Remove ads

A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover

Reader mode
Crake said:
@DragonParadox

My main issue with this whole ordeal, even the Syrax one, was never that we had the plot, or the motivations behind those planning decisions for the story. Wanting to have a more nuanced set of characters and having motivations be more than binary decisions/three-dimensional and varied and getting people to think instead of just carrying on as normal is a good idea, on paper.

But maybe a long, long, long break and a really in-depth discussion over your interests and fully reading in the thread on changes implied would have been better? Pointing out that "everyone is either an idiot or agrees with Viserys, which just plain doesn't reflect reality in my mind, or rather the reality that I want to write about", or "There are people who aren't innately wrong (or right) but they have some strong words to say about your activities and the plot will ensure they actually have a foot to stand upon rather than come across as screeching platitudes that we can walk all over in social combat".

It's just... It was all delivered to us without discussing any of the issues that were being had first, and then by the time the thread caught on and figured out what was the motive behind planning this entire arc, it was too late and plenty of bad decisions were made, and directly after one vote drove some of us from posting plans or insights (myself) or posting entirely (Azel).

I'm not even sure if I should vote yet given you're going through a rough time and probably don't want to talk about ret-cons, but I think I should at least point back to our earlier discussion over PMs and in the thread.

This just feels like you didn't trust us with your feelings on the thread, and instead leaned on Azel to try to change some aspects about it that you didn't like rather than talk to us.

It's... not a pleasant feeling. Feeling like an entire arc was some kind of meta-based set of decision points.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

OK I think I can finally answer this and talk about ret-cons, the whole nine yards.First of all @Crake thank you for sticking with the thread and with me though all this stumbling. You are right I have been unfair to you guys. I guess I was just afraid to talk to all of you about my concerns. There was so little engagement, so little attention paid to the story that I was concerned that if I just addressed everything in one big OOC post no one would answer... no not quite no one.I was afraid that I would be just pestering the regulars.

Then came the Syrax thing I thought 'I'll do it IC, rip off the band-aid in one go'. You all know how that turned out, then I asked Azel for help to make it an arc to have the message be more weighty and the thing is I liked the scenes (except for the last update to be fair) I was excited to write... but I still had not taken the proper lesson to heart. I should have talked to you guys and trusted you.
 
First of all to not so much address, admittedly, as acknowledge the current issue in the quest:

On to the vote, as someone who is very new to the quest, my perceptive may seem 'warped' for the lack of a better term, and so I'm sorry if my explanation of my reasoning thereby comes off as bashing any of the GMs or players (or preaching/moralizing my own ideas/beliefs), all of you are trying to do the best you can to improve the quest and have given so much to this quest I understand that when things don't go well its hard for everyone, especially the GMs who are putting in the hard yards writing this great game and trying to reorient the game to keep the quality and enjoyment up.

Unfortunately, emotion can get in the way of the value we all share in this quest, and from what I've seen (which full disclosure is pretty limited as of the moment) we need to switch the debate to constructively trying to learn from these mistakes and move on. What I'm trying to say is sorry if what I'm about to say is obvious or obnoxious or patronizing, as I'm sure my logic is in no way comprehensive and I'm more than a little worried all I'm doing is hollowly repeating what everyone else already said, however, if positive communication is going to start then I need to put my money where my mouth is and participate. I'm pretty tired now, but I'll try to edit this post tomorrow for clarity (if you're confused or don't agree with anything in particular just let me know, I trust the veterans likely have a much better idea of the state of play than I).

[X] Ret-con the last update to give you guys the chance to speak up better

To add my two cents to the conversation, while I'm, again, a rookie to this quest and therefore may have a misunderstanding of the complete picture, I think this arc so far does have good and bad results, and honestly while potentially significant failures and even an unsatisfactory conclusion to this arc do seem to be more likely than not at this point, I wouldn't want to recon this because in my opinion (which I admit is very inexperienced) dealing with our failings can make for a much more interesting quest and story, something that I find is vanishingly rare in quest is failures on the scale where players have to deal with fallout, even accept concessions, even defeat (at least for a time). Now obviously, when this happens commonly, even consistently or just for the sake of amping up the difficulty then it can have a degenerative effect on not just the gameplay but the trust and dare I say - faith - between the player base and quest masters. However, as a rare shock to the system, I definitely believe it can be an interesting complication, as well as a great way to grow characters.

But most importantly, if the situation there's some other fundamental misconception the players hold, say a shift in how to achieve their goals in the world then the positive effect can be robbed, our efforts seem meaningless, at worst as if not only we fail perhaps unreasonably but there was no currency or value to our actions (which can damage the integrity of the quest itself).

