The Waiting Game

[Roz]

@Lithium I would actually say that Person A would be in the wrong to suddenly retcon a huge thing like that that would really affect the RP of not only Person B but also any other characters close to Person A's. Like, that's just a shitty thing to do, and if I were a staffer in that instance I'd say that they couldn't retcon something like that into other people's RP. (Although they could say their character was disappearing or dying now that the player has returned if they want to get rid of it.)

[ThatGuyThere]

@Roz
This bugs me. Unless you make arrangements with me before hand, if we are not RPing then your character is not seeing mine. I don't care what their previous relationship is. If it is not happening on screen our characters are not seeing each other.
Again if arrangements are made before hand i am cool with hey I ma not on but our characters still hare hanging out, or doing whatever. I am fine with that, but show up after a month and act like we have been hanging out whit no previous agreement don't expect much more then laughter followed by an Um no, as my response.

[Roz]

@ThatGuyThere How is that not just saying that OOC is IC?

[mietze]

I think because there's a huge variance in assumptions by players, that's why I lean towards vague/non-committal answers in play with an ooc explanation to other players why I don't know, and a time limit before I independently decide to ICly and oocly move on.

[Arkandel]

@ThatGuyThere said:

@Roz
This bugs me. Unless you make arrangements with me before hand, if we are not RPing then your character is not seeing mine. I don't care what their previous relationship is. If it is not happening on screen our characters are not seeing each other.

The flipside of it could bite you in the ass though. A bunch of Carthian meetings are scheduled when you can't be online (say, due to timezones) and it becomes "Bob hasn't come to a single meeting in ages" even though IC he would have been there.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Roz
Well OOC you can be gone and still have things happening as I said just talk with me beforehand or even drop a courtesy life sucks be back in a month mail and I will RP as if your char was around. And well if we are tying out a scene it happens on screen and we are doing thing OOC we are just typing that seems like a pretty big difference to me.
I am sorry if someone ditches for weeks with no word I won't go out of my way to make sure their precious IC situation hasn't changed. Yeah it sucks when rl keeps you from a game and yes I have had chars that had to deal with significant changes while they were gone. Being absent form a game is sometimes a chocie we all have to make I understand that, still if your life takes a bullet and you need to deal with it. Do it, but don;t expect me to not rp because you are gone and don't expect me to put a part of rp in stasis unless you let me know something is up.

[faraday]

@ThatGuyThere said:

@Roz
This bugs me. Unless you make arrangements with me before hand, if we are not RPing then your character is not seeing mine. I don't care what their previous relationship is. If it is not happening on screen our characters are not seeing each other.

Sorry, that bugs me just as much. Your character inhabits the IC world 24/7/365. It is absurd to say that if it wasn't RPed it didnt happen. Coworkers, squadmates, roommates, significant others, etc. should be assumed to see each other with reasonable frequency.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday
You have a valid point in the IC reality of things. However we are in the OOC reality where if you are gone fore more then two weeks your are mostly likely gone forever, unless you notify people that is not the case.
I guess it comes down to which is the important part. I play mostly on WoD games where usually when people leave there is no post or even a mail it is just they are not there anymore. What I ma about to say might make me an asshole, but I am ok with that as I have always been partial to Dennis Leary, but if you disappear for more then two weeks when no word it becomes a choice between my continued ability to RP and you situation once you get back if you ever bother to. When I it comes to that choice I am going to make the one that lets me have fun on a game every time.
I am not saying you have to log on everyday or even at all, true story on a game right now, my char is engaged to a char that has not logged on in well over a month, because the player mailed me and said she wouldn't be around for a while and said she would let me know more as she knew more. I am fine with this, but disappear with no word, not expect me to be all well they might come back, when past experience says the odds are not in favor of that.

[faraday]

@ThatGuyThere Oh, I thought you meant this as a general rule (which I have seen on some games) and not just if they vanished without a word.

Regarding the vanishing: I can sympathize. I've been OOCly abandoned by all sorts of close relations - siblings, spouses, BFFs... too many to count. If they never come back I guess it doesn't matter much. But two weeks seems a little quick to assume any significant change to a relationship. A month, sure, and I would back that up as staff if anybody came to me about it. But two weeks is too soon IMHO. YMMV.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday
If the bone of contention is two weeks versus a month i am willing to give on that, to me the issue really is more the bamfing with no contact.
Also I wonder just how would staff enforce a relationship reverting back to what it was. It might sound alright on principle but how would it be enforced. Some relationships aren't changed, like brother if they come back that biological relationship between the characters would still exist but not all brothers are close. I know of one RL case where they have not spoken in three years. Or Best friends, my best friend from college lives about a mile from me but we have grown apart to the point we are at best acquaintances, we talk and are friendly but no where near what it once was.
All forcing a relationship back to status quo ante absente does is force the player that has moved on into scenes that move the issue to where they want it.

[mietze]

When I speak of being non-committal, I don't mean reversion once the person returns so much as only making decisions for myself, not another person. If someone dropped with no explanation or apology and then wanted things to move on as if nothing had happened ICly I'd probably say no, as by that time I'd already have an exit plan. If they did talk to me about it and it seemed like something I'd like to take a chance on again, we'd just talk about it.

But the reason why I don't get other people involved or limit my interactions about what's going on while I don't know what's going on is the weirdness of having one partner RP about their assumptions, affect other's RP and potentially even their IC relations with that absent PC, and then suddenly retcon when they work out things between the two of them. It's just easier to have the full spectrum of options if there has been minimal rp about it in the meantime.

[ThatGuyThere]

@mietze
I totally agree with that, as my character moved on I would never speak for the other character ascribe to them motivations. I would says things like, we haven't talked lately, or I don't work with them any more, and not go deeper even to the point of dropping to OOC to say we need to drop the topic.
I feel I have a right to move on when a person has been gone for a while and will argue for that, however I never have a right to make decisions for another person character and would not do that.

[surreality]

Part of this gets sticky, too, in that the person's absence can severely restrict you.

For instance, take a look at the 'Protected' merit for ghouls in WoD. Your regnant vanishes from the grid (or even just can't be around that day). Well, the merit straight up says that if you've got that merit, they will conveniently happen to show up if you get into some kind of trouble.

This leaves you with two options: do nothing that could even potentially get you into trouble while they're gone (which is impossible if you RP at all, considering the reality of WoD games, where risk is supposedly everywhere all the time), or you could NPC them (ALL THE NOPE!).

...the realistic solution is just to pretend you don't have the benefit of the merit in that case, but really, that one is a real 'I guess I'll sit here and twiddle my thumbs, then' gridlock otherwise.

[mietze]

@surreality

That's why I have in the past pitched and argued for some degree of house rules on vampire games when it comes to absentee regnants. You probably would/would not be surprised to find out that I've heard a lot of venemous opposition to it (I think because usually there's a low opinion of people who play ghouls, number one, and also that people really seem to not read the "in the event of a regnant idlefreeze" part and seem to think that it would apply at any time.)

So there are thing that can be done after a waiting period. Though honestly, this is where the choose wisely as you can clause comes in. If you choose to play a ghoul or template switch to one, there is an assumption of risk there, which means that you must be willing to accept a certain degree of handtying for a time until the idle policy kicks in. It does suck, but I consider that part of the things you have to weigh when you choose to tie in to someone in a very specific and complicated manner. Some people would say that should mean that anyone who plays a ghoul should be ready to yield their PC in case of a freeze, but we don't really ask that other other templates usually, and there are workarounds. I think if you have a game where there are strong IC tie ins (stranger-apped marriages/partnerships or something like the blood bonding relationship of vampire-ghoul) it's probably good for staff to have a clear idle policy that encourages players to work it out prior to the time limit, but has steps that can be taken if they cannot or will not.

And I say this as someone who prefers to play ghouls (it's my favorite template).

[tragedyjones]

@mietze Whenever I run or make a Vampire game, I will always include multiple ways, both PC and NPC, for a player with a MIA regnant to be taken care of. Whether a custom Invictus Oath like the one I wrote for Reno, or an NPC Dragon with Coil of the Voivode or even just some random mystical effect that generates plot, Players should NEVER be locked into a blood bond they are OOCly unhappy with.

[mietze]

It's really not that hard, there's just been such a very weird resistance to it on other games I've played, The Game That Shall Not Be Spoken Of being the sole exception.

[tragedyjones]

@mietze Why are you referencing a Harry Potter game? >_>

[surreality]

@mietze said:

Some people would say that should mean that anyone who plays a ghoul should be ready to yield their PC in case of a freeze, but we don't really ask that other other templates usually, and there are workarounds.

Agreed; this isn't something demanded of other templates, and while the circumstances are unique? There are viable options possible to deal with it.

[faraday]

@ThatGuyThere said:

Also I wonder just how would staff enforce a relationship reverting back to what it was. It might sound alright on principle but how would it be enforced.

It's something that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I can give a hypothetical example.

Bob has vanished again. Poor Jane, his IC spouse, is sick of this nonsense and wants to move on. She RPs that Bob has been absent a lot ICly, and uses this as justification for breaking up with him.

Bob returns and takes exception to this. He wouldn't avoid his wife! It's not fair of her to have RPed him being gone all the time. He wants it retconned. They can't work it out, so they come to staff.

If Bob had only been gone for two weeks, I would tend to side with Bob here. If he had been gone for a month, I would tend to side with Jane. But it's all very subjective. Either way, somebody walks away unhappy.

And btw, in either case Jane could've avoided the conflict by coming up with an internal justification for Jane wanting to move on, rather than making it have anything to do with a presumed IC reason for Bob's OOC absence.

[Sunny]

@faraday said:

And btw, in either case Jane could've avoided the conflict by coming up with an internal justification for Jane wanting to move on, rather than making it have anything to do with a presumed IC reason for Bob's OOC absence.

And this is what I'm advocating for at the end of the day. It's possible, and I do think people should take that little bit of effort to do it -- it causes less problems for everyone involved.