Re: Dexcon Favs and Unfavs

[Avie]

Incidentally, the *minute* it went closed session and back under our bylaws, we got shit done ;p

After getting battered for years about things happening behind closed doors, I find it really hysterical that we take actions to give the *appearance* of the Council being accessible by any Avatar (regardless of what the actual IC effect of said actions were, impressions are often everything).  Something happens to reverse that "Hey, look! ANYBODY can get involved" appearance, put the Council back in a state of perceived stranglehold by mostly "the old guard" and suddenly, closed-door RP that takes the toy and puts it in the hands of the few is "getting shit done". 

And the GMs had _nothing_ to do with it.

Just sayin'.

--Av

[SigmaCaine]

Oh, anyone can get involved in the Council... I'd love it if more people actually got *involved*... But why do we even have elected representatives if everyone is going to be there? Isn't the *point* of electing a representative that you trust them to speak for the best interests of the House when you're not there?

The thing most people seem to miss about the Council is that regardless of the presence of any magical talking furniture, the Council only has power when the Avatars involved are *working together*. Too many people show up posturing and slinging insults, expecting great cosmic power to just be *granted* to them for walking in the door. The more Avatars show up, the less gets done. The ones who stayed once the doors closed happened to be the ones who cared more about accomplishing something than proving how much smarter they were than everyone around them.

And we start with open sessions anyway. Everyone can still be involved and bring things up. It's like any other government - no, you can't sit in on every meeting, but you *do* have a say in what goes on through other means.

Besides, I think it's already been pointed out multiple times over the past few years that what the rulebook says and what actually goes on are very often different - both from GM & player action ;-)

[D]

Cass, can we have a reality and attitude check here?  'Cause hon, you're chucking stones you got no right to.

Avatars do not work together.  You're damn right I said it.

They don't work together because there are many elements that inevitably cause friction, either by nature or by intent.  You have the equivalency of an up to 15 poltical party system, each with vastly differing views on how things should be handled.  You have varying levels of ambition from each of these representatives, as some wil acquiesce, and some will accept absolutely nothing that does not represent their views.  You have varying levels of skill in understanding scenarios, access to varied truths, and the abitlity to obfuscate one's true intents.  Plainly put, in a public setting, where one has to be continually guarded, you will never have complete concession towards any single notion.

Avatars work towards their own goals.  Like any other real set of personalities.  Sometimes you get lucky, and those goals and priorities, are a little more magnanimous, and they aid and attract the respect of the goals of your fellows.  You're still not working together though, you're just working in parallel.  More often than not, at some point, those aims will be at odds with one another to some degree.  Then you get conflicts, like we're so very accustomed to.

Get over this "We're a government" self-importance kick.  You're a machinery, to hopefully allow for some eeked out measure of preventing open conflict and mutually assured destruction, and reptitious resurrection.  The Council doesn't "govern" a damn thing.  Never will until the 15 houses decide to grant it such an authority.  Don't hold your breath on that happening, 'cuz Lord knows the miniute someone sticks their neck out to suggest the idea that a house is anything but sovereign, they'll be handed their heads for their trouble.

Finally, drop the whole "what goes on is different" crap.  It is the single most specious justification I've ever heard.  GM's are sanctioned to stretch, bend, even at times defy the rulebook.  They're GM's.  Most of us have been GM's, and we all fricking fudge rules to suit our needs for our player's needs, and the sake of the story.  Players however, are not entitled to bust any single rule.  You've got a GD book for a reason.  It is the equalizer between all players, both protecting and limiting the scope of what you can and cannot get away with.   

[SigmaCaine]

And here I was, pointing out that everyone can still get involved without sitting in a certain seat, and try to work together...

But apparently not.

I'll remember that. Shame on me for believing that anyone might actually care about something other than themselves.

[D]

Oh don't go playing the passive agressive crestfallen idealist card.  There have been plenty of times when Sigma or Cassie have done something so stupidly self centered, and self indulging, that made no sense except to further his/her own motivations. 

