Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: The Will to Power - Season 2 - XP & Game Logs

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default The Will to Power - Season 2 - XP & Game Logs

    Session 1: 20120120

    Summary
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Vincent (Phil): A (4 XP)

    Assessment
    Mal (Darren): B (78%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): A
    Posts were as timely as possible given the hectic nature of the scenes. The vast majority of posts were substantial.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): B
    All actions were mostly in keeping with the character profile even when under stress. He was uncharacteristically calm given the circumstances. Descriptions included good details to give a clear impression of the actions and intentions of the character.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    Tactics were responsible but not exceptional. Creative application of competencies was minimal.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. Despite that, posts were otherwise clear in their intentions and logically organized.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (53%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): C
    Actions were typically posted late and/or slowly. Posts had satisfactory substance. Overall participation was satisfactory.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): C
    Acting was in line with the character profile. While actual actions were plausible, detail and description fluctuated significantly under stressful circumstances.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There appeared to be only some basic tactical thinking and minimal creativity. Overall, actions seemed to be entirely reactive rather than proactive.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were no significant spelling errors and grammar was excellent. Word usage was appropriate, posts were organized and logical. The brevity of the posts did impact the clarity of intent and action negatively.

    Vincent (Phil): A (98%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): A
    Posts were both appropriate timed and fairly quick. Posts had excellent substance and were still timely.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): A
    Role-playing was impeccable; the various aspects of the character came together into a cohesive and believable whole despite the lack of a proper profile. All activity, given the understanding of the character, seemed plausible. Details for even minor actions were excellent.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    Tactics were both creative and aggressive. Abilities were used to thoroughly and appropriately and even included some humor that did not disrupt the experience.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Spelling and grammar were wanting, but otherwise the communication was exemplary. There was no ambiguity in posts.
    Last edited by Xychotic; 02-24-2012 at 01:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 2: 20120127

    Summary
    Mal (Darren): A (4 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Vincent (Phil): S (5 XP)

    Assessment
    Mal (Darren): A (90%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): A
    Posts were submitted quickly and at appropriate times. The posts were consistently substantive and timely.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): A
    Actions taken were calm to a degree not expressed in the profile—there is more Darren here than there is anything that would indicate that Mal is his own person. Beyond that, all actions were plausible and the posts had good detail.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    Nothing seemed particularly creative. None of his unique abilities were used. However, the actions he took made sense and drove the characters forward to address their situation.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    The writing was excellent and concepts were presented in an easily understood manner.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (65%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): C
    Posts were made at appropriate times but were often slow or delayed. At times, the character seemed to disappear even though it was present. Participatory posts typically had volume but not lacked significant substance beyond strict action-reaction technical matters.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): C
    Actions and tactics were consistent with the character profile. Unfortunately, the level of detail was significantly lacking. The posts typically had two issues: minimalism or writer’s perspective (as opposed to audience perspective).
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    The character’s competencies were used in a meaningful manner in pursuit of its goals. The actions were not terribly creative, but that is not detrimental to the performance given the character and situation.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Communication, organization, and technical writing were all strong.

    Vincent (Phil): S (108%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): A
    There was an excellent balance of frequency, timeliness, and substance.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): S
    The commitment to the character was very clear in all senses. Details in the posts expressed the character extremely well.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    The character used his powers creatively and tactically and ultimately succeeded at his goals.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    While there were numerous technical writing errors, there were no significant issues with communication.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 3: 20120217

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (55%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): C
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): C
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was no cause of tactical thinking and no real place for creativity.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.

    Mal (Darren): B (78%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): B
    Most criteria were well met given the context of the session. There was a noticeable lack of initiative, but response times were still good.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): B
    All criteria were well met given the context of the session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Creative problem solving was not significant but still notable. There was no need for tactical action given the time.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (75%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): C
    There were numerous delays and response times were generally slow. Participation posts tended to be minimalistic.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): B
    The only criterion that was not met was the inclusion of character detail. Otherwise, the role-playing was accurate to the profile.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    All criteria were well met given the context of the session.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    All criteria were well met given the context of the session.

    Tristan (Phil): B (73%)
    Participation/Timing (30%): C
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.
    Role-Playing/Detail (40%): A
    All criteria were met superbly given the context of the session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    All criteria were met satisfactorily given the context of the session.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 4: 20120224

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (60%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    There is a great amount of detail almost to the point of excess. There is an unbalancing effect between detail and timing because of that. Still, timing is satisfactory; it does not impact to experiential detriment.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation posts were made regularly. The interactions were mostly true to character but the emotional vacillations from one stimulus to the next strained plausibility. This was most noticeable in the significant emotional shifts between dealing with Mal and Courtney at the same table with only a second or two of IC time.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was no application of competencies. Most noticeable was against in the test between Frederick and Mal (it was very one-sided in that Frederick only got angry despite that his competencies reflect a talented wit).
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Grammar and tense problems plague the writing and are an obvious symptom of overreaching with detail. Spelling problems are minimal and despite the problems, communication is not actually hindered.

