The limits of IC/OOC responsibility

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

I think the tripping point of people who use the phrase "ICA=ICC" is that they very often ignore that "ICC" comes from people with a far broader understanding of the game world than the character. They have understanding of interactions that never ground in the game, but still affect the game.

Broadly speaking, there are two rationales for using "ICA=ICC."

The first is to remind players that they must expect consequences for certain choices in the game world. This is reasonable.

The second is to force an outcome on a player's PC against his or her wishes, even if its etiology is sound. This is not always reasonable.

The line is blurred between these uses because players don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen.

[surreality]

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The second is to force an outcome on a player's PC against his or her wishes, even if its etiology is sound. This is not always reasonable.

Conceptually, I break this down in a couple of ways as a means of determining both reasonability and consequences, and it's folded into other processes more than it is an ICA=ICC policy as such. Some of the consequences aren't IC, either; sometimes they're OOC.

This is my mental flow chart:

Is the thing the character trying to do physically possible in the game world?
	NO: Then it doesn't occur.
	(This is things like a mundane human being
	suddenly learning to fly for no reason, etc.)
	Has it already been role-played?
		NO: Then it doesn't get role-played; 
		    staff says 'No, that will not happen, 
		    it is impossible, do not role-play that.'
		YES: Then it gets retconned without exception,
		     and the player gets a warning 
		     to not break reality itself again.
		(This is technically an OOC consequence, either way.)
	YES: How disruptive to the reality of the setting for other 
	     players is the action if there are no consequences for it?
	     As in, does it fundamentally change the setting in an 
	     important way for all the other players 
	     if there is no reaction or consequence?
		NOT AT ALL: Go ahead, have a blast!
		A LITTLE: Probably fine.
		          Consequences should be minor anyway, 
		          and should always be negotiable.
		          This is things within the norms of the setting, 
		          but it is known this behavior entails risk.
		          Example: someone starting a bar fight in a modern 
		                   day real world setting; maybe nobody reports it, 
		                   maybe they get a sympathetic cop, etc.
		UH... : Proceed with caution, because there will be 
		        consequences of some kind for this activity.
		        Consequences should be negotiable.
		        This is things that are notably outside the 
		        norm for the setting.
		        Example: someone walking down the street naked on the regular 
		                 in a public place, maybe they get thrown in jail 
		                 overnight to sleep it off, maybe they become a 
		                 subject of gossip
		SHIT: Proceed with caution, and know that if this activity 
		      is discovered, consequences for it WILL exist in the game
		      world, and may be severe.
		      Consequences can be negotiable, but will exist in 
		      some notable form.
		      Much less room to minimize the consequences.
		      Examples: manslaughter, major violence
		OH SHIT: Proceed with caution, and know that if this activity is 
		         discovered, major consequences for it WILL exist in the 
		         game world.
		         There is some room for negotiation here, 
		         but not very much at all.
		         Examples: use of secret supernatural powers in front of
		                   many mundanes with evidence of this, 
		                   murder in public view, destroying a grid zone
		FUCK ME: Proceed with EXTREME caution if at all, because this will 
		         fundamentally reshape the landscape of the game for all the 
		         players on it, who signed on to play something other than 
		         what this is going to be after this occurs.
		         Staff-side 'no' is a very real option, as is retcon.
		         Examples: documented use of supernatural powers in public 
		                   spread all over the news that change world-wide 
		                   awareness of the supernatural,
		                   detonating a nuclear device to take out the grid...

[faraday]

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

This is my mental flow chart:

I really like this. My personal thought process runs much the same way, albeit with fewer sub-conditions under the "YES" column.

[surreality]

@faraday I like to think that when it's a conflict between people, it can be resolved between people, even if that means calling in a mediator to help. When it affects the world for everyone, that's when 'what this one player wants' gets less relevant, the greater the change for everyone else will be.

