Consent-based games
-
@Arkandel
I'd hazard that it's the fact that if you're the only doing it, it loses its purpose as part of the game's culture. You're also isolated, in some way, from the rest of the players. -
This isn't a perfect analogy but it's close.
Hearken back to the days of the OOC Masquerade where the basic assumption was that players couldn't be trusted to know who was what and not use that information ICly. Yes, there were other reasons but that was the de facto effect.
Similarly, non-consent assumes that players can't be trusted to play honestly (using consent to refuse consequences) and a host of similar situations. Both situations assume that most players are assholes without ethics.
That's not the case. Are there some? Sure. And on every game I've played on, problem players - whatever the problem - don't get played with by those people who dislike them and their play style. Whether it's a consent or non-consent game, everyone is free to ignore the players they have issues with. If knowing another player is doing it 'wrong', even if it doesn't affect you, is upsetting you, that's your issue. The situations where it can and will affect you are usually rare.
In summary, if you give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll act responsibly, most times you'll be right. Those who don't will be marginalized and made unwelcome in most cases. If it's game effecting, staff can step in. But most times, the bludgeon of rules that assume people are assholes aren't needed and looser ones such as 'consent can't be used to avoid consequences so don't' will work just fine over one such as those on pure non-consent games where you can be killed without any input on your part.
-
When it comes to PvP in particular I think the problem to manage is expectation rather than reality.
The reality is that PC deaths at the hands of other PCs is relatively rare, quite likely due to the drama that comes with it, but also because most people don't want to be dicks. However the threat of it, the potential the other player might in fact be a dick is a driving force in strife generation, so that the knowledge that consent would be required before really bad things happened can pre-emptively get rid of that potential.
The flip side which is consent being abused due to horrible players is a different thing altogether. That's why staff exists, it's their job to protect the game from such people, while the truth is they'd be there no matter what. No MU* is dick-free.
-
This is what I do about consent vs non-consent on wildcard:
Wildcard is a mix of consent and non-consent game. For most things please use the FAE (Fate Accelerated Edition) rules to resolve conflict. However, there are several things that require consent or staff over review:
- Sexual activity-- Sexual activity of any kind requires OOC consent. If you are attempting to seduce someone using the system you are required to get consent. As well any thematic power over sex that might influence someone players have the right to ask for staff to judge or review the rolls.
* Death-- Death of a character requires OOC consent or staff approval. The FAE and FATE systems really emphasis cooperative storytelling and PK is rarely cooperative. While PvP is welcome and encouraged, please think of ways other than death -- or get consent or staff. * Mind Control-- Any power that influences someone's actions, thoughts, or feelings in a way that is extremely out of character for the character may be reviewed by staff if the player being dominated wishes.All players have the right to fade to black any scene they are not comfortable with. No one is required to RP anything-- from sex, to death, to torture, to filing taxes. If you don't find it fun you don't have to play it out.
-
I'd read that as "I'm good with anything as long as it is entertaining." I think people might be wary of it being true, but avoiding it? They haven't waived their own consent rights, so why would they even think to avoid it?
-
Coin guessed it right off. That is my issue with the ability to flag yourself consent or not.
-
I'm not entirely sure if it would work that way in practice, re: avoidance based on choice. When someone is making a choice that affects only themselves, there's no reason for it. If you're insisting they accept the same choice, yeah, that could potentially be a problem -- but if you're offering blanket consent without expecting it in return, it'd be senseless to complain about.
Admittedly, I've only seen two examples of anything along these lines (barring the place I had briefly that was too small to count for any real data): Darkmetal with its tiered system, and Shang. I saw some avoidance on Darkmetal, but I can't say I ever saw it come into play in regard to characters the avoiding party would not have avoided for other reasons that were a higher priority than the consent factor. On Shang, I don't think I ever saw it come up in over a decade.
Realistically, what @Cobaltasaurus is describing is similar to the reality on Reno; there are subjects there left to consent. It is otherwise a non-consent game. Some level of hybridization is more common, I suspect, than most realize without it ever causing any drama. (And it may be preventing some measure of drama that would otherwise arise -- but that we'll never actually know.)
@Arkandel said:
However the threat of it, the potential the other player might in fact be a dick is a driving force in strife generation, so that the knowledge that consent would be required before really bad things happened can pre-emptively get rid of that potential.
This is a pretty huge thing unto itself, and is not limited to player death as an outcome.
"I'm going to be an asshole because I can," when it manifests as a player attitude (as opposed to character behavior IC), is really something we really need to stop uncomfortably accepting out of a fear that any potential alternative is going to be worse.
Oh fucking well.
-
@TNP said:
[N]on-consent assumes that players can't be trusted to play honestly (using consent to refuse consequences) and a host of similar situations. Both situations assume that most players are assholes without ethics.
I don't see it that way.
Non-consent provides a way for players to resolve conflict between characters where the players cannot agree on the outcome. Non-consent does not mean that players cannot agreeably resolve a conflict's outcome.