Are their other outlets for individuals in which to get involved?  Yes.  Are any so designed, and guaranteed to be so publically acessible as the forum assembly and political system that is the intent of the Council?  Not particularly.  The Council, in its purest design, is the brass ring that anyone can attempt to attain, and consequently be challenged by their house peers, and then be challenged by their fellow councillors.  Other brass rings exist, but they are not guaranteed to be acessible, as they are not ensured by any offical rules.

[LucasJamison]

Finally, drop the whole "what goes on is different" crap.  It is the single most specious justification I've ever heard.  GM's are sanctioned to stretch, bend, even at times defy the rulebook.  They're GM's.  Most of us have been GM's, and we all fricking fudge rules to suit our needs for our player's needs, and the sake of the story.  Players however, are not entitled to bust any single rule.  You've got a GD book for a reason.  It is the equalizer between all players, both protecting and limiting the scope of what you can and cannot get away with.   

I think the important thing to note here, is that the rulebook contains both mechanical rules, and setting information.  In 1996, I read the setting information (less extensive then than now) and got a completely different impression of the game from the way it was actually being played.  In 2006, I'm almost certain that the gap between the book's description of the Houses and the Council and the way those Houses are being played and the Council conducts its business is even wider than it was back then.

I believe her intent was to point out this gap, and not to say "ah, the rules are formality, I scoff at authority and don't follow any of the mechanics" - far from it, as she has as complete an understanding of the system mechanics and their interactions and their implications as most, and regularly calls for their more even and by-the-book application.

So, it may be you who needs to rethink the 'tude, at the moment.

[Avie]

I think the important thing to note here, is that the rulebook contains both mechanical rules, and setting information.  In 1996, I read the setting information (less extensive then than now) and got a completely different impression of the game from the way it was actually being played.  In 2006, I'm almost certain that the gap between the book's description of the Houses and the Council and the way those Houses are being played and the Council conducts its business is even wider than it was back then.

For the sake of encouraging growth of the system, we're trying to pull (subtlely and without going into great detail about it publicly, because that would make it less subtle, obviously) the focus of how the Council does its business back to something more rulebook-esque.

Obviously, I've opened the floor several times, in several ways, for input on how things are represented in the rulebook.

[D]

Dave, back up.

  What I object to is this notion that our avatars have built a "better mousetrap" so to speak when it comes to how the Council conducts itself.  And that their IC reasoning should then supplant the reasoning that should be in force, yet admittedly has not been.  And then in order to justify this notions using the reasoning that the rulebook and reality differ. 
  It simply does not make a damn bit of difference if the rulebook and reality differ, because somewhere, there has to be a uniform set of rules to be followed by anyone that chooses to play the Avatar System, be it at a DE hosted event, or halfway around the world.  And it did not just point it out, she used it as a justification, as to why the IC Bylaws are a "better mousetrap".
  Furthermore, I contest the entire concept that it is a "better mousetrap".  As with any rules system, dirty, rotten, scheming, professional, bastards such as you and I know exactly how to manipulate a system to meet our own ends.   I'll be blunt and say that the IC bylaws are so full of loopholes, and nooks and crannies, on which to hoist various self serving petards, it is appalling.  (No, I'm not going to detail them here, because until I'm sure that they're covered, I'm not putting them in a public forum).  Now the rulebook rules set has its own flaws on which to be capitalized, for sure.  Wouldn't be much fun without them, now would it?  But they are tighter, and more in sync with the rest of the rulebook, which again needs to be the standard by which the public must follow.  They defend very nicely against many of the exploits available to the scheming professional  bastard, and allow the GM's an easier time dealing with said bastards.

[SigmaCaine]

Dering,

Mind rephrasing yourself (and your original reply) in a way that is not insulting, and makes sense to those of us who aren't so fluent in English? You're smart, we get it. Say it in baby words for me. I don't understand what you mean.

All I know is that the current Council bylaws don't contradict anything in the rulebook, and just because a session is closed for 15 minutes doesn't mean that the Council is inaccessible to everyone else.