I think of it as the 'shared world' or the 'you can't non-consent the existence of consequences within the setting, but you can negotiate the form they take' rule, in my head. (It is hard to have as zippy and memorable a moniker for it as 'ICA=ICC', unfortunately.)

The main principle is that world is everyone's toy, and one person doesn't get to break it just because they wanna, even if they feasibly can, because it doesn't just belong to them.

[deadculture]

@surreality Non-consent can always come with some form of limited negotiation. In fact, any player versus player policy should have a condition of discussing the terms of your action with the opposing character. I've seen it work in a couple of instances, for an example: player A negotiates a torpor with player B. Player B understands the terms, gets to contest the rolls and has an estimation of how long their character will be put out of commission. Everything takes place as negotiated and the action is over, no tears.

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The line is blurred between these uses because players don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen.

Staff also don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen. The problem with this is who is going to tell staff that they are wrong?

[Miss Demeanor]

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The line is blurred between these uses because players don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen.

Staff also don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen. The problem with this is who is going to tell staff that they are wrong what staffer will believe a player over themselves?

Fixed that for you. Plenty of people, myself included, have told staff they're wrong. They just choose not to listen, yourself included.

edited to add to the post

[surreality]

@thenomain said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@ganymede said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

The line is blurred between these uses because players don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen.

Staff also don't always take a moment to consider whether or not an outcome should happen. The problem with this is who is going to tell staff that they are wrong?

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, frankly.

I think it's always within staff's rights to say: "This would fundamentally alter the game in a way that was never intended, is not the game we want to run, and is not the game people signed up for."

I also think the reluctance to ever do this on the part of some staffcorps is what blanderizes and dilutes many a setting to an 'Anyworld by 3pm', not even Anytown by Night.

Is it possible to be too heavy-handed about this? Sure.

Is doing anything about this -- ever -- heavy-handed by default? Absolutely not.

As for the actual question? People not playing on that game, because if you don't trust the staff on a game to make this kind of call, or if staff have shown they do not handle this responsibility appropriately by your personal reckoning (too heavy-handed or too lax), you really shouldn't be playing there.

It's an answer I normally hate, but it's profoundly applicable in this case.

I mean, realistically? You can ask why something is having a consequence enforced, or isn't. You should have the right to some kind of explanation, and to present an alternative suggestion in a respectful manner, even if the answer doesn't change. Sometimes, it will, other times it won't, and you have to be able to accept that either way. I don't think anyone's entitled to any more than that.

What you don't have is the right to demand the answer change, or argue a judgment call at tedious length after you've been given an explanation and your case for an alternative has been heard -- which really does leave it as a matter of 'cope or go' in the end. (ETA: It is non-trivial how many people think 'demand it change' or 'argue it forever' are acceptable behavior, and they are absolutely not that.)

[mietze]

Whenever I have staffed, regardless of genre or era, there were always a multitude of people who were very keen to tell me I was wrong. Even about stuff that was clearly posted. Or that I was wrong about stuff I didn’t even say.

[Miss Demeanor]

@mietze Yep! There will also be people who tell staff they're wrong in what they're doing... and just get ignored because clearly staff knows best... and that is how you get Spiders.

[mietze]

Hell, I have even had other staff tell me I was wrong and/or The Worst Ever, without even bothering to read the job in question because what the player said happened (rather than actual documented on the job evidence) must be true because that was their friend they’d known forever and I must be wrong because that friend said so. Voice for the voiceless and all that.

I do think that staff often have a hard time apologizing or acknowledging when they have behaved poorly or made a decision that was incorrect/hasty/avoidant, etc.

But there’s always plenty of people to tell you are wrong. About everything. Including your unspoken thoughts and intent.

[mietze]

@miss-demeanor
In my observance it’s less about “I know best” and more about “I don’t want to deal with it.”

[Miss Demeanor]

@mietze I've seen both reactions in abundance. Its really a 50/50 split. Not every staffer will go all 'mommy knows best'... but enough will.