I perceive consent games as providing a mechanism by which one player may prevent the consequences of the actions of another's. I disagree with that. If there is a system of impartial conflict resolution, there ought to be no reason to eschew its use where there's no agreement.
However, I know, probably better than most, of the value of an amicable resolution prior to having it solved by an "impartial" system.
-
@TNP said:
Similarly, non-consent assumes that players can't be trusted to play honestly (using consent to refuse consequences) and a host of similar situations.
I could easily make the case for consent assuming that players can't be trusted to craft a story unless every side has complete control of their little bit of it.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
-
@Coin Non-consent and consent, when done right - i.e. assuming all characters are played by mature individuals interested in collaborating with each other to tell a good story - are essentially identical. They only diverge when things go awry.
I'm a supporter of the proactive element in consent based games as I find the lack of paranoia fosters a culture of cooperation. But the two approaches aren't that different as long as the sandbox we-don't-need-no-mechanics factor encountered in many of these games isn't present.
-
@surreality said:
"I'm going to be an asshole because I can," when it manifests as a player attitude (as opposed to character behavior IC), is really something we really need to stop uncomfortably accepting out of a fear that any potential alternative is going to be worse.
@surreality I am interested in exploring what you mean here. On the surface (I believe I am reading you correctly), are you saying that we should be fostering, when able, an environment where asshole characters are welcomed but player attitude is not? If that is correct, yes, of course I am in full agreement with you.
However, this goes into the OOC Conversation in another thread: I do not believe that this is possible to separate without good OOC communication on behalf of the Asshole Character's player. Promoting a helpful OOC attitude, suggesting ways for others to bypass or 'beat' his/her character's IC attempts, can all be great ways to help other people's discomfort. I have seen some of the best antagonist character players do this, because their goal was the story being a long-term sort, not a short-term flash in the pan. They realized that going ugly early caused players to not only ostracize them, but suspect them of other crap on the OOC level.
This goes back to @Arkandel's comment about Mature Individuals Interested in Collaborating.
-
@Rook Yep, we're on the same page about that.
Asshole characters can be a joy; asshole players are not.
Basically, on previous incarnations of the board, the problem of "I had a bad day RL, I want to make someone as miserable as I am by being a real jerk IC, and making sure nobody can do anything about it OOC because it's a non-consent game and they don't get a say and I get to make the other player uncomfortable/unhappy and I'm going to enjoy that/gleefully not give a damn about that other human being on the other end of this situation," came up more than a few times as a flaw in fully non-consent environments.
While these folks are rare, they're out there. Even some otherwise normal folks can dip a toe into this behavior once in a while, and that's really all it takes -- once in a while -- to screw up someone else's gaming experience in a much more long-term fashion. I've found -- and further found I wasn't alone in thinking -- PK itself wasn't really as scary as this OOC behavioral pattern, since it's entirely possible to lose a character in ways that tell a good story or are otherwise enjoyable for all players involved. Further, shunning doesn't always work well in these cases as these folks can use non-consent to find means of forcing inclusion, also.
Generally speaking, while nobody really likes this behavior, it's been considered an acceptable trade-off for the benefit of impartial conflict resolution (non-consent dice and stats with no opt-out regardless of the reasoning for a situation or gravity of it) between players, primarily due to concerns about people abusing consent policies to sidestep consequences or behave like morons in an entirely different manner.
Basically, I think it's time we stop being so afraid of people 'abusing consent' that we put up with 'being an asshole OOC because I can be'.
Staff can't really do anything to the 'asshole because I can be' because you essentially have to make special rules to punish them, as what they're doing may be counter to a positive game environment, but that's really vague at best and hard to rule on consistently, transparently, and with an appearance of fairness, since it is explicitly not against the rules, but is instead a potential violation of the social contract. Conversely, it isn't too hard to write up rules about when it is or is not reasonable to deny consent, what consent applies to and what it doesn't, and what constitutes abuses of consent in ways that make the other problem one that can be managed with far more consistency, perceived and observed fairness, and transparency.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality said:
Basically, on previous incarnations of the board, the problem of "I had a bad day RL, I want to make someone as miserable as I am by being a real jerk IC, and making sure nobody can do anything about it OOC because it's a non-consent game and they don't get a say and I get to make the other player uncomfortable/unhappy and I'm going to enjoy that/gleefully not give a damn about that other human being on the other end of this situation," came up more than a few times as a flaw in fully non-consent environments.
To be fair that's not a problem with non-consent games, and it can still happen in a consent-based MU* in the exact same way. People can be dicks without trying to kill a PC.