Both the desire of decisions to hold weight, impact, permanence and wanting to grow because of failure leave me skeptical of recon in most circumstances.

That being said, I can definitely understand the problems that have arisen with this arc leave players feeling like the rug has been pulled from under them and the goalposts shifted without players having even the chance to notice. That we thought we were playing a different game than the one we found ourselves in. And trusting those with experience the last chapter seems to be alienated with what we identify as Venerys.

To conclude, I think that this option is the best compromise available, not table-flipping our circumstances but giving us the chance to do what we would want to do now we understand what the larger scope is.

What's important now is to accept, listen to and account for the problems we have had and not to linger in bitterness and figuring out who to blame but move on from this issue mindfully and purposefully towards the greater things that made us so investing in this quest, in questing in general.
 
DragonParadox said:
OK I think I can finally answer this and talk about ret-cons, the whole nine yards.First of all @Crake thank you for sticking with the thread and with me though all this stumbling. You are right I have been unfair to you guys. I guess I was just afraid to talk to all of you about my concerns. There was so little engagement, so little attention paid to the story that I was concerned that if I just addressed everything in one big OOC post no one would answer... no not quite no one.I was afraid that I would be just pestering the regulars.

Then came the Syrax thing I thought 'I'll do it IC, rip off the band-aid in one go'. You all know how that turned out, then I asked Azel for help to make it an arc to have the message be more weighty and the thing is I liked the scenes (except for the last update to be fair) I was excited to write... but I still had not taken the proper lesson to heart. I should have talked to you guys and trusted you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Trust would have made most of this a delectable set of quandaries and soul searching, but instead it was just like watching lemmings run head first off a cliff because they assume they're still running on the same hamster wheel as always, not having been read in on a set of fundamental changes and motives for writing the story. And at the end of the day if you feel like you are not writing three-dimensional characters and people are used to your old writing style, then not having them make informed decisions will lead to a lot of bruised feelings and indignation when they get beaten over the head thinking they "did nothing wrong".
 
Crake said:
Trust would have made most of this a delectable set of quandaries and soul searching, but instead it was just like watching lemmings run head first off a cliff because they assume they're still running on the same hamster wheel as always, not having been read in on a set of fundamental changes and motives for writing the story. And at the end of the day if you feel like you are not writing three-dimensional characters and people are used to your old writing style, then not having them make informed decisions will lead to a lot of bruised feelings and indignation when they get beaten over the head thinking they "did nothing wrong".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah I now realize it was massively unfair of me not to tell you how I felt. Hopefully you all have the forbearance to stick around.

And special thanks to you @Crake for having the forbearance to talk me through this.
 
@DragonParadox

I am sadly far less active than once, real life is not too kind at the moment, but I wanted to tell you that you are making an amazing job on a breakneck pace.

Some mistakes and misunderstandings are bound to happen, though.

Having been both, table top player and GM, I just have to say that communication between players and GM is of paramount importance, and solves most problems, even as complicated ones as changing tone of a campaign or PC/NPC interaction.

And retcons should not happen often, but if there was a misunderstanding, they are usually far better than just to plow forward disregarding all consequences.

[X] Ret-con the last update to give you guys the chance to speak up better
 
Last edited:
The important thing about mistakes is not to repeat them (called learning). Btw., that includes all threat participants - being emotionally invested in collaborative story telling is no excuse in crossing the line between constructive criticism and personal attacks.
 
I feel like some of the vehemence and salt is a little unjustified.

I felt like the new arc was progressing in an unexpected way, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

We had an opportunity to meet with Lucan and Danelle before the Conclave, but chose to sneak around in a used and, IMO, thinly woven cover. (If anyone should be salty here it's me. I had a perfectly (/s) crafted plan that let us talk to Danelle and you bitches thought it was too risky because "she didn't know we were here" :p)

And it blew up in our faces. DP and Azel placed two competent characters that deduced who we were with little effort against us.

We got caught with our pants around our ankles and it stings a little bit.

But it's salvageable. We can get through this.

I don't think anyone should quit this thread. It's tough steering a ship with people who think we should go different directions. But if we keep level heads we can keep making this one of the best games/quests on any site.

@DragonParadox nobody is perfect, but you have a great aptitude for QM. I actually think this arc was an intriguing challenge. You played some unexpected moves and that to me at least kept me interested. I was afraid the Conclave would drag on and we'd get restless.

This is a good quest, you've done well.
 
Tell her about it, tell her all your crazy dreams~

@DragonParadox you can still tell us now.