    Mal (Darren): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    The level of detail was exemplary and was extremely well balanced with post timing. A problem that arose was the balance between other people’s posts and the responses in that the order of response often seemed muddled. It is acceptable to retroac-tively respond in a cohesive manner in a single post to maintain detail and timing.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was regular and consistent. Forward momentum was maintained, albeit at a very slow rate. The actions taken did help engagement with the game experience. The portrayal of the character is moving closer to the profile than a case of “Darren as…” and that is a good thing.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Although no Tasks/Tests were used, it was clear that the interactions would have used the character’s social competencies effectively. While the actions were of questionable creativity and dubious efficiency, they did accomplish the goal.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Communications and writing were strong but not exceptional.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (55%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): D
    Details were typically minimalistic with only occasional quality description. Timing was decent, this is suspected to be because of an overall lack of qualitative participation. The lack of participation made the character almost invisible if not for her tactical relevance.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation posts were made sporadically at best. Those actions taken were typically done in whisper but were the most significant force in driving the game forward. Role-playing suffered from the lack of detail and overall participation but the actions were consistent with the character profile. The performance was best at the beginning but quickly faded with more players.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    The actions of the character utilized her abilities in an active and highly effective manner. This led to a consistent degree of success in all her endeavors.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were some problems with communication in OOC, but nothing significant IC. Writing was as good as can be expected.

    Tristan (Phil): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    There is a strong presence of detail well balanced for prompt response and initiation timing. The posts were posted quickly and with appropriate timing.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation posts were made regularly and established a notable if muted presence. The actions of the character were markedly true to understood concept but they did very little to push the story forward. The best improvement advice would be to express boredom in a more active manner rather than entirely passive.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    The muted in-character reactions to the session resulted in no use of competencies. This did not detract from the overall experience but was not any sort of addition.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Minor grammar issues such as capitalization and punctuation plague the posts but overall communication is entirely effective.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 5: 20120302

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (68%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Actions were posted with substantial detail. The timing was mostly a nonissue because of the simplicity of the interactions. Establishing a balance between detail, writing, and timing should be one of the more significant aims for improvement.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation is very strong, even when not the main focus. Role-playing was barely within the bounds of the profile but did not actually breach. The actions taken during the session did help to drive the story forward in the form of reconciling inter-character discord.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    The pursuit of an equitable fresh start with Mal was a singular scene that could have invited more in-character competency demonstration but did not pan out quite as smoothly as possible. There was no other situation with relevant competencies engaged.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Much of the writing is overwrought but the concepts being presented were communicated decently. There were cases where words were missing or sentences were cut short and this negatively impacted communication of the described event. Writing may benefit from taking the time to reread posts aloud, but that would likely detract from timing.

    Mal (Darren): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Detail and timing are excellent. The greater simplicity of the interactions in this session made timing less of an issue.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was consistent throughout the session. Actions taken were in-character. Overall, the performance was satisfactory but not significantly impactful in driving the story except for the interpersonal discord resolution with Frederick.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    Due in large part to the minimal forward momentum of the session, tactics and creativity were very nearly nonexistent.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    There was a tense issue (future instead of present). Aside from that, posts were organized, logical, and the concepts were well expressed.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Details were significantly improved, though the separation between detail posts and dialogue posts appeared to cause unnecessary delays. Timing seems to be a little bit slow, but does not negatively impact the game in any significant manner. When the focus is on her, detail quality tends to drop.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was improved by the increase in post detail but post frequency is still a bit wanting. All actions were in keeping with the established profile of the character. As usual, this character takes the most actions to press the story further but the relatively low level of active participation detracts from that.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    The actions taken by this character utilized her conduit powers very effectively. While creativity was not really present, efficiency was.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were some minor word usage, spelling, and grammar issues, but overall, communication was strong and effective. OOC communication suffers due in large part to implicit rather than explicit writing (this does not impact the grade but should be considered).

    Tristan (Phil): B (83%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    The details given to nearly every post continue to provide an example for everyone else to follow. Timing is nearly impeccable. Even the most brief participation posts include enough descriptive elements to convey the character.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Delightfully creative role-playing that established participation, was in character, and elevated the game experience (bonus). As before, everything was done very true to understood character concept. Forward progress was not really generated by this character except through passive impatience.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    The lack of activity resulted in a complete lack of tactics, problem-solving, or anything of the sort. This was not detrimental to the experience but did nothing to add.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There was a noticeable amount of spelling errors but they did not significantly impact communication. There was an instance of future tense.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 6: 20120309

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Posts had substantial if questionably written detail. They were also posted quickly. The balance was met, though at a loss of communication (graded separately)
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was consistent and actions true to the character. Actions taken helped drive the story forward. There was some mildly entertaining activity that was worth a bonus but it was brief (small bonus).
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Creative problem solving had cropped up on several occasions. The character’s competencies were put to use effectively. There was nothing especially outstanding but the actions lead to the success of the initial group objective.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    There are numerous writing errors that can muddle communication. While it could be considered stylistic, it is incorrect English usage. Communication suffers due to the writing errors but is not critically impaired.

