The Harbinger of Ferocity

The Twenty-Fifth Hour

The Twenty-Fifth Hour

---

Concept

The Twenty-Fifth Hour is conceptualized as a forum variant incarnation of classical text-based games, wherein the players offer very limited input via posts and the character in question, as described by the Game Master, responds to that input. Such a limited input would be no more than three mildly complex sentences that describe actions, reactions, dialogue both inner or outer and so forth. The intent is to create a dynamic and reactive experience where the players' choices matter more based on what few things they can manage with the character, rather than through their elaboration or length. Furthermore, in paying homage to these far more crude text-based games, the responses given by the Game Master are more elaborate and lengthy, so as to provide players with critical information, but not to exceed two complex paragraphs.

Continued, to foster a sense of urgency in posting, the most recent posting player in response to the Game Master's reply is the one who decides the next series of actions. However, once they have posted and the next reply sent, they may not again determine the events carried out; another player in the group must post before they may again. It remains despite this, a "first come, first served" mentality. The goal of the players is to create a unified narrative between them and guide the shared character to success. Because, keeping with older design philosophy, punishment and failure are real threats; failure means defeat and presumably death for the character in some cases. To help further incentivize players, all aspects of the character are driven by their decisions, the Game Master merely plays out the outcome of those decisions almost akin to an invisible driving mechanism for the narrative, rather than making them for the players.

As imagined, the game leans conceptually toward a more mature take on its elements and is intended to be played seriously. There is an underlying sense of something strange involved, as one would suspect when the narrative is initially vary malleable and only further evolves as players refine it by their choices, thus horror could be considered an undertone but not the focus. No less, because it generates dynamically, there is no real prediction what other genre it will branch into or borrow from; all the Game Master can do is interpret the inputs of the players and attempt to use context to guide the narrative. This further adds incentive for players to try to be cohesive and collaborate to build a narrative, as incompatible elements amount to a waste of time and thus a turn.

The game is not intended for more than five players, with two at minimum preferred in order to alternate. It is not intended for parties who have no interest in potentially mature themes, i.e., descriptive violence. There is no element in its intended concept to appeal to all individuals; this topic's "game" is for a niche audience and is meant to play differently. It is strictly meant to be an elaboration of text-based adventure games of old in a slightly different medium and with a group playing a singular character.

Sample

"I stop where I am and decide to hide in the bushes. I then check my inventory for binoculars, hoping I have a pair. From there, I look at the strange tree and investigate it, watching it for a few minutes."

Player

"You rummage through your crude hiking pack, hoping that you might have something of use. Fortunately, fate would have it that your binoculars made it through the events that led you here, still functional as they had been, albeit slightly worse for wear. Despite their damage, upon adjusting them to your eyes in the dying light of the evening, they reveal that the strange tree on the horizon was worthy of being suspicious of. Odd, filament like sprigs hang from its branches, reminding you of a weeping willow, although the uncharacteristic grey bark of the tree and its ominous cracked wood suggests there is more to it."

"You notice, as you hide in the undergrowth, that there are no sounds of birds. This wasn't the case earlier and now the lack of any animals around you at all is mildly disquieting. It becomes evident the longer you observe your surroundings over your period of concealment that something is terribly wrong but you cannot quite put your finger on it. Whatever it is, the uncanny circumstance is foreboding and troubling internally. With this in mind, you return your attention to the unsettling, pale tree as it remains still in the silent forest."

Game Master

Expectations

The expectations are exceedingly simple. The Game Master has the final say on any event and the parties involved, both in the meta and the game itself. Players who become inactive will be discredited and eschewed from the game, as will invalid entries, such as those by non-sanctioned parties or players in any violation of rules associated with the forum by their proposed action. Posts should come daily by at least one member, so long as they are not determining the actions twice; any period of delay more than a few days will result in the game automatically progressing as if the character's decision was to do nothing.

Questions

Interested parties that wish to know about any further details not outlined in this post may pose their comments, concerns, and questions to follow. Responses to these will appear in this section for further use in a typical "Question and Answer" format to serve as a registry for potentially other interested parties and or readers. Please check this section before posing any remarks. If a response from the Game Master is unclear, despite the message already being included here, please specify the issue taken.

Questions and Answers

Still interested although I'm curious as to what the exact setting of the RP will be?

The exact setting will be determined by the players, depending upon what is done once the game is initiated. By virtue, this makes the start of the game extremely important and quickly sets the tone and direction. The two most major paths it can take is toward fantasy or science fiction but it may branch into other elements. That is purely up to the decisions and actions - or lack thereof - from the players.

And the way this has been described makes it seem as though all the players are in control of the same character, which is completely fine by me I just want to make sure My sleep deprived mind isn't reading it wrong.