Staff can't really do anything to the 'asshole because I can be' because you essentially have to make special rules to punish them
That is the wrong approach though. You can't out-rule assholes, or they'll just try to twist around it, and it's the players who're doing nothing wrong who'll end up being inconvenienced (or worse) by their existence. A general guideline ("don't be an ass") should be enough, then staff can enforce it as needed - we always end up relying on staff judgment anyway, so it's perfectly okay to make policies loose rather than too specific.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel said:
@surreality said:
Basically, on previous incarnations of the board, the problem of "I had a bad day RL, I want to make someone as miserable as I am by being a real jerk IC, and making sure nobody can do anything about it OOC because it's a non-consent game and they don't get a say and I get to make the other player uncomfortable/unhappy and I'm going to enjoy that/gleefully not give a damn about that other human being on the other end of this situation," came up more than a few times as a flaw in fully non-consent environments.
To be fair that's not a problem with non-consent games, and it can still happen in a consent-based MU* in the exact same way. People can be dicks without trying to kill a PC.
The 'without trying to kill a PC' point is what I'm making there. There are plenty of ways.
And it has, actually, come up. I'll reference good ol' Santiago again, and his 'I have a fetish RL I want to force people to engage in, and I have the stats on the sheet to do it, so I am going to force this on other players now.' Think of the mind-control asshats on this one, the 'forced pregnancy' creeps, the 'I had a crummy day so my PC is going to brood in a bar and wait for someone to rub him wrong so he can end them so I can feel big' sort, etc. This is the problem behavior I'm talking about.
They are a downside to a full-non-consent environment because 'if I have it on sheet I can make it happen no matter how flimsy my IC reasoning may be', and they're not an issue on consent games because OOC, you can tell them: "no."
Staff can't really do anything to the 'asshole because I can be' because you essentially have to make special rules to punish them
That is the wrong approach though. You can't out-rule assholes, or they'll just try to twist around it, and it's the players who're doing nothing wrong who'll end up being inconvenienced (or worse) by their existence.
That's actually what I'm getting at, too. If you have to write up a set of guidelines, as staff, to address one set of problems or the other (asshole behavior vs. consent twinking), it's a lot easier, as staff, to address consent twinking in a way that's easier to enforce than a more nebulous 'don't be an asshole' rule.
People can be certainly assholes in a consent environment, but the players can handle that directly without staff intervention with a simple: 'no'. The only recourse you have otherwise is appealing to staff, which a fair number of players are reluctant to do for a variety of reasons.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality I quite agree with what you are saying, I am just not sure consent-based games fix the problem.
Unless consent is required at every level, including losing contested but non-lethal/permanently changing rolls, a player could still try to push those things through. Hell, look at Shang, it happens there routinely right? And likewise I have yet to see a popular non-consent game where characters would be forced (well, 'forced') to play things out instead of fading to black.
I'm a supporter of the former type of games but I really don't think they'd fix this issue. At best they might mask it a bit.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel I'm thinking of it in terms of the parameters outlined in point #2 from the original post, pretty much. 'I looked silly in front of others for five minutes, oh noes!' wouldn't get a pass and be dubbed twinking, but attempts to force someone into pregnancy through magic powers would (it's permanently-altering even if not carried through); "I don't feel like letting your character land a punch," wouldn't get a pass, while "beating my character to a pulp and leaving them in the ICU for a month for taking your favorite bar stool" would be kosher to object to.
-
Even on full non-consent games, you still have some say just follow the rules to a tee. For example somebody wants to do something creepy the squicks you and won't accept anything else, pretty much every game i have ever seen with mechanics has had the caveat that you can have staff present to handle rules things. Pretty much when things break down say I want staff to handle the rules for this scene. It is completely in line with non-consent but will get the person to leave and find easier prey every time I have tried it. Usually staff is way overworked and no one wants to stick around waiting for them to be able to judge the scene.
It also takes away the OOC power trip aspect because you are effectively taking the power from them and putting i into a third party. -
@Arkandel said:
Unless consent is required at every level, including losing contested but non-lethal/permanently changing rolls, a player could still try to push those things through. Hell, look at Shang, it happens there routinely right?
Sure does. Staff-approved too. That was how I was removed without consent, without even a simple heads-up OOCly. I could write a lot about it and why that game is truly toxic but that's just rehashing what everyone here already knows.
I can tell you from experience that it's ultimately up to the staff to make sure consent and non-consent 'works'. @Arkandel, your notion to keep rules simple such as 'don't be a dick' is spot on. Or, as I used for my online community:
Any kind of behavior that threatens the welcoming, cohesive and coherent mentality and atmosphere of the community will be dealt with according to severity of the disruption. Repeated behaviors that attempt again will result in expulsion.
There. That's it. "Don't be a dick" put down in nice firm 'legalese'. Human nature manifests itself in different details for eons. Attempting to catalog those details is futile and creates loopholes: "but it's not in the list of stuff I can't do!" That means the only defense a player has is their action was not illegal to express under the current listed regulations. However, it's clear the root: willful "antagonization" of the community. Transparency allows players to decide if that is the case. It's looking at the bigger picture to the result not so much the actions themselves.