    Mal (Darren): B (70%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Detail was well balanced against speed. In most cases, timing was well organized but trying to respond to multiple stimuli at once occasionally messed it up.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation and role-playing were well executed. Actions taken drove the story forward and were fairly in character. “Darren as…” had started to crop up in this session but it was not significant.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was little opportunity for this character to apply creative or effective problem solving but what situations arose were handled effectively.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were numerous but largely negligible errors in writing. Communication was overall excellent.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (63%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Speed has decreased but timing is not yet detrimental. The inclusion of detail is spotty: some posts are strong but many are minimal. The presence of any sort of stress directly correlates with a deep drop in detail especially when it is most relevant to support engagement and make the character into a person rather than an emotionless robot.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Overall participation is substantive as the character has been largely in the spotlight. Role-playing is similarly appropriate but no significantly noticeable actions appear to have been taken. Her actions did a good amount to force the events forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There were no significantly creative uses of competencies but the uses were highly effective.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were several technical errors but no significant detractors to communication.

    Tristan (Phil): B (80%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    In the main room, posts had a satisfactory amount of detail. However, speed and timing were largely irrelevant because the actions of the character were largely independent of others. Details in the whisper tab were fairly substantial. Timing and speed requirements were lax, so there were no problems there.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation at the beginning was satisfactory and in-character. Participation in the whisper was exclusive so is treated as neutral. The actions were consistent with the understood character but actual “role-playing” was absent due to the strategic approach to the situation (neutral).
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    Actions taken creatively and effectively utilized the competencies of the character.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Technical writing had numerous and sundry flaws, mostly with spelling and punctuation. Communication was not significantly impaired by this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 7: 20120316

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Mal (Darren): A (5 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (68%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    The level of detail in the posts was substantial. Timing and speed were both satisfactory for the majority of the session though there was a clear impact on communication. OOC communication during the game at timing critical moments represented an unnecessary distraction and impacted the GM’s ability to provide effective timing.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation posts were made fairly regularly. The actions taken were both in-character and helped drive the story forward. The posts in general met the level of the game and did not significantly add or detract from the experience.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    There was assertive and creative use of the character’s competencies to solve the various problems that came up. The objectives were achieved effectively and the actions were complementary with the rest of the group.
    Writing/Communication (10%): D
    Rampant spelling, word usage, grammar, and punctuation errors afflicted very nearly every post. If it was not for my perspective as GM, it would seem that

    Mal (Darren): A (90%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Details were plentiful and substantial. Timing became something of an issue in some situations but speed was satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Regular participation was satisfactory. Actions taken seemed entirely appropriate to the character; there was no “Darren as…” in this session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    The use of character competencies toward problem solving was both extremely effective and creative. This resulted in a great degree of success in pursuit of group objectives.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were some occasions of improper emote usage and technical writing problems. There were a couple seemingly inappropriate future tense instances. Despite those errors, there were no problems with communication.
    Bonus: +1
    The description of the conduit powers was absolutely perfect. It was a high risk power in that it could be described very poorly and the chances of doing it well were fairly slim.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Descriptive details were good when they are made, especially this session. Important details, such as who the character spoke to at any given time, were often missing. Speed and timing were still issues given several slightly disruptive delays.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation volume was lacking; most notably missing are the non-focus update posts that explain body language and position. The actions taken by the character were true to profile and, while the forward momentum was led by Frederick, nothing about this character dragged on that. However, the lack of participation did nothing to improve the overall game experience. Despite the low participation, role-playing was actually very good.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    Tactical role-playing was very good this session. While the character did not get very many chances to take action, everything she did was consistent with the idea that, if she was taking the lead, she would be getting things done right. It was good to see use of conduit powers beyond Soul Projection.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    There was a smattering of incorrect emote usage but the use of new words even for the GM is worth a small bonus (fait accompli, despite the misspelling). The posts were typically well organized, logical, and successfully communicated intentions and actions.

    Tristan (Phil): B (70%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Descriptive details were substantial in position in body language but often minimal in expression and tone. Posts were made quickly and in a timely manner.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was a little lacking in the main room and role-playing was mostly absent in the whisper (this is not entirely your fault). The actions that were taken were in character. Participation was on par with the quality of the game.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    There was no shortage of creative and highly effective power use despite the GM’s misunderstanding of their functionality.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There was a misused future tense and some spelling and grammar errors. Communication was never a problem. Posts were made in an organized and logical manner.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 8: 20120323

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): A (5 XP) (Perfect score bonus included)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (45%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Timing was fairly shoddy during the action sequence, there seems to be a rampant misunderstanding regarding the use of the action sequence list. Speed of posts was less of an issue but there was some lag. Detail in writing was hindered by poor English usage and attention to detail of other posts seemed to suffer.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation posts were made frequently even when not the focus of the game. However, role-playing anything more significant than basic participation was largely inconsequential.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    There was minimal creativity or tactical action. Escaping the helicopter was the only instance and miscommunication resulted in a retcon.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    There was rampant usage errors when posting emotes; usually with the structure of sentences starting with the character’s name. “Frederick sitting…” or “Frederick glancing…” when the structure should be “Frederick is sitting…” or “Frederick sits…” In general, the writing errors stem from passive writing. Other technical errors arise very frequently. Post organization is logical only sporadically resulting in a disorganized retcon-ish writing style. Actual communication is only mildly hampered by poor English usage but was a problem due to mishandled attention to detail.