You are correct, all players are in control of one singular character. There is only one main character. All other characters, if any, are under the assumption of the Game Master who controls them as individual entities. This is to prevent the narrative from splintering into a thousand directions when presented with what amounts to grand levels of free will, limited only by where one falls in posting order.

Part of me is liking the potential of this turning into a kind of weird meta horror where the character becomes aware they're being dragged around on different directions by different individual forces but I'm not sure that's exactly the desired theme here.

This outcome is entirely possible based upon decisions taken by the party. It is not out of the question that the character starts to realize they are being pulled in many directions. However, there is truly no telling or knowing just where the narrative may go.

Mentions

The following are persons who previously voiced interest. If you are receiving this notice, please respond with a confirmation of continued interest or a declaration of abstaining upon knowing more: @DocRock, @Polybius, @Pyromaniacwolf.

Give Me Your Favorite Quote(s).

"When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity."

George Bernard Shaw

Post a random fact about yourself.

I have just now come to the realization the sheer irony of my giving "Likes" in reply with a thumbs up icon as something that specifically and notably lacks thumbs. Given that I as well am not polydactyl, an exception to the rule but something felids are known for, this only makes it more entertaining. Yet, in hindsight for some unknown reason this register took until now to strike me, although on other services and in other mediums that use the icon I had thought of from the moment I arrived.

On the more related note of temperature, I am strongly biased toward the cold, although warm ambient sunlight to bask in is a particular favorite. Natural cold endurance and resistance is a wonderful perk of resilience to have, barring any place known for heat and humidity.

D&D 5e - Hoard of the Dragon Queen

Assuming the enemy is unaware and that the group intends to more or less pounce with the element of surprise, is it reasonable to assume those jumping the gap - as they are coordinating it to do so - receive that as their surprise round and combat proceeds with them on the other side from there, @Hekazu? As well, Brannor has a 9 for the initiative check.

Let's Talk: Why Can't We Be Friends?

There, now that is an actual element of discussion, thank you, @GingerBoi123. The first sentence is entirely true, yes, but from thereon out it appears the distinction was somewhat lost. As a preface, blacklisting and banning people was common on old forums throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s and I in no way specifically attributed this one; I can speak not at all to anything that happened here until some five years ago and would be wrong to pretend to know anything of it because the staff do not discuss it and one of the core ideas of the Roleplayer Guild as is that we expressly do not use it. On every other forum I had ever been to prior, this process of elimination was exceedingly common, and I am of the opinion, not the action, that is not an incorrect stance to take. It returns to a matter of culture as well, as the forum itself, in its base of users, do not exemplify this ideology; some still keep the concept of blacklists, most do not. The consequences are minimal for the proposed issues and generally neither are addressed, one because the community opts not to as a societal standard, the other because the ethos of operation.

With moderation, my emphasis, especially from my angle as a moderator is that it is absolutely crucial that moderators do exactly that, moderate. I entirely support the idea, enough that I pursue it relentlessly because I value the concept of an environment without these problems or at least that which can be realistically attained. If I did not, I would have surrendered my station. However, I am not so blind as to see some of the benefits, as well as pitfalls, of the older system I described. In today's age I do not reckon that as much would be successful and it would be a paradigm shift for the standards set out. On the Roleplayer Guild, people have tremendously more liberties in the community than I have seen elsewhere and there is really little to no actual ostracization of those who deviate from the straight and narrow. This is inherently a good thing, just that not all souls appreciate its graciousness to noble ends.

Let's Talk: Why Can't We Be Friends?

I could swear I addressed this exact element in it, but more importantly let me clarify that I do not think it to be, as said "a bit of a dick for it", rather I find that behavior terribly out of lane. If one is going to bother making a criticism, I would propose it begins with actually analyzing and critiquing it rather than stating what amounts to, "Too long, didn't read. Couldn't bother to because it's 'boring'." as some sort of profound proclamation, @GingerBoi123.

Let's Talk: Why Can't We Be Friends?

I can well see how one would go about resorting to calling it "vaguely dancing" and failing to outline any actual content then if they totally neglected to read it because it was deemed too large and wordy. An opinion to note but to be perfectly fair, @GingerBoi123, I was never quite so concerned with anyone else's. I might add, as an addendum, that I wholly look forward to whatever contributions you intend with the discussion.

Let's Talk: Why Can't We Be Friends?

To label it as some sort of simple question is an error in itself, @GingerBoi123. Even in the described attributes and conversation I outlined, I in no way cornered the entire matter of misbehaving persons in any way. At most I specified some key fundamentals of it and what can be done about them. There existed far more I considered but left out for the time being. Do not worry, more might be yet to follow, and there is no need to feel "toxic" unless one feels as though some errors described might apply to them.