If you want.

Lay it all out there and let us get a grip on what your thinking and feeling.

And maybe... Don't update today?

Just sit down and have an OOC pow wow with us? Or maybe just make it interludes?

I for one would be very interested in hearing what made you and Azel want to change the characterization so much.

I know it was... Bad, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I feel like for all its faults this is still a pretty decent story line. On the other, if we are retconning things...

[X] Retcon the entire arc + the syrax interlude

I say wipe the slate clean. It's going to have less of an impact, but the idea of Viserys having to come to terms with his moral failings is a fascinating one to me, and I'd much rather see a fully thought out, subtle version of it, one that addresses the issues with Viserys' actions, while not needllessly antagonizing some of the more bloodthirsty members. (Not that there won't be some conflict there, just pointing out how the abruptness of all this amplified it.)

Approaching an arc like this a few months down the line once everyone has cooled down a bit and tkme has been put into planning it out seems like a good idea to me.
 
DragonParadox said:
Yeah I now realize it was massively unfair of me not to tell you how I felt. Hopefully you all have the forbearance to stick around.

And special thanks to you @Crake for having the forbearance to talk me through this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's really no issue. I mean, there is an issue, but the whole "thanks for having the forbearance" part is unnecessary, I have gotten some real good times over the years from this thread, it is the least you are owed.
 
*makes tentative life signs*

I... needed to do this... it's a bit better now.

Sorry to everyone who was reaching out to me and got brusquly rebuffed for his troubles. I was not in a good place.
 
zxzx24 said:
Tell her about it, tell her all your crazy dreams~

@DragonParadox you can still tell us now.

If you want.

Lay it all out there and let us get a grip on what your thinking and feeling.

And maybe... Don't update today?

Just sit down and have an OOC pow wow with us? Or maybe just make it interludes?

I for one would be very interested in hearing what made you and Azel want to change the characterization so much.

I know it was... Bad, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think I already summarized it, I wanted the character interactions to be complex again, I wanted to see good defined some other way that 'allied with Viserys or soon will be' I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifices made and not in a 'hard men make hard decisions' way. I don't think I ever told anyone except Azel this but I finally figured out where all that hollow-sounding regret from the sacrifices came from, I wanted to show that not all sacrifices are physical and the first time it worked,the second time too, but before long I was just hitting the same note over and over again while you guys cheered on the sacrifices.

Just to be clear the fault here was on me. There is nothing wrong to becoming inured to something that had been morally questionable. It's a very human reaction and I should have written that into Viserys long long ago, but I wanted that conflict and to have it in a legitimate way I needed better deeper characters, moral characters opposing Viserys.
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
I think I already summarized it, I wanted the character interactions to be complex again, I wanted to see good defined some other way that 'allied with Viserys or soon will be' I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifices made and not in a 'hard men make hard decisions' way. I don't think I ever told anyone except Azel this but I finally figured out where all that hollow-sounding regret from the sacrifices came from, I wanted to show that not all sacrifices are physical and the first time it worked,the second time too, but before long I was just hitting the same note over and over again while you guys cheered on the sacrifices.

Just to be clear the fault here was on me. There is nothing wrong to becoming inured to something that had been morally questionable. It's a very human reaction and I should have written that into Viserys long long ago, but I wanted that conflict and to have it in a legitimate way I needed better deeper characters, moral characters opposing Viserys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I did notice, and I can and do appreciate it.

I actually enjoyed a lot of this ark, even in ways not motivated by sadistic glee.

It was nice to see good people who felt... Good.

Who were actually doing okay at their jobs and deploying agency. I had been so starved for that the Bahamut Omake was like ripping off a band aid.

I enjoy new Lucan and Danelle, is what I am saying.

Alright, work calls ttyl everyone.
 
DragonParadox said:
I think I already summarized it, I wanted the character interactions to be complex again, I wanted to see good defined some other way that 'allied with Viserys or soon will be' I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifices made and not in a 'hard men make hard decisions' way. I don't think I ever told anyone except Azel this but I finally figured out where all that hollow-sounding regret from the sacrifices came from, I wanted to show that not all sacrifices are physical and the first time it worked,the second time too, but before long I was just hitting the same note over and over again while you guys cheered on the sacrifices.