    Mal (Darren): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    There was a good balance between detail and speed. During RP scenes, attempting to respond to everyone hindered strong timing.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was strong and role-playing fit the character profile fairly well. The actions taken seemed well suited to driving the story onward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was no significant use of tactics. Minor creative problem solving was applied to escape the helicopter scene.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Writing was largely devoid of errors. The posts were logically organized and conveyed an intuitive sequence of actions. Communication was clear and concise.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (55%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Descriptive detail was lacking in a great deal of posts. This often manifests as an absence of adjectives and adverbs. Timing and speed was strong overall, though this seemed to be at the expense of detail.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was up to snuff but role playing quality suffered due to the lack of detail. While nothing was out of character, nothing about the role-playing added to the experience. It was extremely mechanical in nature, meaning that the overall impression was that the performance was phoned in rather than actually acted out. This was especially evident with the lackluster acting during the “high tension” of the car chase.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was nothing particularly tactical or creative about any action taken by the character. The only credit would be the strategic placement in Dev’s apartment, but that was largely insignificant.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Writing and communication were largely impeccable.

    Tristan (Phil): A (100%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Timing, speed, and detail were all in good balance. As usual, post details were substantive and helped provide a greater sense of verisimilitude.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation was very strong and helped to improve the quality of the overall role-playing experience. The actions taken by the character were both appropriate and helped drive the story forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    While not terribly creative given existing precedent, all actions were tactically valid. There was consistent forward movement and the character’s competencies were used both effectively and in an entertaining manner.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    There was only a couple noticeable errors in emote usage. Other than that, writing and communication were impeccable.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Story 1: The (Un)Forgiven: Complete

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (6 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (8 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (6 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): A (9 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (63%)
    Role-playing Frederick appears to be a challenge in large part due to the difference between Alex’s personality and Frederick’s Bond-esque suaveness. I suggest focusing on how to act like a smooth gentleman including, and quite possibly most importantly, is the use of clever witticisms in conversation.
    Tactical thought could use work. Mostly, this can be accomplished by considering the possible scenarios and determining options on how to address them. Writing also needs work mostly by staying away from passive sentences like “Frederick is sitting…” and favoring more assertive prose like “Frederick sits…” The descriptive detail should also have a stronger balance with speed and technical writing skill. I suggest reading other books and exploring the thesaurus.

    Mal (Darren): B (84%)
    There is precious little to focus on for improvement. The difficulty is that all graded aspects are strong and without glaring weakness. The best advice I can think of is to focus on timing in dialogue as the most significant area with room for improvement. Perhaps there should be more effort into synthesizing the various other actions into one post that rebalancing temporal continuity. Another small aspect that has been less significant as the game progressed was “Darren as…” and that could slightly be helped by redoubling energy on portraying Malcolm or further defining him to help the portrayal.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (63%)
    Depth is the biggest weakness here. Those details that make the character a person such as body language and descriptions of tone are frequently absent. This is further exacerbated by the presence of “author-perspective” in that descriptions include “Why’s?” when they should be focused largely on “How’s” and “What’s,” with the “Where’s” and “Who’s” a close second in importance.
    By solving that issue, it seems that participation, role-playing and detail will automatically be corrected. Writing and tactical thoughts are extremely strong and need no significant improvement.

    Tristan (Phil): A (91%)
    What can I say? This XP carries over to your next character due to your consistently strong performance. Consider playing someone who is more willing to work with others and go on adventures. Other than that, keep up the good work.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 9: 20120330

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Mal (Darren): C (2 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Tristan (Phil): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (45%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Timing appeared to be strong, but the frequent pauses and “tense silence” dragged on overall speed. Detail was exceptional though suffered due to poor or just strange word usage (factored in writing section). There was a decent balance between detail and speed overall.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): D
    Participation was strong, role-playing was not. The character is supposed to be suave and sophisticated but was role-played with marginally better tact than a drunken rhinoceros and profound obliviousness. In fact, the conduct was so wildly in violation of the profile, it is surprising that I didn’t take corrective action at the time.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    Tactics and creativity were largely irrelevant during this scene. Given the social competencies of the character, though, social tactics were completely absent.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Technical use of emotes was drastically improved from the previous session. English usage and communication of intentions were strong and clear though there were several examples of out of place word usage. The posts were logically organized but there was some fracturing, resulting in consecutive posts. For times when a pause is necessary, include the zero space between actions to provide a greater sense of time.

