Consent in Gaming

faraday

I think the disconnect here is trying to create a catch-all rule that applies forever to all situations.

Sure, but that's not what I'm saying at all.

As with any social endeavor, there are any number of reasons why somebody might want to bow out of doing a thing. I'm tired. I have work to do. I just don't feel like a bar scene tonight. My kid just woke up. I have to be up at 6am. Whatever. Literally nobody is arguing that somebody should be chained to their keyboard and forced to RP.

But when you come up with lame reasons to get out of social things, there are social consequences for that. "I don't like to RP out negative things happening to my character" is a lame reason, IMHO. YMMV of course - that's why it's a social consequence and not a disciplinary issue.

There are also various reasons why games historically have preferred/insisted on certain things happening on-camera. I mean, is anybody seriously arguing that off-camera incidents have the same dramatic impact as on-camera ones? If that were the case, why RP out anything? I've even seen it taken to an extreme on some games where "If it wasn't RPed, it didn't happen". Personally I think that's silly, but I do get where they were coming from.

All that, to me, is entirely different from having protections in place to let people opt out of content that is potentially triggering/upsetting.

insomniac7809

Honestly, unless the writers are really confident in their ability to deliver gripping or at least amusingly Eremey-esque dialogue, "CO yells at subordinate" sounds like exactly the sort of scene that would mostly be glazed over in a book or a movie. I realize that directly translating from other media to MU* is even more of a gap than from tabletop, this is a situation that seems less engaging in the MU* format than it would be otherwise.

Like, what are my options on the receiving end? I can mouth off, which could be fun, if I'm willing to Hand Over My Badge And Gun. Or I can make response poses of "yes, sir" and "no, ma'am" until it's over. Fucking enthralling.

So yeah. Fade to black, commentary made in length and volume concerning my behavior, my potential, my future, my decision-making abilities, and my genealogy. Skip to the part where I'm demoted, Suspended From The Case, or sent of with a stern warning and let us all get on with our lives.

I mean, Fade To Black is called that for a reason. You can do that for material that's too sensitive to show "on screen," you can do that when you think the implication is more impactful than the explication, and you can do that because no one wants to watch Jack Bauer doing a crossword puzzle during his morning coffee shits.

faraday

So I don't know how we got sort of fixated on the "CO yells at subordinate" as this hours-long ordeal of boringness, but that just hasn't been my experience at all. I had plenty of scenes on BSGU (here's one) where folks actually willingly engaged in getting taken to task by the CO. The players were good sports, the scenes were kind of amusing and reasonably short, they moved the story forward, and they spurred other RP and deeper character connections that I don't think would have happened if the parties involved were just "yeah whatever, you got yelled at".

Pyrephox

The thing that often gets confused in this specific situation is that there's often some serious blurring of IC/OOC lines when it comes to 'discipline' scenes. Which is to say that they're often intended to be an IC means of correcting behavior that the discipliner finds annoying/disruptive/incorrect OOC, which is why there's often a desire to have the 'discipline' be unpleasant for the player. When, honestly, things like 'this character is acting wildly out of theme/reason for their organization' is usually an OOC problem, and should be addressed by an OOC discussion and/or uninviting the player from the org involved.

But we tend to be very conflict adverse (I am not at all immune to this), so we try 'IC discipline' first, even when what we're really hoping is that the player realizes that this isn't fun for anyone but him/her, and stops doing whatever it is they're doing. So it has to be OOC unpleasant, rather than just IC unpleasant.

But this, of course, usually ends up feeding drama than solving anything.

Thenomain

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

So I don't know how we got sort of fixated on the "CO yells at subordinate" as this hours-long ordeal of boringness

To note: Only Arkandel said "hours-long". I said "even minutes-long" and Insomniac didn't give any indication of length of time, but I got the impression that they and I are on the same page.

So as far as I can tell, we didn't.

faraday

@Thenomain It's come up a couple times - I believe Sunny mentioned it originally. But regardless, my point isn't about length it's about the prevalent sentiment that it would inherently be boring and is "exactly the sort of scene that would mostly be glazed over in a book or a movie". (Which is not really my experience with books/movies either, but that's neither here nor there.)

Auspice

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

@Thenomain It's come up a couple times - I believe Sunny mentioned it originally. But regardless, my point isn't about length it's about the prevalent sentiment that it would inherently be boring and is "exactly the sort of scene that would mostly be glazed over in a book or a movie". (Which is not really my experience with books/movies either, but that's neither here nor there.)

man how many times did the Trio get chewed out in Harry Potter?

dvoraen

@Auspice said in Consent in Gaming:

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

@Thenomain It's come up a couple times - I believe Sunny mentioned it originally. But regardless, my point isn't about length it's about the prevalent sentiment that it would inherently be boring and is "exactly the sort of scene that would mostly be glazed over in a book or a movie". (Which is not really my experience with books/movies either, but that's neither here nor there.)

man how many times did the Trio get chewed out in Harry Potter?

And half(?) the time from their own Head of House/CO, no less.

faraday

@Auspice said in Consent in Gaming:

man how many times did the Trio get chewed out in Harry Potter?

And those scenes are important to the story. If you never saw Starbuck getting in trouble on BSG, then you could walk away thinking what she did was acceptable.

Also just to note - the original point was about opting out of anything embarrassing or humiliating for the character. This could mean anything from a prank to an argument with a SO to disciplinary action. I saw that as a general theme for avoiding RPing out negative consequences. It's not specifically about getting reamed out by a boss.

Three-Eyed Crow

I kinda don't care if IC punishments/negative rep adjustments happen off-screen as long as there is IC indication that they're happening that the world beyond the PC can interact with, if something is a big enough deal that that needs to happen. BBposts, reputation hits, maybe something localized as a rumor within a squadron etc. I'm always kinda surprised by how effective Arx's propriety mods are (they're basically sheeted negative reputation write-ups). While they have some coded impact, the most effective thing they seem to serve as is theme enforcement, in terms of what the NPCs think of you/how the world is reacting to you. It's on your sheet, everyone can see it, it's plain what the world thinks of you and how PCs can react to you if they're so inclined. Some folks will become less gung-ho about being a rebel rebel if there are clear, public social consequences, and I tend to think persistent ones any player/character can reference and that become a permanent part of their IC rep are better than one-off RP'd scenes.

Derp

@Sunny said in Consent in Gaming:

I don't want to roleplay it. Why does it have to happen on screen?

Because it's not just about you. The proverbial you.

You might not find it fun, but it has the ability to cheapen the story for the other players involved of you just nope out of everything you don't find personally compelling with no qualifications.

Look at it from the other direction. I play an admiral. You are getting promoted to captain. It's something you've worked hard for, something you want your friends to share.

But I say 'nah, I don't wanna RP your promotion scene, we are just gonna have it happen off-screen'.

I have now robbed you and other players of something they feel is important because I find it boring or whatever.

And that's a pretty dick move. Because it's not just about me. It's about all of them.

Turn it back around, that captain that wants to be known for running a tight ship should be able to chew out the jerkass on screen whether the jerkass finds it compelling or not, because they brought that on themselves.

Unless it is something that comes with a red flag, you shouldn't be able to nope out just because you happen to want to do something else. Shared games. Shared stories. This requires thinking beyond your own fun.

Tinuviel

@Derp said in Consent in Gaming:

This requires thinking beyond your own fun.

Thinking beyond your own fun is fine and all, but sacrificing your own fun is a terrible idea.

That said, if you don't want to RP promotion scenes or the like, don't play an admiral. If you don't want to regularly be put in punishment scenes, don't play a screw-up.

Auspice

@Tinuviel said in Consent in Gaming:

If you don't want to regularly be put in punishment scenes, don't play a screw-up.

Unfortunately, the 'screw-up who always gets away with it' is a really, really popular trope.

Tinuviel

@Auspice said in Consent in Gaming:

@Tinuviel said in Consent in Gaming:

If you don't want to regularly be put in punishment scenes, don't play a screw-up.

Unfortunately, the 'screw-up who always gets away with it' is a really, really popular trope.

Yeah, and it's stupid to try and play.

surreality

...this stops precisely no one who is inclined to do it.

You have to be smart enough to realize it's stupid, see. Or not one of those people with the 'it's different because it's me and my new take on this dumb idea isn't dumb like everyone else's take on it'.

I count on none of these things being the case.

Tinuviel

@surreality So get rid of them.

surreality

That's my preference, yes.

Sadly, it is only possible for staff on games to do this, not the players who are also endlessly subject to them.

Staricide

What confuses me about these discussions is how binary wanting to do something is always described. I could be super weird but that's not how it works for me at all, there's usually at least a half dozen reasons why I do or don't want to do any given RP all conflicting in my brain at any given time and usually changing over the course of the scene.

It could be fun in the moment or boring or unpleasant, it could be good for my long term enjoyment of the character, for their arc etc, it could give me something gamey I want like xp, it could provide enjoyment for others which can be a very rewarding feeling, or can help make other people like my char/RP which is huge in determining how much fun I'll have in future.

So if I want to do something is normally more like 60% yes, but that will change wildly depending on how things are actually written or played out over the course of the scene. Also if you try and explain OOCly to me every detail of the RP you want to do, I probably will find that so much of a spoiler that I don't want to do it anymore.

I'm fully aware that I could just be a really weird, messed up person in my brain. But I just can't help but feel like these discussions don't connect with the reality of RPing for me personally.

One thing I've found works a lot better than people realize is just leaving scenes. You're on an adventure and it's getting boring or gross or whatever, just RP that your char tripped over a root and twisted their ankle and everyone else has to go on without them while they hobble home. People will assume you had something come up in RL generally and it avoids most ICA=ICC problems. Wouldn't work if you're locked in a dungeon I guess though.

surreality

@Staricide The document linked early on is really good about some of this. It goes into things like 'this is iffy for me but if we avoid painstaking detail it may be all right, will speak up if it turns out it's not' and similar.

I think it's a good approach that leaves a lot of the 'some yes, some no' elements in play.

'How' really is as important as 'what' for a lot of things. There are ways someone could do <thing I never cared about one way or the other> that are suddenly unbearable to RP, while someone else could play through <thing I prefer to avoid if at all possible> without threatening to raise a single hackle. That they mention this is, I think, a noteworthy thing.

Ghost

Tackle Mature Content with Confidence!

The topic of consent in gaming is about how to approach edgier, romantic, or darker content in a game in ways that don't put unwanted OOC stress on your players. It's not really about "it's not fun for me to roleplay my character facing responsibility for their bad decision"; it's about not having to roleplay things like rape, torture, or sexual situations if you don't want to, and not being pressured into it after saying no.

IMO, the people (in MU) who dont want to write out scenes of IC repercussions because it's not fun really arent embracing the writing side of the hobby. There are many ways to write things (even condense long, negative yelling sessions into one or two flashback type mentions) without slogging through a 3 hour scene. All it takes is creativity.

I digress. My point is this: People bowing out of RP because they're not getting what they want out of it shouldn't be mistaken as a consent issue.