[LucasJamison]

For the sake of encouraging growth of the system, we're trying to pull (subtlely and without going into great detail about it publicly, because that would make it less subtle, obviously) the focus of how the Council does its business back to something more rulebook-esque.

Obviously, I've opened the floor several times, in several ways, for input on how things are represented in the rulebook.

Settings change.  The second you start the clock running, and let players loose in the setting, you lose some degree of editorial control over both the way things are, and the way things are perceived.  If the written setting is global, and the playable aspect is one city or country, then the players often can't influence or do anything to alter the bulk of the written setting, though they may burn that one city to the ground, or so radically alter than country that it bears no resemblance to the setting description in the printed book that set the stage at the beginning of things.

Static descriptions like the ones presented in the rules are hard to make stick, if you are not somehow forcing the characters to match those descriptions.  If the Houses MUST be a certain way, then make them that way.  Have NPC house heads run by people you know can develop and organize and manage their membership to maintain the intended spirit and feel of the House, until such time as PCs you trust to take the reigns come into play.  Similarly, the Council can be forced to maintain a by-the-book approach to things.

Of course, that takes a lot of the flexibility out of the game, and it's obviously not the way you or any of the other GMs have wanted to go. All the attempts to bring things more in line with the book have been slower, more subtle than that, which as a player I'm definitely happy about.  Heavy-handed GMing is so aggravating.

Some suggestions that allow for flexibility, but help to limit the perceived discrepancies between the book and the reality, are:

1) Let the book note that the settings-descriptions are presented as "historical" information, and may not in fact be the way things are at a given moment.  Certainly, no one having read a D&D book about a particular setting is going to realistically assume that your custom module or campaign, having started years before, will conform exactly to what they read.

2) Have the settings portion of the book exist as a living document, presented separately from the mechanical rules.

3) Reduce the detail of the settings information in the rulebook.  Mention the Council and it's historical and intended functions, don't include specific rules for how it works.  The House descriptions are, for the most part, broad enough so that anyone can find a good thematic home for their character (even if the mechanical benefits to a given House membership aren't necessarily ideal for the character concept).

Rather, don't PUT anything in the rulebook that can tell beforehand is going to change.  And don't give the characters access to anything that you can't allow to change at some point down the road.

Edited to add:

It might be even easier to just point out, "The Nexus demands that the Avatars do these things, in the game."  You could read it that way now, but making it explicit just notes that the Nexus, as a sentient entity that makes it will known at various times, has always stated its requirement that the Avatars do these things, but that this is not something that the GMs will force the players not to roleplay around.  Settings are in game, rules are out of game... does that make more sense?

[LucasJamison]

  What I object to is this notion that our avatars have built a "better mousetrap" so to speak when it comes to how the Council conducts itself.  And that their IC reasoning should then supplant the reasoning that should be in force, yet admittedly has not been.  And then in order to justify this notions using the reasoning that the rulebook and reality differ. 

Whether or not a given system is better by some applicable measuring criteria, the system has been constructed and implemented in such a way that the characters are able to change it, or if not change, then ignore it completely and do something else.  It's a matter of preference, and those that prefer one method to another are going to presume their preferred method is better, IC at least, and possibly OOC.

I happen to think, for the very reasons you stated about Avatars not working together well, especially in public settings, that the short closed sessions are ideal for getting things done.  Depends though, on what criteria you're judging by.

It simply does not make a damn bit of difference if the rulebook and reality differ, because somewhere, there has to be a uniform set of rules to be followed by anyone that chooses to play the Avatar System, be it at a DE hosted event, or halfway around the world.  And it did not just point it out, she used it as a justification, as to why the IC Bylaws are a "better mousetrap".

Well, depends.  The Council does not need to be convened by folks halfway around the world - it is a singular entity.  I understand the need for rules consistency - I've played in globally distributed games with thousands of players and hundreds of GMs and sometimes rulessets that vary from nation to nation, and have seen the difficulties that people run into maintaining consistency on that scale.  However, we're not talking about "Guided Projectile" working differently on a Japanese subway than at DEXCON, we're talking about how a single political body that meets in particular location under controlled and pre-arranged circumstances, meetings consisting of potentially as small a group as EIGHT, conducts its business.

Furthermore, I contest the entire concept that it is a "better mousetrap".  As with any rules system, dirty, rotten, scheming, professional, bastards such as you and I know exactly how to manipulate a system to meet our own ends.   I'll be blunt and say that the IC bylaws are so full of loopholes, and nooks and crannies, on which to hoist various self serving petards, it is appalling.  (No, I'm not going to detail them here, because until I'm sure that they're covered, I'm not putting them in a public forum).  Now the rulebook rules set has its own flaws on which to be capitalized, for sure.  Wouldn't be much fun without them, now would it?  But they are tighter, and more in sync with the rest of the rulebook, which again needs to be the standard by which the public must follow.  They defend very nicely against many of the exploits available to the scheming professional  bastard, and allow the GM's an easier time dealing with said bastards.

As I understand it, in the rulebook, the Council meets once or twice a year, if 8 of 15 "elected" reps are present, and select from among them once each year the "ruling house", whose rep is thereafter, for the year, in charge of running these one or two meetings (can't remember which it is).  The Council then discusses things, and moves on.  For all the rules care, this meeting can be a cigarette break or a ceremony with great pomp and circumstance.  The rules further stipulate that should the Council vote on anything, the result of that vote must be tabulated according to a specific formula.

The Bylaws actually go into a lot more detail, and are more restrictive, not less.  They provide specific processes for situations not covered in the rules.  They provide for a greater degree of operational consistency than the rules do.  The key conflict between them and the rulebook is that they can be amended, and that the Bylaws call for a different set of vote tabulation.  They also allow for the ejection of a sitting Councilor from a meeting.  Not earthshattering differences.

There really aren't any "loopholes".  Like any system, it can be gamed, but that's expected and implicit in the construction of th Bylaws.  Yes, there are ways to follow the rules but create and outcome that is obviously different than the intent of the drafters.  IIRC, ejecting a Councilor may cause there not to be a quorum, which would render the meeting immediately closed, even though a vote to close the meeting had not taken place.  Horror of horros...

The rulebook system has no loopholes, because it has no LOOPS.  It's not complex enough to allow for them - it simply doesn't say very much at all.

[Horace]

I'll remember that. Shame on me for believing that anyone might actually care about something other than themselves.

Some of us do.
And we are starting to find our voice.

Horace.

[LucasJamison]

Okay, re: the rulebook... I just finally read the relevant section for the first time in several years, so my apologies for innacuracies in my previous statements.

The contradictions I see between the rules and the bylaws, are:

1) The rules regarding weighted vs. unweighted votes.

2) Semi-annual meeting minimum requirement

3) "ruling House"

4) off-cycle replacement of council Chair

5) Representation (and changes there to, and who can vote)

6) Quorum count

And these differences are often very minor, or areas where the two do not directly contradict, but that are explicitly addressed in the rulebook write-up and not addressed at all in the bylaws.

Really, now that I look at it, most of the things that the bylaws were enacted to address arose in game, not from the printed rules, and this remains the case.  The key matters of contention between the in game procedural factions are over things that don't come from the printed rules at all.

So... yeah.

My biggest gripe has been the tendency of players to step OOC and cite the OOC rules as a reason why they will not discuss or attempt something IC.  This stuff with the bylaws is an example where we have this discussion crop up.  The whole issue with trying to establish a new currency was another one of those - why did that ever drop OOC?  Of COURSE it would have been ridiculous, difficult, contradicted the OOC rules and been hellish to implement.  But why did those OOC concerns so significantly influence what ought've been an entirely IC discussion?

This metagaming issue is much broader than the Council stuff alone, true, but I see it come up more when dealing with Council stuff than at any other time.

[Saint_Moko]

Too many people show up posturing and slinging insults, expecting great cosmic power to just be *granted* to them for walking in the door.

As opposed to getting great cosmic power for just showing up in the Nexus itself?  Then again, do you expect Avatars to show up and immediatly get along?  just because we all wear PC halos doesn't mean we'll all pull together in a crisis.