    Mal (Darren): C (63%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Technical details are good but certain posts lack adjectives/adverbs in the descriptions. Timing suffers due to efforts to respond to all posts. Speed is a strong suit. The balance between speed and detail is proper.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation is excellent. The actions taken were appropriate though questionably in character (nothing about the profile indicates that Mal would or would not hold a gun to Frederick under the table). The actions taken represent progress toward character goals but not necessarily the overall story. The role-playing was a positive influence on the overall experience.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    Creativity is strong though it does seem to be at the expense of tactical validity. Actions taken were establishing pre-mission objectives in an infrastructure manner but have not yet progressed all the way to objective completion.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Technical writing has numerous but small errors. Communication, though, was impeccable.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (50%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Timing seems to be consistently late. Detail is lacking, resulting in fairly mechanical posts—this is fixed by the inclusion of more adjectives and adverbs describing the “How’s?” in addition to the “What’s?” It is unclear if existing low level of detail and speed is due to inability to type fast enough or lack of attention, what is clear is that it needs to be corrected. Detail improved significantly after the pause.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was somewhat infrequent but definitely present. Role-playing actions were consistent with the character profile, however nothing about the character drove the story forward or added anything significant to the overall experience. The problem with role-playing seems to stem from the lack of detail: dialogue is only a small part of communication, body language is far more important and that concept needs to be extrapolated to role-playing descriptions due to the lack of live interaction.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    Tactics and creativity were largely irrelevant during the session and nothing about any of this character’s actions seemed to express either.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    The technical aspects of writing were impeccable. There were no problems with communication.

    Tristan (Phil): B (78%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Timing and speed were largely irrelevant due to the detached positioning in the scene. However, there was a good indication of temporal continuity that represented a good presence of detail.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was slim but effectively maintained the character’s presence in the appropriate scene. Role-playing was consistently in character and was a positive influence on the overall experience. The actions did not really push the story forward but they also did not hold it back.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    There were no tactically relevant situations or significant opportunities for creativity. The actions of the character reflected that.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    There were minor errors that were almost completely unnoticeable. Communication was without fault.
    Last edited by Xychotic; 04-13-2012 at 08:32 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 10: 20120413

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): NA (1 XP)
    Katie (Phil): NA (1 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (4 XP) (Bonus for an S-grade.)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): NA (0%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Writing/Communication (10%): NA
    No actions taken.

    Katie (Phil): NA (0%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Writing/Communication (10%): NA
    No actions taken.

    Mal (Darren): B (78%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Action timing and speed were impeccable. Technical detail was decent but descriptive detail hit the wall mostly in the form of lack of adjectives and adverbs: Mal was frequently smiling, nodding, and occasionally looking around, but only rarely doing it ruefully or in the best “What could possibly go wrong?” manner.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was largely irrelevant because when Mal was in the scene, he was a main character anyway. Actions taken were consistent with the character and helped his agenda to move forward. However, there was nothing in particular about the performance that strengthened or detracted from the overall RP experience—the performance was good but not great.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Really, the only thing to note is that the plan to steal the report is Mal’s and has a clear purpose. During this session, no competencies of any sort were put to use. Nevertheless, Mal’s actions are all effective for meeting his objectives.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Spelling and grammar were very strong. The posts were consistently written in present tense, clearly communicated play-er/character intentions, and were organized and logical.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Action timing was good and speed was only slightly lacking; it seems that action timing benefited from only one character also on the scene. Detail was executed in a particularly curious manner that is going to be judged positively: despite a lack of descriptive detail, the choice of words was well nuanced and simulated what would otherwise be extensive description. The balance between speed and detail was acceptable, though it still seems that was artificially augmented by having only one other character. It was not until the solo-scene that it became obvious that timing was lacking and comparative detail—relative to the GM’s description—fell very flat.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation could not be better, but that still seems inflated for the already described reason. The actions taken were con-sistent with the profile and helped move the story forward inasmuch as Mal’s plan counts as the story. However, the role-playing quality felt like it detracted from the experience largely due to the minimalist nature of the posts.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    As usual, tactical thinking and problem solving are consistently a strong suit. Rebecca’s competencies were utilized aggressively and effectively. She consistently accomplishes her professional purpose: intelligence gathering.
    Writing/Communication (10%): S
    Spelling and grammar were very strong. Posts were written in present tense and were logically organized. The key that was truly impressive was the use of well nuanced words. Keep that up, take some time to improve, and encourage others to do the same.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 11: 20120420

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): NA (1 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): NA (1 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): NA (0%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): NA
    No significant actions taken.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): NA
    No significant actions taken.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): NA
    No significant actions taken.
    Writing/Communication (10%): NA
    No significant actions taken.

    Katie (Phil): NA (0%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): NA
    No actions taken.
    Writing/Communication (10%): NA
    No actions taken.

