Consent in Gaming

[faraday]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

I do not understand. Why would it lower your opinion of them?

I probably spoke too broadly. I can imagine certain types of humiliating punishments being triggering to some folks - e.g. Cersei's "walk of shame" in GoT.

But setting those situations aside and looking at the more general case, it strikes me as poor sportsmanship to use the FTB clause solely to avoid scenes that make your character look bad. It suggests an unhealthy level of either character bleed (I'm gonna take IC punishments too much to heart), competitiveness (I can't let you get one over on me!) or selfishness (I'm really just here to look awesome, so no I don't want to play that.)

[Lisse24]

I gotta say, I'm torn on this too.

One, yes we're here to tell stories, but there's no author who puts everything on screen. Ton's of stuff happens off camera where the reader/viewer can't see, but still has an impact.

If some ditz doesn't wanna play out a scene that exists solely to embarrass them, even if they brought that scene on themselves, I have no problem with that. So long as it's firmly established that Private A got chewed out by Captain B in front of Squad C and everyone in Squad C saw and knows. Now obviously, ducking out of the getting chewed out scene shouldn't equal ducking out of consequences and that's when I think things get trickier and if a player equates ducking out of the scene itself to ducking out of consequence and continues to be a PITA, you might have to make it clear that they're ability to play the character is going to be severely compromised if their characters actions don't change.

[Ghost]

Something to consider.

A consent policy is only as good as how you protect people from retaliation for citing it.

I have personally gone through with scenes that I was not comfortable with because I had to weigh the OOC response to be opting out against my own level of discomfort. As said earlier in this thread (sic) "opting out of a torture scene is different than opting out of getting yelled at ICly".

This hobby doesnt really have a great unifying handle on how backchannel bullying and character assassination are handled, and I've seen people get made fun of for opting out. I've been mistreated for opting out, too, hence why I had to weigh it a few times.

So how do you enable a consent policy that also goes a full 360° to protect a person from retaliation?

It's much easier to do in tabletop RPG than MU, I believe.

[Sunny]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

I do not understand. Why would it lower your opinion of them?

I probably spoke too broadly. I can imagine certain types of humiliating punishments being triggering to some folks - e.g. Cersei's "walk of shame" in GoT.

But setting those situations aside and looking at the more general case, it strikes me as poor sportsmanship to use the FTB clause solely to avoid scenes that make your character look bad. It suggests an unhealthy level of either character bleed (I'm gonna take IC punishments too much to heart), competitiveness (I can't let you get one over on me!) or selfishness (I'm really just here to look awesome, so no I don't want to play that.)

Okay, with more elaboration, I definitely disagree. I can see your perspective, but I don't think there's a problem with somebody opting out of something even if it's just 'that's not fun for me' as a reason. I don't see it as poor sportsmanship or bad play or anything, because in my opinion, the consequences are for the character, not the player. As long as the consequences happen, in my opinion and preferences there isn't a problem with it (but I recognize that other people feel differently).

In my opinion, a 2 hour scene in which my character is yelled at by their IC commander for an action they took is going to be boring for me -- at best. I have better things to do with my time. I'm OK with that calling down a judgment on me as a player from some directions, it just means I wouldn't play with those folks.

ETA: A lot of STUFF happens off-screen on these games. We don't RP out even remotely most of our characters' lives. I do not agree that 'my character is yelled at' has to be something we roleplay out when it's only going to be fun for half of the people involved.

[faraday]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

I can see your perspective, but I don't think there's a problem with somebody opting out of something even if it's just 'that's not fun for me' as a reason.

It's one thing to say: "Nah, no thanks" to a RP invitation because the plot/scene/whatever doesn't sound like fun. You can't force people to RP. That to me is different from raising a red flag on the scene using a rule designed to protect people from uncomfortable, potentially-triggering events.

[Sunny]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

I can see your perspective, but I don't think there's a problem with somebody opting out of something even if it's just 'that's not fun for me' as a reason.

It's one thing to say: "Nah, no thanks" to a RP invitation because the plot/scene/whatever doesn't sound like fun. You can't force people to RP. That to me is different from raising a red flag on the scene using a rule designed to protect people from uncomfortable, potentially-triggering events.

And it's my opinion that FTB doesn't have to be for a 'red flag' event. That it's OK to use it surrounding 'this scene isn't fun'. My character did X. Yep, she did. She totally deserves to be chewed out by her commander. I don't want to roleplay it. Why does it have to happen on screen? I think it's just fine to FTB that. It's not even making me uncomfortable! It's just not fun and I don't want to play it.

ETA: Like, I do understand that this would be viewed as poor sportsmanship by some folks. I totally get it. I just don't agree that it is, that's all! I would thus not play on a game where this was viewed as poor sportsmanship, and would expect that were I running a game where I emphasized this was OK, those people who really don't agree wouldn't play there.

[Auspice]

So does this mean if I'm in a position of ic leadership and the 'rulebreaker' archetypes are around I can demand they never do any of that because it is super not fun for me to deal with?

Or do I let them play their character, suck it up and deal with the fact that it is fucking miserable to have Jack the Rebel run off against orders in every single scene because fine. That's 'his fun.' and then hope he actually can live up to his word (because every person like this I have personally witnessed insists they like consequences and fallout) of dealing with the repercussions?

We've had discussions here about how unfun these types are. Part of why is because they want to evade all responsibility for their actions.

This is coming back to a point I've asked before and never gotten a clear answer on: whose fun is more important? Do people playing leader PCs just have to give up on their enjoyment being considered as the 'price' they pay for being a leader?

Or should people be expected to actually deal with the fall out of their actions? Because yes, even if it's 'off camera' people will complain because 'I don't want to have to rp that my character got in trouble!' I've tried that before. They got an @mail about okay here's what would have happened and here's your PCs punishment (which was in that case literally just a change in who they partnered with and the open end that they could work towards having their original partner back)..... It resulted in complaints to staff (who did shrug it off but not without a lot of drama) of 'my character never makes mistakes! I'm being targeted for no reason!'

So yeah. The idea of someone being able to play a rebel and rule breaker but refuse any fallout because 'my character never looks bad' is bullshit imo.

[Sunny]

@Auspice

In my opinion, there is a wide gulf between 'didn't happen' and 'didn't happen on screen'. If someone is roleplaying that whatever happened off screen DID NOT HAPPEN, then that is something else entirely. I am specifically -- and only -- referring to a difference of 'happened on screen' and 'happened off screen'. If someone takes 'happened off screen' to be 'didn't happen', then they would be in violation of the rules.

Characters should have to deal with the fallout of their actions, absolutely. I don't think that this means that players have to be punished with on-screen roleplay that isn't fun.

[Auspice]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

@Auspice

In my opinion, there is a wide gulf between 'didn't happen' and 'didn't happen on screen'. If someone is roleplaying that whatever happened off screen DID NOT HAPPEN, then that is something else entirely. I am specifically -- and only -- referring to a difference of 'happened on screen' and 'happened off screen'. If someone takes 'happened off screen' to be 'didn't happen', then they would be in violation of the rules.

Characters should have to deal with the fallout of their actions, absolutely. I don't think that this means that players have to be punished with on-screen roleplay that isn't fun.

The problem is that the venn crossover between 'I don't want to rp this' and 'I want to say this never happened' is huge. Fara and I are referring to the sort of people who don't want their character to ever look bad. It's not about 'having to RP out the chewing out' to them. It's the fact that other PCs will know they got in trouble. That maybe they have a punishment to at least say they were doing. That now someone has their eye on them.

This is why I'm not great with full-consent games. On SGM we'll never make you role play out something you don't want, but we also lay out that you can't use it to escape actions.

Which you and I are in agreement on.

The issue with saying absolute 100% full consent is people do use it as an escape. 'I know I was told my character is icly (off camera) cleaning the latrines for a week but I'm gonna ignore that because he'd totally never get in trouble for what he did '

[Sunny]

@Auspice

To be 100% honest I do not give a fuck about "bad actors". Bad actors get a boot up the ass immediately in any game situation I am ever responsible for, anymore. I am making policies for the good people to use to engage with one another, and it's really important to me that good people be able to say "nah, that's not fun" for ANY reason. It's up to me as a staffer to nail down the assholes.

ETA: I am completely fine and comfortable with full consent games, even. Because when someone fucks up that environment by abusing it, you get rid of them. The 'get rid of them' is the factor most of our games have been missing for the last two decades, and now we're left making policies that seem to forget that this is even an option.

Policies are to give the good people a framework for interaction, not to keep bad actors from being bad. It doesn't matter what your policies are, the bad actors are going to be bad. You just have to make sure your good people know what that behavior is so they know to tell you.

ETA2: There is no policy in existence that will keep poor sports from being poor sports, petty people from being petty, or people who can't deal with consequences from having a fit when they're applied. It is not possible. It's not even really possible to minimize it. Bad actors are bad. Period. What policies CAN do is help reasonable people (which is most of them) speak the same language and have the same expectations, reducing misunderstanding and miscommunications because everyone knows what's expected of them.

[Ganymede]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

Characters should have to deal with the fallout of their actions, absolutely. I don't think that this means that players have to be punished with on-screen roleplay that isn't fun.

This is where I fall. If you don’t want to play out the CO demoting you, that’s fine. But if you want to dodge the demotion, that’s not going to happen.

A caveat is where you have a PC CO. Again, if another player does not want to play the demotion scene, that’s fine; however, I would be peeved if said player claimed that my PC was a screeching bitch during whatever the scene was, if we agreed there was a scene that happened behind-the-scenes.

