of authority/power/etc (such as you have) and went two weeks without giving someone something other than "yeah we should totally RP eventually" despite their repeat efforts, AND you failed to go to staff or otherwise find an alternative to RPing with this person, then I would want staff to take action, mostly in the form of removing you from that position.
... Huh. So you are not saying staff should force people to RP together... just that they'd punish those people unless they do so. Gotcha.
Again, since apparently I was unclear, if you stand up and say "I will do this thing" in an RP community and then do not do this thing, I think you should no longer be in charge of this thing. No one is suggesting forcing two people to RP together, because that's absurd. To quote myself: "Don't want to have to RP with anyone? Don't sign up to be a leader. Don't want to RP with a specific person? Talk to staff. Agreeing to do something then not doing it is rude."
How are you sure, without knowing the rules of that game, that that's what the person who plays Sam signed up for? For all we know unless shown otherwise all he stood up and said was "I'll play Sam". I even demonstrated how on many games the only responsibility of FCs towards each other is to not have conflicting backgrounds - so for example if Jean Grey hasn't been through the alternate universe stuff and someone apps Rachel Grey, the latter needs to figure out a way to explain her birth. Somehow. It's all still confusing to me.
Now, @Arkandel has pointed out that we're apparently talking about a Maltese Falcon game, or playing characters from that story, which I honestly know nothing about (which I guess makes me the ignorant slut).
I googled it! Although Sam Spade did ring a bell.
My whole point was based off @Arkandel's statement: "No matter what you are never obligated to play with one specific person."
And I absolutely stand by it. You never are and you should never be. I would be willing to clarify though that by "play with" I didn't mean a random one-time scene but something consistent and ongoing; you should never have to, unless it was part of what you signed up for, and if it was you should have obviously said no.
Staff - sane staff - would never make anyone do so. As @Sunny said, if someone went over and told KD staff that because she has a position she has to play with them and they should totally make her, they'd laugh that person out of the +job.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel There's a big giant wide gulf between forcing someone to RP with a person, and finding alternative solutions to when they do not want to RP with a person, or more pointedly, asking a player who does not want to do the job he or she has signed up to do to step down.
In my original response, I had a series of questions, ideas, stipulations. My response was to your blanket statement, which you stand by. Obviously more details are needed, but I'll stand by my statement as well: If you take on responsibilities and obligations, you are responsible and obligated. Guess we can agree to disagree on what those words mean.
-
Personally (for whatever that is worth) once a character hits the grid, their loyalty to 'canon' is gone. They are free to do whatever it is they do, so long as it makes sense for the character in question. If Sam is avoiding the RP, then they are avoiding the character, and the character is free to react to that. Maybe they just get frustrated that they are being dodged, or just angry with the world at going against them in this fashion.
You should never put your fun on 'hold' for another unless you choose to, RP the character, have fun, use the fact that Sam Spade /isn't/ communicating with your character as an RP launching point.
Especially if the person is active with both that character, and others. They have made a choice to not RP with you at that point, you reap what you sow.
I'd give no more than a few days of unresponsiveness to @mails to set something up before I would go my own way. If you are concerned about it, contact staff, tell them what's going on and why you are going to do what you're going to do otherwise you are being held hostage by someone else and that's not right.
This is part of why I dislike FC driven games, the idea of being 'true' to the character is so subjective, people see a character one way, another see's it another, based on their own perceptions and it's rare that anyone's take on a character is universally lauded.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
@Lithium said:
If Sam is avoiding the RP, then they are avoiding the character, and the character is free to react to that. Maybe they just get frustrated that they are being dodged, or just angry with the world at going against them in this fashion.
Oh my God that is 100% not true. You can't just say that someone who is OOCly unavailable -- even if you think they're avoiding you/don't really want to play with you -- is also avoiding your character ICly. If I have a busy couple of days and don't have time to RP and I come back to the game and see a character insisting that mine is avoiding them and/or absent from their responsibilities or something like that, I'd be pissed.
-
@Roz Sure they are. They are making the time to RP with everyone else BUT the person who needs the RP. They have @mailed. They have paged. They have done everything reasonable to try and be conducive to RP.
Sam is avoiding the RP while RP'ing with others.
This isn't a case of not being around at all and unavailable, this is a case where the person is RP'ing with /many/ other people, on /many/ characters, and not RP'ing with someone who is connected to their character, so that the person can forwards their own RP.
What should they do? Nothing? Give up on their character? Allow it to be held hostage by another? There comes a point where you have to say enough is enough and have fun playing the game rather than rely on that other person.
I'm not saying you don't communicate what you are doing, in fact I would put that in an @mail to Sam Spade in this case, saying look, I need to move forwards on this and I am left with little options here.
Yadda yadda.
-
This whole thing just stinks of a serious entitlement issue to me. Most folks in the hobby don't live online any more.
Making decisions for someone else's character is never okay to do as another player without permission. If someone were to start ICly saying that my character was avoiding them / not doing their job because our schedules weren't meshing, I'd be going to staff immediately -- and justifiably -- and having a stop put to that right quick, because it's NOT okay.
-
@Sunny This isn't a case of schedules not meshing... and note I said
"or just angry with the world at going against them in this fashion."
This means they RP that they haven't been able to meet up with someone for whatever reason. The hard truth of the matter is that they /haven't/ been able to RP with someone. Maybe it is avoiding them, maybe it's just not being able to meet up, but @Roz and @Sunny ... in the case presented /in this thread/ the person playing Sam is not just /not around/.
They are around.
A lot.
They are for whatever reason, playing multiple scenes with multiple other people with multiple other characters and making vague promises about RP that have gone on for a long time.
When is to much to much? When do you get the right to move on and just play your character?