Let's Talk: Why Can't We Be Friends?

I will preface this with the note that I absolutely disdain the usage of "toxic" as a modern term, as well as the phrase "toxic behavior", and do not ascribe to the belief that such a thing even is real. Let me elaborate as to what I mean so that my stance is crystal clear. It has been in my experience, consistently at that, a pejorative term used to widely label any form of undesirable behavior without ever specifying the actual type of issue that exists; i.e., "What is the issue?" "Well, that person is being toxic.", resulting in a nebulous and ambiguous quasi-understanding that just something done is wrong without ever denoting if it is actually wrong at all. It is intellectually lazy and we should eschew it for the sake of this circumstance at the very least, for the examination of issues posed, and for the better of us all at large, internet colloquialism and modern parlance or not.

With this established, let us define each particular issue as best we can without carving it into so many that it becomes a mess of technicalities, beginning with the problem of asking the various questions of "Why?". Why do people not all get along despite their commonality? The simplest answer, albeit obviously not complete, is that each person will have their own opinion formed from their intellect on down through their experiences. All of their exposure in life, cultural, social, political, familial, and beyond, crystallizes a concept of opinion, which is held to them in their lens as the best possible course of action. This construct may or may not be well defined, refined into a highly functional, multidimensional approach and understanding; typically the only sort of thing built by extensive experience or incredible power of empathy to emulate that of others. Most people realistically lack both and those who tend to be highly intellectual, thus logical, are often calved off by being further divided from that crucial tie that is the aforementioned element of empathy, which is by nature dealing with emotion and thus by nature seldom rational.

Lashing out to strike back is rarely a reasonable response, particularly in a medium as this, because the powers that be often can quell it with nearly no effort. Spitefulness is, by nature, ineffective and only serve to fulfill the wants of the higher mind rather than fulfill its needs, other than a sense of vengeance and what is perceived as "fair play"; the justification of, "If you harm me, I can harm you back." even if the supposed initiator has done nothing wrong. This is amplified by removing the social element of facing consequences, as by famously removing the true interpersonal interactions. At most, without greater interaction, the most personification ever seen by members abroad is an avatar and the content of the words chosen. If one is slothful and puts no effort into the usage of their words or their choice, combined with ambiguity of not having auditory and visual components, it fosters a sense of isolation from that individual and helps regard them to the realm of otherness.

As such, it becomes very, very easy to be emotionally justified and strike out wrong or right. The stakes are low for reprisal, a counterattack and riposte by the opposition will only seem to further justify yet another response, and they lack any real personhood. For all the concerns of the user with inflamed emotions knows or cares, that other individual is not actually a person, and in our age might realistically - not outside the realm of conceivable possibility - not actually be; see the relegation to anyone who says anything contrary to a narrative, no matter what it is, be regarded as a "bot". This is all a natural outcome of not needing to really answer or suffer for wronging others but having a world that is a one-way mirror peering out, rather than reflecting on to them those things they can see in others that reminds them of themselves. Hence the tremendous amount of exaggeration and hyperbole exhibited on the internet that has, again, increasingly by its pervasiveness alone bled into reality, but still exists with a stark line between the two; rare is it to see people who behave online and offline alike.

Roleplaying, by its nature of taking on other identities, theoretically furthers this. The falling out between persons and the conflict between one another means nothing when another face can be taken and yet another conceptual mask adopted. To ask how they can be stifled is to really ask the impossible functionally because there really is nothing preventing people - other than themselves thus nothing truly at all unless they are of strong character and caliber which most are not - from feeding into this cycle. To stanch such bleeding would require making it more personal and more connected, two elements that have been classically and rightfully advocated against in the internet world. The anonymity and the troubles that come with it are judged superior to being shackled to the retribution of regular expectations.

There is little doubt in mind that any would prefer the alternative, again particularly in an environment about becoming other people and other things in other places and other times, that being divorced from this freedom is positive. Thus, with the beast, its nature so too follows. The good comes with its bad and in the end, the only real metric one can peer into is the quality of person in question. That, fundamentally, determines what creates these behaviors. In another way, what matters is, is the makeup of the individual accessing the internet and how much they may temper themselves.

