Edmonton Game Poll

I am not sure where the vehemence comes from.

Referring back to my initial posting, I said that the Shared Universe was amazing.  I also said that it created more hurt feelings and hatred then you can imagine.

Already this is turning out to be true.

Cory - you are not being attacked.  People are posing legitimate concerns, and many assumptions that have been made, still have not been alleviated.

Let me ask the following questions:

1) Why is Matt not on the Boards answering these questions?
2) Why is Kyle staying silent on these questions?
3) Why can't Matt and Kyle come to an agreement on what constitutes a starting character?
4) Why do I not start a character in Edmonton and then just play him in Red Deer...easy way to gain 30xp?
5) Why do I get more (or less) xp playing in an Edmonton game then in a Red Deer game?
6) If a Red Deer players goes to Edmonton (or vice versa) for a game will they get xp for it?
7) Is Edmonton going to fully incorporate the Red Deer history into their own game?
8) Is there consensus amongst the STs about what Clans / Bloodlines are going to be permitted?
9) Is there consensus amongst the STs about how many Elders will be permitted?
10) Is there consensus amongst the STs about how Influence outside of their respective cities will work (Edmonton being a Capital City could cause some serious issues)
11) Is there consensus amongst the STs about over plots (uber plots, world plots whatever you want to call them)?
12) What is going to happen with the time jump (as it appears that seems to be the desire from Red Deer players so far)

For me, Cory, not hearing directly from the STs involved is concerning.
If they can't agree on a starting character, then, I am afraid, they will not be able to agree on anything.  Having fundamentally more powerful characters in one city will cause problems.  It is very nice to say that you can affect others only "if you agree", but why have the power imbalance to begin with?  I think that it is bad enough that Red Deer permits existing players to "carryover" 20 xp and forces new players to start at base.  This is about storytelling not powergaming.  Will having one city dramatically more powerful than the other help tell better stories or will it just create problems and resentment?

For the most part, resentment happens when players lose.  Those feelings are compounded when players feel that they are being treated unfairly.  Having one city more powerful than the other is patently unfair.  Hence, there will be systemic resentment from the very outset.

I would LOVE for this to work.  I think it would be great.

Cory, at the end of the day, you are a player, a player with an interest in seeing this happen, but just a player.  For this to work both Matt and Kyle need to: a) Want it, b) Sell it.

Within just a few days of even talking about this, there is already VERY strong negative emotions being displayed.  Imagine what will happen when someone gets killed, and it WILL happen.

The three biggest things that I learned in playing multi-city games is:

1) STs like control over their cities and hate when others affect them
2) Players love going to other cities and affecting them
3) Characters in the cities will, for the most part, hate each other and want to kill each other

As you can see, 2 and 3 are diametrically opposed to number 1.

None of this is to say it won't work.  But the amount of coordination is incredible.

Someone said, 2 months is not a long time.  It isn't.

I have said from the day I started this game that Red Deer requires two STs.  I have seen how big the Edmonton games can get (played in 2 up here that imploded before I joined Red Deer), that will require probably 3 STs, with one ST dedicated to cross-border (have I said that it is a lot of work?).

I want this to work.  There is a game in Calgary that would be great if they were approached a while from now (yes, that is a completely difference can of worms...I tried that game for a bit), but yes, I think it great if Edmonton and Red Deer could work together.

It MUST be a shared vision by the STs.  It requires strong control by the STs.  It is not a player-driven initiative.  So far, the STs have been silent.  They have to do the work.

You will lose players over it.  You will gain players because of it.  At the end of the day, Storytelling is about presenting your vision and asking people to share in it.  If Kyle feels strongly about this, then he should do it.  If Kyle is conflicted over it, then he shouldn't.  The same goes with Matt.  Geographic proximity is NOT a good reason to do it, shared vision is, and so far, we have no idea what their visions are.

Until we do, any vote is pretty much a shot in the dark.

In case I haven't been clear, yes, I love the idea.  I think it would be great.   I do not think that there is a shared vision and what has been presented will cause an implosion.

A suggestion. IF the games decide to run off the same over arching storyline.

Allow the players who wish to travel between domains to simply ask the ST if it is OK if they bring their character and submit it to them so they can see. If there is no crazy stuff on the sheet and the player knows that they are representing their city and player base then why not. IF the ST thinks the character can add to the game.

I doubt the number of travelers would be crazy to start with. And anyone traveling should always know that their character is at risk if they "misbehave" (come to blow something up, try to bring guns into ellysium, try to kill someone so they can diablerize outside their city)

No character (traveling or local to the game) should ever be allowed in a game if the ST does not have their Character sheet submitted before they come in.

For the record Mike, I have not had anyone come here and post anything, and I would appreciate if you refrained from saying that I did so in the future.


1) Why is Matt not on the Boards answering these questions?

I live with Matt and he is right next to me as I post this, I have the forum account after all.  I could have him make an account and reiterate if that would truly put your mind at ease.

2) Why is Kyle staying silent on these questions?

Kyle's been reading the boards as you can see, but he does most of his posting on the weekends when he does game stuff.  I imagine he'll weigh in soon

3) Why can't Matt and Kyle come to an agreement on what constitutes a starting character?

What constitutes a starting character is different in another game, hence the concern some expressed and the safegaurds we put in place.  As a side note, pretty much everyone alive is past 80xp.  If we went with the standard 30, then the balance would actually swing towards Red Deer.  If you actually look at totals, characters are pretty close to even, with the possible exception of numbers.

4) Why do I not start a character in Edmonton and then just play him in Red Deer...easy way to gain 30xp?

Probably because the ST of Red Deer would likely say no to such obvious power-gaming?

5) Why do I get more (or less) xp playing in an Edmonton game then in a Red Deer game?

Edmonton players will earn around 3 a game due to higher starting totals.

6) If a Red Deer players goes to Edmonton (or vice versa) for a game will they get xp for it?

Still in discussion, if they do it'll be like 1, maybe they won't get any.

7) Is Edmonton going to fully incorporate the Red Deer history into their own game?

Already done.  Kyle will be playing Richtor as previously stated.

8) Is there consensus amongst the STs about what Clans / Bloodlines are going to be permitted?

More of a local than a regional issue.  Each ST can allow what they wish, and neither is dumb enough to go overboard with that.  For all of our talk of Pillars we still have our share of Oddball bloodlines.

9) Is there consensus amongst the STs about how many Elders will be permitted?

Pretty much the same as number 8, number of Elders is a individual game thing.

10) Is there consensus amongst the STs about how Influence outside of their respective cities will work (Edmonton being a Capital City could cause some serious issues)

Yes, as I have said before any influence action that reaches outside of your city will have to be ST approved by both.  Effects will probably be lessened somewhat, and anyone with that influence in the target city will sense what is happen through their own feelers and have a chance to put a stop to it.

11) Is there consensus amongst the STs about over plots (uber plots, world plots whatever you want to call them)?

Both ST's will speak and coordinate where these go.  Right now the only remaining world plot is kinda on the backburner, but if it fires up again there would be a shared vision yeah.

12) What is going to happen with the time jump (as it appears that seems to be the desire from Red Deer players so far)

Well we'll jump forward a bit as well, easy enough to do when your game hasn't started yet.

The Power imbalance that you are afraid of already exists in this game, its also kind of inherent to the setting but that's beside the point.  Look at characters that have hung around for a while like Elijah, has that caused us any issues?  None of our characters equal the top tier characters in this game, and with our slower rate of xp gain they never will.  However, most of us are not dicks and will work on an out-of-game level to ensure that players are not just run over.  (As a side note, no current Red Deer current besides myself is below 80xp)  If players feel resentment when they lose, that is on them.  There is a saying in Larp called "playing to lose", it is not a game that one plays to win.

As far as players getting Killed, it will only happen with the prior consent of both players and both ST's.  Die if you feel its dramatically appropriate and tells a good story, otherwise don't.

I know for a fact that both ST's are intrigued by what this could add to the game, and do not have nearly as strong of a hold over "their city".  We quite literally want to share, we want you to come and do stuff, we want you to have fun.

Listen, people have concerns, I understand this.  I am more than happy to answer these questions.  Let me answer them before snap decisions are made due to assumptions that may be incorrect.  I am currently fielding all of these questions as Matt sits beside me chatting away.

Thank you for addressing many of our concerns.

Face would you be opposed to the shared universe being put on hold for about six monthes and during that time two players from each chapter sit down and discuss all issues and concerns and reasonable ways to solve them? This also gives us both time to put our houses in order.

And if we can't come to a mutual agreement we move on and do our own things

Just a idea

1) The smaller domain has and will be disadvantaged due to the simple numbers game. Thus it will eliminate conflict within the smaller domain as they steel themselves from the larger outside threat. What safe guards will be in place to prevent this situation from happening?

Let me start off by saying that I understand your concerns.  However, Edmonton will have its hands so full with its own internal matters to even consider Red Deer as a threat.  Politically the city is a powder keg and there's plenty of external issues to deal with as well.  Besides that, we have the upper echelons of the Camarilla to consider.  Trying to fuck with a Prince's rightful domain is a pretty good way to piss off an Archon, and that's rarely a good idea.

Last but not least, we would like to think that this link will create opportunities for alliances.  Maybe some of our tough dudes help fight off a Sabbat raid?  Maybe we lend you some money to rebuild Elysium or likewise?  We'd like to think that as Camarilla domains open hostilities will between the Courts will be rare.

2) As a player if I come to game and plot all evening and role play a scenario out that will severely impact a game in a negative way. By which I mean the player is not just being a huge dick and running wild. Outside of a storyteller hammer which is unfair to the player at that point due to a whole night of fair play. Saying the STs have to agree is unfeasible because of the role playing situation. What kind of measures will happen? I have seen this scenario in the past where players have played by the rules and schemed a death or two and have caused hurt feelings because they had no repercussions happen to them. By returning to their game and the other Prince who is a PC not care about what happens in other domains. This not only causes hard feelings but allows room for spite and out of character revenge to take place.

Without an example we can't really comment specifically what would happen.  However we believe that in game social mechanics such as loss of Prestation can blunt his behavior.  Most vampires care about these things, and if they don't for metagaming reasons then it may become necessary to talk to said player.  If it doesn't then pulling the player aside, talking to them like and adult, and asking them to not do said thing should be the go too.  If the player simply acts this way because they're in another city, they're a problem player and likely need to be dealt with in that fashion.  if someone is bending the rules purely for reasons of being a shit, then do we really want that type of player?  People will care about their conduct in other domains or they're soon come to regret not caring once they're back home.

Schemes of death and other matters will have to be approved, that's it. 

3) I completely understand the concept of consensual interaction however I can easily within the rule set cause mayhem in a game and face minor backlash. Yes I could be banned from a city, yes I could face loss of prestation or other immaterial consequences. I just don't have to consent to combat and cannot be killed or consent to my influence being attacked. At this point I have caused harm that I get away with via the not my domain game. Also remember I could do this well within the rule set so at that point it becomes unfair to the player to face outside game sanctions because I have broken no rules.

If you're not technically breaking the rules but you're still being a prick and creating a negative play experience then the ST hammer comes down.  Sometime storytellers have to deal with problem players, even if they aren't breaking the rules.  You say its not fair to do so if they're following the rules, but is letting them act in the negative way they do fair to everyone else?  We would say no.  So ingame social mechanics first, then speaking with the player, followed by possible action if they continue to specifically screw the game.

I am not opposed to the shared universe model I have played in them and have enjoyed them in the past. I have honest concerns because of the huge player size disadvantage between the two games. I also am worried about how and what actions are approved of? If a player can stay within the rules and cause huge headaches it is unfair to punish them. As well once the combat cat is out of the bag you may as well throw the bag away because the emotions will start to flow then.

This is Larp, emotions are part and parcel.  We have yet to not hear some form or bitching or drama after literally every game.  But anyways, actions would work like this.  Get signoffs from both ST's/Players.

Its not unfair to punish dicks, no matter how rule-abiding they may be.  Rules are never a shield against the ST's desire to create a fun and inclusive game for all.

Definately. We know sone folks from Regina vtm that could easily serve as impartial judges. Archons and the like would be ST tools and not player positions.