    Mal (Darren): B (83%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    The posts were made with good timing—it was somewhat amusing to see the case against this be the very first pair of posts—and speed was very strong. There was a very good level of descriptive and technical detail. There was a good balance between detail and speed.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was inflated due to the relatively insulated scenario but it is historically strong. The actions of the character in the scenario were not very well established and questionably plausible: there were some assumptions about Mal’s sphere of awareness that could conceivably be in excess of the character profile mostly focused on the actions taken against the “persuasive agent.”
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Finally, Darren asserted the competencies of Mal. Perhaps this is largely due to the scene. The scenario was approached creatively, though for this particular objective (acquire a key card and a passcode), the actions ultimately lead to failure (the key card is useless because the agent is dead and no one knows the passcode yet).
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Spelling and grammar were largely impeccable; I didn’t find any errors. The posts were written according to all expectations.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (60%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Timing and speed were acceptable at first. Descriptive detail was mildly lacking in descriptors but well compensated with nuance. Another detail lacking was the physical tells associated with the use of conduit powers. At the end of the session, all aspects of performance dropped precipitously.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was strong throughout but this appears to be inflated by the circumstances. The actions did not seem particularly in character in a particularly nuanced manner: Rebecca has long been portrayed as mildly anti-social and uncomfortable in civilian social situations; the lack of discomfort or stress of overcoming that discomfort seems out of character. Outside of that bit of flirting, the actions were consistent with the profile. The character’s actions were otherwise progressive and did add to the overall experience. Again, this imploded in the last hour.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    This was clearly a situation that was largely outside of the scope of the character’s profile. Despite that, competencies were used surprisingly aggressively; it was not until review of whispers that made that apparent (this was a result of the lack of descriptive tells associated with power use). The tactical and objective-meeting validity of the character actions were somewhat questionable: the actions seemed largely reactive rather than proactive.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    The spelling and grammar appeared to be largely impeccable. Communication, organization, and tense were strong.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 12: 20120427

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Katie (Phil): NA (1 XP)
    Mal (Darren): A (4 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): A (4 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Attention to detail was very strong but, as noted in the writing section, there was some inappropriate author perspective. Timing was fairly strong. Speed is unknown due to the delay between the session and the grading.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Roleplaying and participation were strong. There did appear to be some metagame influence to actions due to metagame issues, namely timing and an apparent displeasure with the pace of the session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    There seems to be a shortage of lateral thinking even in the insignificant matters.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There was a noticeable amount of author perspective in the posts: remember to restrict descriptions to what the character is doing by focusing on the how and what, but not the why.

    Katie (Phil): NA (0%)
    No actions taken.

    Mal (Darren): A (95%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    I particularly appreciate that you started the session with an updated character description. There were enough details to encourage a measure of immersion. Timing seemed mostly strong.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation and role-playing were both strong.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    It was interesting to see how the BMHA scenario seemed to stump you as the player. The character was portrayed to be very creative but limited in tactical competence.
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    Writing and communication were both strong.

    Rebecca (Melissa): A (90%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Timing appeared to be strong. Detail was good, especially compared to your rather poor history. The present key is the use of nuanced vocabulary instead of volume of descriptors.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation was strong and role-playing was excellent.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    Tactical use of character competencies continues to be a strong suit. Creativity is not. However, the actions taken were all very effective at pursuing the character’s role in the team.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Writing was very strong. Communication seems to suffer slightly because of a tendency to truncate sentences in metagame communication that eliminates context.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 13: 20120504

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): A (4 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): A (4 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (58%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    It is good that the initial post involved a description. Details were very strong, including motions, position, and appearance. Timing also seems to be fairly strong. Speed is not graded because of the difference between the session time and the grade time.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was satisfactory. Role-playing seemed exceedingly artificial.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was no tactical or creative activity during the session. That is not impactful due to the nature of the session.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    The organization of sentences is an issue again and it is obviously a symptom of balancing detail with writing style. Sentences like, “Adjusting his button shirt he approaches the entrance of the McDonalds he was expected to meet at,” are not correctly written and suffer from a somewhat illogical organization. A better expression would be, “He adjusts his button shirt as he approaches…” This is a very common occurrence, less in recent times but it resurfaces when you, as a player, are not in a good mental place. Other run-on sentences are something of an issue.

    Katie (Phil): A (93%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Detail is well executed in that it was finely nuanced and does a great job using as few words as possible to communicate an image. Timing was excellent. Speed was forgotten, so it is not factored.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation and role-playing were both exemplary. Your role-playing continues to set the bar against which others are measured.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    The tactics and creativity exhibited during this session were fairly lacking. That is not a problem due in large part to the nature of the session.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Communication was satisfactory.