[surreality]

There really is never a shortage of people more than happy to scream wrong wrong wrong!!! in the face of anyone -- staffer, GM, fellow player, headstaff, creator, etc.

Whether that person actually is wrong or not isn't even relevant.

[Darinelle]

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

There really is never a shortage of people more than happy to scream wrong wrong wrong!!! in the face of anyone -- staffer, GM, fellow player, headstaff, creator, etc.

Whether that person actually is wrong or not isn't even relevant.

This is so true. I had someone recently argue lore interpretation with me in the middle of a scene using lore I HAD WRITTEN that this person misunderstood as their basis for argument.

There's no telling some people, and often they don't want to be correct nearly as much as they want to be RIGHT.

[Thenomain]

Alright, clearly I need to keep assuming that nerds will nitpick at every damn thing said. Thanks to @Surreality who took a more holistic approach to what I said, and was the only one to get it right.

Not that you two uber-nerds aren't technically correct, but when is "people will tell staff all the time" going to move the conversation forward.

Did I mention in another thread wanting to set this hobby on fire? This is not a small part of why. Double points to @mietze for both being technically correct and pointing out a known issue, though.

I mean, it's not like staff ever picks on players for things that aren't posted. That staff goes off on players without seeking clarification first.

And that's a huge problem about defining the limits of IC/OOC Responsibility. Game culture comes from the top, and if the top is dealing with things that distract them from running the game then how can we expect them to even want to engage with the game?

But they must engage with the game. Even psuedo-staff like faction heads must engage with the game, even if they acting on a purely OOC administrative standpoint.

All people on a game, whether or not it's staff or players or administrators or storytellers, have a responsibility to the game as designed and directed by the head staffers. (Theno's Hill to Die On #2. #1 is, by the way, the right to Fade to Black.)

I can't think of a popular themed game I've ever tried that didn't have a PHB involved, someone who is insane, but it works because they are insane about the game. The passion goes beyond the reasonable, but it's acceptable because their passion carries through to the game, even if they are also trolls or engage in cronyism.

Anyhow.

Everyone has a responsibility to the game. If they seem to be filling those responsibilities within a reasonable expectation of their position, everything is good. If not, then that's when the responsibility delegates up until it reaches headstaff. And if headstaff can't at least try to be responsible, then I don't see how they can ask anyone else to be.

[surreality]

@darinelle This.

This is absolutely a thing that happens, and it is maddening.

"That is clearly not the author's intent!!!"

"I am the author. You're wrong."

"I'm not wrong!" <continues making the same argument, usually with 'you're just changing it then because... ' accusation, the low-hanging fruit of this logic>

This is the reason I buy vodka, in a nutshell.

That I have never broken down and just trolled anyone pulling the 'not the author's intent' card when I am the author with, "What do you think the intent was?" "Really? Interesting!" and instead go with, "How can I make this more clear so this misunderstanding does not recur? Is there something you think would help clarify here?" is one of the hardest tidbits of integrity to hang on to, some days.

@Thenomain There's the 'the system allows it, so you have to!' argument some people try to make.

I do not subscribe to this particular newsletter when it comes into conflict with running the game I aim to run. Yes, it is possible to blow up the entire grid in any modern day real world setting; no, I'm still never going to let (generic) you do it.

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

@Thenomain There's the 'the system allows it, so you have to!' argument some people try to make.

Make a macro with the page number for the rule of that RPG that says:

If a rule doesn't make sense/doesn't serve the story/you don't want to use it, don't use it.

May I suggest a command: +nerd <player name>=ruleslawyer

[surreality]

@thenomain I may or may not ask you to remind me of that whenever I tinker with a +warn command of some kind, if I do. Because... yes, that.

[Seraphim73]

@surreality said in The limits of IC/OOC responsibility:

It is hard to have as zippy and memorable a moniker for it as 'ICA=ICC', unfortunately.

"The game doesn't need your consent?"
"Individual Consent, not World Consent? IC=/=WC?"