That said, I will admit that I would be disappointed in such player. If you make the IC drama, play through it. Or don’t get into it.

[Sunny]

OK, I am withdrawing from this conversation and putting the thread on ignore with one last repetition because holy crap I am frustrated right now:

I am advocating for it not happening on-screen, not for it not happening at all.

[faraday]

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

And it's my opinion that FTB doesn't have to be for a 'red flag' event. That it's OK to use it surrounding 'this scene isn't fun'.

That's okay - we just see things differently is all. When I write a policy for my game saying "you can always FTB out of a scene that makes you uncomfortable and nobody is allowed to give you grief about it", I intended that for the red flag kinds of scenes. If you want to nope out of my boring staff meeting or party at the bar because it's just not fun for you, that's a completely different level of social interaction IMHO.

I'm not saying you should try to strong-arm somebody into RPing a scene where they get in trouble. But if I'm playing Captain Authority Figure and I page you saying: "Captain AF was pretty pissed after that last mission and would want to talk to Bob about it. Can we set up a scene?" And your reply is: "Nah, I don't really feel like getting yelled at on-camera. That's not fun for me. Let's handle it off-camera." That's gonna lower my opinion of that person, player-to-player.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

A caveat is where you have a PC CO. Again, if another player does not want to play the demotion scene, that’s fine; however, I would be peeved if said player claimed that my PC was a screeching bitch during whatever the scene was, if we agreed there was a scene that happened behind-the-scenes.

This happened to me on Notion. We discussed my character (one of the instructors) having a chat with someone after a mission. We scheduled the scene for when I'd next be available.......they RP'd in the interim with people that my PC had been furious, yelling, etc.....which wasn't my character's style at all and put me in a really unhappy spot because look at least ask me for what the overall strokes of the scene would be if we're backscening and you reference it.

[Thenomain]

So we all agree: FTB is a right of all players in all situations.

Cool.

[Pandora]

The little red X in the upper right corner is always there.

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

That's okay - we just see things differently is all. When I write a policy for my game saying "you can always FTB out of a scene that makes you uncomfortable and nobody is allowed to give you grief about it", I intended that for the red flag kinds of scenes. If you want to nope out of my boring staff meeting or party at the bar because it's just not fun for you, that's a completely different level of social interaction IMHO.

I think the disconnect here is trying to create a catch-all rule that applies forever to all situations. That's not so easy - and I include @Thenomain's well meaning suggestion that FTB is a universal answer, too.

For example let's say you play the Primogen in a city and my character fucked up - again. He's rowdy very often, what a rebel!

What are your options, both thematically and as a character? You can 'do' something about it which you could/would be criticized for doing. Come on, chopping an arm off because they mouthed off? Torpor? That's really harsh. It's character-changing.

But if that's out of question then what purpose does tongue-lashing have? That is the consequence. "Okay, let's just say you yelled at me, lol" doesn't mean anything, it's the same thing as having no consequences at all. Where does that leave us?

On the other hand sure, a 'yelling at me' scene shouldn't take hours, that's nuts. I'd be bored of that even iRL.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel

Chopping an arm off or torporing a neonate for mouthing off is actually quite typical.

[Tinuviel]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

@Arkandel

Chopping an arm off or torporing a neonate for mouthing off is actually quite typical.

Chop off your own arm and use it to torp a neonate.

[Thenomain]

@Arkandel said in Consent in Gaming:

On the other hand sure, a 'yelling at me' scene shouldn't take hours, that's nuts. I'd be bored of that even iRL.

A yelling-at-my-character scene that takes even minutes can be considered boring. I have enjoyed yelling-at-my-character scenes, but it's because the person doing the yelling is engaging me and my character, not just yelling because that's what's supposed to happen. Going through the motions is boring. I'd be tempted to skip out on that too.

But playing a game with a strict hierarchy, ignoring such a scene ("okay you yelled at me lol") could be considered ignoring the theme and setting of the game. I'd be disappointed by anyone who doesn't abide by a game's theme.

I will gladly ignore a rule that says I can't FTB because I'm having a bad day or I'm not feeling it. And only in part because nobody can stop any of us from FTBing:

@Pandora said in Consent in Gaming:

The little red X in the upper right corner is always there.

The other side of that coin is that I should be willing to work with or accept the consequences levied on my character, and that I had better play those through as though they really happened (except in extreme consequences). To ignore the persistent nature of the game outright is disruptive to what is The Game, and that can be actionable.

--

@Arkandel said in Consent in Gaming:

What are your options, both thematically and as a character?

This is up to staff. If someone is blatantly ignoring theme and setting, well, we've had this discussion recently. When it comes to us as player, we play the game before us as best we can.

Because it's entirely possible that we're all playing for different reasons.

Because we are.