    Mal (Darren): B (70%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Again, it is good that you started the session with a description. Tonal descriptions were somewhat lacking—I’ve noticed small head and facial gestures but little else. This is no longer considered high quality. Timing was strong as usual; do not forget the retcon posting that rebalances interactions in a meaningful manner.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation and role-playing were satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    It was not immediately apparent whether or not the character was specifically trying to be boring or you, as a player, were not really trying. I’d like the think the former. Regardless, this resulted in very little in the way of tactics or creativity.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Communication was satisfactory.

    Rebecca (Melissa): A (93%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Piggybacking on Mal’s initial description was not a strong move though it was probably the most description for the character I’ve seen in a long time. The details of the character’s feelings about the environment were very nice. Timing appeared to be fairly strong.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    I really appreciated the expression of displeasure with the screaming children described in the background. This lead to consistent participation posts as you described dealing with the stress. Role-playing this session explored undocumented territory that enriched the overall experience. Even then, the character’s actions also helped drive the game session onward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Although there was extensive use of character powers, there is a growing sense of the character being used as a one-trick pony. This results in a reduction for a conspicuous lack of creativity.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Communication was satisfactory.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 14: 20120511

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Katie (Phil): B (3 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Brief but adequate.
    Note: It is acknowledged that your involvement was forced to minimal levels due to the server problem.

    Katie (Phil): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Brief but satisfactory.
    Note: It is acknowledged that your involvement was forced to minimal levels due to the server problem.

    Mal (Darren): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    All satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    All satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Automatically satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Note: I’m starting to see more problems with my GMing. Specifically, right at the beginning, you posted “he attempts to evaluate what is going on and what the best course of action would be” and I completely missed it. That would have required an appropriate Task to provide more information and, consequently, the actions taken following that will be graded in the light of GM neglect.

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (53%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Detail was adequate, timing was satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was satisfactory, role playing was adequate.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    Adequate.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 15: 20120518

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): B (2 XP)
    Mal (Darren): B (3 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (2 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Note: Your camera time was so brief that XP is reduced by 50%.

    Katie (Phil): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Note: Your camera time was so brief that XP is reduced by 50%.

    Mal (Darren): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Automatically satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Satisfactory.
    Note: Your camera time was so brief that XP is reduced by 50%.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 16: 20120525

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): B (3 XP)
    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (45%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Occasionally, tonal descriptions were missing. Sometimes it seems that excessive details reduced speed but given the overall poor speed of the entire session it did not impact timing. The “Rough night?” comment strongly indicated an overall lack of attention.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was very regular though this could be entirely due to the character being “on focus” the whole session. There continues to be dissonance between the way the character is portrayed and the profile or character build. Specifically, he is supposed to be suave, romantic, witty, and chivalric; the personality portrayal fails to convey these, but the specific actions taken fall within the profile. The only truly appropriate portrayal was the flat reception of Mal’s death. This discrepancy resulted in no change to the overall quality of the experience and while the actions did drive the story forward, it was very sluggish.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    There was an overall failure in the application of abilities, creative problem solving, or even goal accomplishment. That said, this did not significantly detract from the entire experience but it did drag on it.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Posts suffered from grammar and word usage problems. These occasionally resulted in inaccurate communication of intentions and actions but not significantly. This also negatively impacted the organization and logic of a given post. However, posts were made in present tense at the right time so that is good.

    Katie (Phil): B (80%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    The details of tone and actions were very strong. Speed was expertly managed. Timing was a nonissue due to the sluggish pace of the game.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation was strong as usual. Actions were consistent with the established profile. The actions did help the overall quality of the experience and all actions taken were consistently applied to drive the story forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    The character actively and effectively applied her competencies in pursuit of her goals.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were several errors in technical English usage but this did not interfere in any element of communication.

    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0%)

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (65%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Nuance covered detail well but it appears that timing and speed were irrelevant due to the existing pace of the game.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation appeared satisfactory. There was nothing of particularly great or poor quality about the performance this session.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    Creative participation was minimal but competencies were applied in an effort to achieve goals, albeit they were ultimately unsuccessful.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Communication in OOC suffered due to the disconnect between the IC tells and the OOC communication and resolution of the projected actions. IC communication was satisfactory as were all other elements of the posts.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 17: 20120601

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): B (3 XP)
    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): C (2 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): C (55%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Details appeared to be better balanced this session. The slow pace of the game accommodated any speed and timing values.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Participation posts were plentiful but much of the participation was with NPCs. The actions taken were consistent. Of note is that the performance this session finally started driving the story forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): D
    There was no application of abilities, creative or effective problem solving, and minimal goal accomplishment.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Spelling and grammar were tolerable. The posts were consistently written in the proper tense but there were some issues with organization and temporal logic. The actions of the character were accurately communicated.

    Katie (Phil): B (85%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Consistent, good details were provided in a timely fashion. Due to the relatively so pace of the game, speed and timing were otherwise not an important factor.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation was strong, as usual. The character was portrayed as a unique individual working with the group and, while this was not in keeping with a profile, it did help develop it further and was well executed. In doing so, the character improved the game experience and still helped drive the story forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    While there is little to be said about creativity, the character’s competencies were put to effective use.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Writing and communication were satisfactory.