Just to be clear the fault here was on me. There is nothing wrong to becoming inured to something that had been morally questionable. It's a very human reaction and I should have written that into Viserys long long ago, but I wanted that conflict and to have it in a legitimate way I needed better deeper characters, moral characters opposing Viserys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are few people that don't see themselves as not being the heroes in their own life's story. That makes mirrors so painful. For me at least, a Viserys that does what is convenient and rationalizes that as 'required and for the greater good' is more human than a paragon of virtue that, for some unexplained reason, has one success after the other. I think, from that mindset comes the 'slippery slope' meme, as the rationalizations become easier and easier. That makes it such a powerful moment/journey, when a character realizes what he does (the mirror moment(s)), especially since it cannot be measured simply by a black/white approach. That allows for character development.
 
DragonParadox said:
I think I already summarized it, I wanted the character interactions to be complex again, I wanted to see good defined some other way that 'allied with Viserys or soon will be' I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifices made and not in a 'hard men make hard decisions' way. I don't think I ever told anyone except Azel this but I finally figured out where all that hollow-sounding regret from the sacrifices came from, I wanted to show that not all sacrifices are physical and the first time it worked,the second time too, but before long I was just hitting the same note over and over again while you guys cheered on the sacrifices.

Just to be clear the fault here was on me. There is nothing wrong to becoming inured to something that had been morally questionable. It's a very human reaction and I should have written that into Viserys long long ago, but I wanted that conflict and to have it in a legitimate way I needed better deeper characters, moral characters opposing Viserys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, it is shockingly easy in democratic nations to sacrifice rights, laws, and freedoms in the face of fellow humans that don't even have to be perceived as inhuman monsters but as a potential and/or alleged foe, so how much easier is such sacrifice in an autocracy when the threats we face are objectively and repeatedly demonstrated as both literally monstrous and could actually End The World As We Know It? Few other environments could be more ripe for hard men making hard decisions.

Nevertheless, I applaud you for your efforts to recognize and improve a flaw in your story, and while the implementation could have gone better we really do appreciate the effort, just let us know up front, we will support you through any issue you have if you let us know.
 
If I could sum up what to say to Danelle

"You've shown I was wrong about you, give me the chance to do the same."

Even if we end up deciding we have to kill each other I would rather reach some kind of understanding.
 
I'm also going to have some serious questions for our "morality advisor" vassals and party members.

Part of why I wanted to actually sit down and have a pow-wow with the companions and some vassals on what Syrax showed us.
 
Negentropy said:
Well, it is shockingly easy in democratic nations to sacrifice rights, laws, and freedoms in the face of fellow humans that don't even have to be perceived as inhuman monsters but as a potential and/or alleged foe, so how much easier is such sacrifice in an autocracy when the threats we face are objectively and repeatedly demonstrated as both literally monstrous and could actually End The World As We Know It? Few other environments could be more ripe for hard men making hard decisions.

Nevertheless, I applaud you for your efforts to recognize and improve a flaw in your story, and while the implementation could have gone better we really do appreciate the effort, just let us know up front, we will support you through any issue you have if you let us know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, this is going to keep me up tonight.

Also if Viserys ever follows this line of thought in an IC perspective/way it'll cut deeper than anything else he's had to deal with so far.

It's one thing to be effective as possible, it's quite another to become a Tyrant and even worse, having the populace praise you for it.
 
zxzx24 said:
I'm also going to have some serious questions for our "morality advisor" vassals and party members.

Part of why I wanted to actually sit down and have a pow-wow with the companions and some vassals on what Syrax showed us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, Malarys, Azema and the Erynies. That will be an interesting discussion, because we'd have to decide which measures are acceptable and which aren't. And as Negentropy and others mentioned, we don't face cyberterrorism or radical <insert ideology here>, we face several different 'end of world' scenarios where 'well, nearly got it contained' will not be enough.
 
Evaunit02mark1 said:
Well, this is going to keep me up tonight.

Also if Viserys ever follows this line of thought in an IC perspective/way it'll cut deeper than anything else he's had to deal with so far.

It's one thing to be effective as possible, it's quite another to become a Tyrant and even worse, having the populace praise you for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well that's obviously the optimal form of tyranny. And from my time living in China also works to an extent
 
Evaunit02mark1 said:
Well, this is going to keep me up tonight.

Also if Viserys ever follows this line of thought in an IC perspective/way it'll cut deeper than anything else he's had to deal with so far.

It's one thing to be effective as possible, it's quite another to become a Tyrant and even worse, having the populace praise you for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's the thing, the difference between effective and tyrant is a matter of degree. To give an example: if someone make a broadsheet with the tech you are using for propaganda and that paper is then critical of Viserys would you have it censored? I suspect most would say no, but what about the danger of memetic corruption? Shouldn't you have it checked over to see it does not drive someone insane? Better to keep printing tech only for the state, right?

That is how tyranny happens.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top