Of course this begs the question, of what relief is this to those looking into "avoiding or negating toxicity around an RP or another player"? Which I return with this; vet everyone carefully and adeptly. The issue with the so-called toxicity of collectives and persons is that the issues themselves are never addressed, at least not in this day and age. In days gone by, the purpose of blacklisting and banning players who were issues to the community was not only common place, it was expected. There was a rightfully hefty price leveled against those who were frequent and or notorious offenders that seldom had any amount of mercy to them and this was what kept most at bay. "Toxicity" as people call it today is a natural consequence of accepting and allowing everything, hand-waving it on, and allowing it to pool, in place of absolutely abolishing individuals who specifically caused trouble. I might even add before "toxic behavior" became the utterance of choice "drama" was the frequent go-to, so perhaps the matter is more clear now.

In something as a topic's thread and a roleplay, simply be rid of such people and bar them. It should be made clear that they are an ill fit and that because of their behavior, which was not becoming of the expectation, they should move on. It must be formal, indifferent, and most of all, just. Unless a player is specifically a known nexus of instability and misbehavior, no one should be closed off to the topic unless the topic is expressly for a listed party of names. It should not matter who they are in any other circumstance, ever. Any personal matters or issues should be left behind.

So this leads into how these matters can be managed. The first is that, cliques need not always be managed. There never was and should not ever be a mandate that new players should be granted special access to any group for the sake of inclusiveness. Outsiders are just that, outsiders, and need establish a reputation for themselves and find where they belong. This innately takes time, any amount of investiture into a hierarchy does from plants to animals, and that individual is the only one who has any obligation to do so. The community however, should be welcoming of those who do integrate into it, because its long term sustainment requires new lifeblood in the form of outsiders becoming integrated. Pushing prospective newcomers away is an issue of the individuals present but should be self-correcting innately, unless the party in question is woefully incompetent, once they decipher where that individual gravitates to and belongs. However, rejection is a reality of life and not all attempts at integration will succeed. To pretend it is possible is absolute fantasy, as if it were so easy there would never be the "new work place" or "first day of school" experience that nearly all persons have.

Continued, how does one prevent the naturally formed groups from attacking one another? They do not, they moderate them. Some amount of competition and animosity between factions - those that can be as easily demonstrated as assigning entirely random groups into arbitrary colors, where cultures then form and perceptions of others are created as seen in a number of psychological studies - is innate and inherent. In fact, it is desirable, as competition creates innovation and advancement, and the lack thereof is stagnation and death, at least on the grander scale. As this is such a sweeping phenomena it pervades every element of life, even those so small as say, forum roleplaying. The only effort that should be taken is to invent a code of conduct, an expectation of members socially, a cultural ideal, and a set of rules with good judges on what must be controlled - what must be moderated. Offenders should be punished accordingly and then, by virtue of the cultural ideal, suffer socially as well; this leads back to the idea that in the past, gaining the ire of a community was typically the finality for that individual's stint there, meaning effort would be taken to avoid that and instead appropriately adapt.

In the end, do allow this following proposal to close out if nothing else was clear. The idea of "toxicity" is naive and foolish and goes about removing punishable objective failures by individuals. Instead, all individuals should be weighed and judged accordingly for their failings, both formally and informally. Troublesome sorts, who inflict measurably more harm within the code of conduct and the rules of the community, are the problem and not any one group of persons. Where this spreads and creates a climate issue is when those persons are not removed and they rally together to form bands of similar minds. Each instance of this metaphorical bad blood is contagious, as humans are highly social creatures and maladies of emotion can and do spread from one to another through this mechanism. This subsequently creates closed groups with, typically, unspoken but mutually agreed on general aims and experiences; like breed like. These can often be outright hostile and filled with persecution against their enemies to passive-aggressive out of fear that one step will have them axed. They are suspicious and wary of outsiders even if met on amicable terms. These collective pools of actors will act largely as one entity beyond the scope of any one individual, the usual rallying and bandwagoning seen by friends.

The crux of this issue lies back in the fact that the initial problem individual was never adequately addressed. Whatever they sincerely suffered, if even at all, was insufficient to strike them from their behavioral stupor. In some cases it never will be sufficient by doings of the internet, it is very difficult to influence people through force rather than manipulation that way and the latter is certainly morally dubious and questionably ethical at the least. Thus the only real answer is to strike it down before it begins and create an ethos that operates by example.

If the community wishes "toxic" behavior to be gone, then it must stop playing into it and let the emotional investiture and energy go. Holding on to it at any amount and allowing it to persist will repeat this problem. So it goes, @Lord Wraith, the best answer is to not allow it to happen or remain in the first place and ensure malefactors are acted against within the standards of the community.

Cara's Originally Titled OoC Hangout Thread ♥ (Still)

I am very, very sorry to hear it @Carantathraiel. You are correct, the best thing to take from this, as always, is that the suffering is now all over. The things that should be remembered from hereon out are all of the good things that came in life. I wish you a speedy recovery from this loss in your life.