    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0%)

    Rebecca (Melissa): C (53%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): C
    Detail was covered satisfactorily through nuance. Speed and timing was defunct through the overall slow pace of the game.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    Participation was satisfactory except that it flagged when even one NPC was added to the scene. The actions were consistent with the character. However, there was no improvement of the game experience from your presence and the actions themselves did little to drive the story forward.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    The biggest problem that is evident is a sort of “one-trick pony” nature of competency use. The degree of fault is unclear, but I’ve noticed a lack of exploratory questions. This is sort of mitigated by the more recent pursuit of mundane resources. I strongly advise exploring more lateral thinking, possibly even taking metagame notes that will facilitate more exhaustive mental rigor and thus encourage creative problem solving.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Writing and communication were satisfactory.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 18: 20120608

    Summary
    Frederick (Alex): B (3 XP)
    Katie (Phil): A (4 XP)
    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): B (3 XP)

    Assessment
    Frederick (Alex): B (73%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Posting was done in a timely manner and had a good balance of speed and detail.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    The participation and role-playing were strong.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    While the tactical approach ultimately failed, the pursuit of goals using the talents of the character was a step up from before. Specifically, this is in reference to the failed social interaction with Shery (you succeeded in that, she didn’t actually attack). Take some time reviewing the character’s skills and imagining how to apply them.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    While the writing has not sabotaged communication, there are enough errors that it has attracted attention. There are numerous punctuation issues, like ending questions with periods, and grammar, like incorrectly organized sentences. Most of these errors seem indicative of a lack of review before hitting enter.

    Katie (Phil): A (98%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    No changes, keep it up. I particularly appreciate the balance between speed and detail.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Keep up the good work.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    Good work. Keep doing what you’re doing.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were a few minor punctuation issues and a couple run on sentences. Aside from that, there was strong organization, proper sentence tense, and clear communication.

    No Character This Session (Darren): NA (0%)

    Rebecca (Melissa): B (65%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    There has been strong growth in describing the character’s speech, the next level is to explore body language. As usual, speed is a bit wanting but timing seems acceptable.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): C
    There needs to be more frequent participation posts, especially when not the focus on the scene. The low speed seems to impact this. Actions were consistent with the character profile but they did little to press the story forward or improve the quality of the experience. If you need GM assistance, feel free to ask; repeat the question if I miss it. Nudge me. Do whatever it takes to capture my attention long enough to secure an answer. Just don’t nag. (That goes for Alex, too.)
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): B
    There was use of the powers and it was good but I am starting to think that you do not use your powers enough. I understand this is in part due to the incomplete nature of the powers and that will be corrected.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    Keep up the good writing. The only problem is meta-game communications: make sure to put the “tells” in the main room and beat me over the head with the specifics in whisper.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, GMT -8.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    50

    Default

    Session 19: 20120706

    Summary
    Deacon (Darren): C (2 XP)
    Frederick (Alex): C (2 XP)
    Katie (Phil): A (4 XP)
    Rebecca (Melissa): A (5 XP) (includes +1 for perfect A)

    Assessment
    Deacon Summers (Darren): C (75%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Excellent.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    Given the amount of time, the participation was very strong.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    Largely irrelevant to this session.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Good works.

    Frederick (Alex): C (68%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): B
    Detail was mostly strong though there were a few instance of conversation that had no description of tone or anything. Timing appeared strong and the amount of detail was fairly balanced.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): B
    There was very strong participation and somewhat accurate role-playing. There was little in the demeanor and nothing in the history that indicated that he would not go straight to Arminda so the decision to not go to her immediately seems odd. The actions that were taken did help drive the story forward to a limited degree but were only par for the course in terms of quality.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): C
    There was no meaningful application of the character’s competencies. I did not notice any particularly creative or effective approaches to his current problems. However, he does seem to be making some movement toward his goal.
    Writing/Communication (10%): C
    Spelling and grammar were satisfactory. The posts were in the proper tense, exhibited satisfactory communication, and were mostly well organized and logical.

    Katie (Phil): A (98%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Everything appears to be good, keep up the good work.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Keep doing what you’re doing.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    This has been particularly strong.
    Writing/Communication (10%): B
    There were several technical errors and some OOC miscommunication.

    Rebecca (Melissa): A (100%)
    Detail/Timing (30%): A
    Detail has improved significantly and has gone a long way towards making the character more involved. Timing was also strong and detail and timing appeared to be well balanced.
    Participation/Role-Playing (40%): A
    Participation was excellent and role-playing was spot on. I particularly appreciated the role-playing of the stress building between the Cast and this character.
    Tactics/Creativity (20%): A
    There is a lot of nuanced activity that is tactically smart. I’ll give you credit and say that you didn’t take more active actions because doing so would be inappropriate and not because you weren’t trying (this was made clear by the detail and role-playing).
    Writing/Communication (10%): A
    I noticed no problems.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •