Consent in Gaming

[Ghost]

@Tinuviel I dont think everything meaningful has to happen on screen, but I do think it should be referenced on screen, so to speak.

Example: You don't need a 3 hour scene of some angry person in charge making angry sounds. You, could, however have a brief mention of a closed door with sounds of a man shouting behind it, and then the PC poses coming out of the door, looking frustrated.

The "in charge" PC or NPC could leave a journal entry if they want to fill it in more: "...I told her that if she pulls that kind of stunt again, I'll take her wings from her. Only...there was a moment while my finger was pointed in her face that I could see in her eyes that she doesnt think I'd go through with it. She may be right. Gods damn me."

With something like that, you set aside the tiring need to do everything in some 3-5 hour long-form scene and side with creativity, and the end result is (IMO) more rewarding.

Edit:

I think logs on a games wiki should be linear to some degree. A player should be able to read the logs and follow story arcs and enjoy the writing other people do. If things are hand-waved but not referenced "on screen", these weird time lapse blackouts will occur that make little sense. One moment a Viper crew is approaching the Basestar. The next everything is on fire. The next they're chatting about some stuff that never got logged. It's somewhat epileptic on a mental television level when that happens.

[faraday]

@Tinuviel said in Consent in Gaming:

If I play a criminal, and you play a judge, and you want to run a trial and I really don't want to sit for hours posing "he sits quietly" over and over again... I don't think I should be compelled to. There are some parts of a story that can be glossed over.

The problem with that is that by glossing over the trial entirely, you're basically depriving the judge PC of the opportunity to do That Judge Thing. It may not be the most fun thing for you to do, but you'd be a good sport by doing it anyway so they can have fun too.

It's not about compelling people to RP things that aren't fun for them. It's about expecting some degree of reciprocity as part of an implied social contract.

By playing a criminal or a screw-up, you're essentially initiating a storyline that affects other people. If you then say that you're only going to play out the high points of that story (where your character shines) and none of the consequences of that story (the cop wanting to question you, or the CO taking you to task, or your buddy arguing with you about how you endangered the mission, etc.) then that's just poor sportsmanship IMHO. Good RPers give as well as take.

Also, you can have an interaction without making it an ordeal. The cops/COs/judges of the world can work to make it fun for the other players too. Keep it short and sweet. Make sure it's not a soliloquy. Strive to engage with the other character and provide some character development for everyone.

For example - on BSGU I did a trial. I had all the witnesses submit a "testimony pose" ahead of time, so their players got to participate in the trial without forcing everybody to sit through 27 rounds of questioning. The on-camera portion was just the dramatic conclusion.

[Ominous]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

The ... COs ... of the world can work to make it fun for the other players too.

3 am shakedowns with the K-9 unit are always a blast.

[Tinuviel]

@Ghost This is exactly the kind of thing I prefer. Chat OOC about what you want to happen off-screen, and then write it up as a few journal entries or reports (if you're that kind of person) or whatever. I don't have the time to invest in the "old school" three hour meetings where everyone types eight paragraphs and I don't actually get to do anything other than sit there.

So sure if, as @faraday says, you can keep it short and sweet and get it done in an hour? That's fine. If you can't, I can definitely agree that it needs to FTB and a resolution posted on a bboard somewhere. It seems, at least in my experience, that those with that sort of power (judge, CO, primogen w/e) like dragging things out, so that is from where my "it's selfish for them too" comes.

ETA: To sum up, it's not necessarily what one is roleplaying but how it is roleplayed. Which is an important distinction.

[Trix]

Dudes.... Dudes...

Last Action Hero - Drekker's Unintelligible Yelling Scene

I could get down with a scene RP'd like this. Series of unfortunate events, nuclear mayhem triggered by an oops that 'may' have been accidental on the part of a PC but totally WAS by the character, and an apoplectic chewing out that is in line with what happened and gives everyone context for how bad the 'screw up' was. Kinda hilarious if taken in good fun.

[Warma Sheen]

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

I don't know what changed that people decided that it couldn't work without rules and code and things that made it more like asking permission to get a cookie than "yar, I raid the cookies, I am the cookie king, muahahaha!"

Like melting polar ice, the world drowned itself because it refused to seriously address its own bad behavior despite the many obvious catastrophes and numerous calls for action.

People got jaded. People got paranoid. People got burned.

Jaded people got paranoid of being burned.

[Thenomain]

@faraday said in Consent in Gaming:

The problem with that is that by glossing over the trial entirely, you're basically depriving the judge PC of the opportunity to do That Judge Thing.

This is the Spotlight Problem. Everyone wants to play their character. And while I agree it's being a good sport to let everyone do their thing—and I think you addressed this in anecdotally—it's still a question if the player should be penalized, literally or socially, for not wanting to help someone else do their thing.

To punish someone for not RPing out a scene is untenable.

To punish someone for not RPing out the consequences of a scene is fine. (edit: Within the scope of the scene and consequence.)

"Good sport" is a matter of opinion and has been used in the past as a weapon to punish players who did nothing more but try to avoid a situation that made them uncomfortable. Avoiding situations has likewise punished innocent players from being able to realize their character concept.

But whose job is it to help a player realize their character concept? Is it other players'? Is it staff's? Because around here the most common answer is "not mine".

[Ghost]

@Thenomain This.

If you think about it, MU is really described as: "A bunch of people writing a story together without any real game plan other than to try to have fun and make your character relevant."

Which is kind of like: "Getting 30 people together to order a total of 4 pizzas, but everyone wants at least 1 pizza to be exactly how they want it."

When people co-author a book/story together, they dont just roleplay it out and then print it. No, they plan everything (or most of everything) in advance and then trust each other to craft specific parts of that story. Author A and B both control the same characters, same story, same outcomes, but are delegating certain scenes/chapters to be written by the other.

This is not MU. This is why this stuff gets complicated. The reality is that some characters will be in the forefront while others aren't, and there's no requirement that if a character is focal for 3 scenes in a row that they swap out and allow another to be focal. There's VERY LITTLE IF ANY coordination on a large scale as to which characters are slotted for X amount of screen time for Y plot.

There is no plan; thus there is chaos.

[Thenomain]

@Ghost

And I really really really really really want people to be good sports to one another. I want people to enjoy failing. I want people to give up the spotlight, to try something new, to get out of their damn holes and start interacting instead of waiting for someone else. I've been ranting about this for decades.

I can't upvote @Warma-Sheen enough for the comment:

Jaded people got paranoid of being burned.

I've been trying to explain the history of (at least WoD) mushes for a long time, and this summarizes it well. Even people who are in good places now carry around the memories and scars of abusive staffers hiding behind sweet voices and enabling bad actors, of players politicking to make you look bad so you can't defend yourself, of good people letting bad players continue because they're trying to be good people.

(edit) And this is still happening.

Who you decide to help and spend your time with is up to you. This is ultimately a selfish hobby, and nothing, nothing can make you play well with others if you don't think they deserve it.

The solution is to be deserving of it, of being self-aware. Of being understanding and patient because nobody is perfect at either of those. If someone says, "Hey, this doesn't seem like fun," don't think less of them. Think, okay what can we do that's fun? Have a conversation.

Treat your comrades like a fellow player, not a character who has to do things because otherwise your character won't get their spotlight time. Appease to their better nature or let them go.

This is a game, people. This is a hobby. It would be awesome if we all got what we want out of it, but we can't. We have to negotiate, because we're not in it alone.

Pax.

[Tinuviel]

@Ghost This is sort of why I roll my eyes when people describe MUing as "cooperative storytelling." It's true to a point, in that all of us are cooperating most of the time in telling stories. We just don't always want to tell the same stories. What I might find endlessly fascinating (like where the heck did all this tin come from for the bronze age?! [probably Cornwall]) and a source of inspiration and direction is something you'd possibly find dull as hell to have to sit through.

So yes, we are all in this together and we should do our best to ensure a good time is had by all, but punishing people for not wanting to play out the boring, the stupid, or the overlong just seems silly. Especially in a time where the majority of players have actual lives to live (unlike a decade ago) and can't dedicate eight hours a night to the same goddamn scene.

[Tinuviel]

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

abusive staffers hiding behind sweet voices and enabling bad actors

[Ganymede]

@Tinuviel said in Consent in Gaming:

So yes, we are all in this together and we should do our best to ensure a good time is had by all, but punishing people for not wanting to play out the boring, the stupid, or the overlong just seems silly.

Define "punishment."

Should staff levy some sort of punishment? Of course not. Should players? Debatable. We all arguably want to be as accommodating as possible, but if someone is "depriving" me of my opportunity to do what I want to do, then I don't think anyone is going to look at me side-eyed for being a bit salty. So if I am the CO who is being dodged because a player doesn't want to play out a scene where I get to engage in the RP I'd like to engage in, I may decide not to spend a lot of time playing with that player's character in the future.

Is that punitive? Arguably. Consider the following:

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

Who you decide to help and spend your time with is up to you. This is ultimately a selfish hobby, and nothing, nothing can make you play well with others if you don't think they deserve it.

I think it is unreasonable for the player who elects not to play through a scene that I would like to player through to expect me to carry on, my wayward son, as if nothing at all just happened. Like we are still going to be besties if we only engage in the RP that such player wants to engage in, regardless of what I'd like to do.

The solution is to be deserving of it, of being self-aware.

Being self-aware sometimes means understanding that you may have to play through something that is boring in order to let others have their fun. It means understanding that it's not just about you and, maybe, you're part of a group whose needs and wants may be different from yours. If I could put my finger on what irks me these days, aside from people sitting around idle, it is the apparent absence of self-awareness reflected in attitudes and policies.

But I digress.

If someone says, "Hey, this doesn't seem like fun," don't think less of them. Think, okay what can we do that's fun? Have a conversation.

To be honest, if someone says "hey this doesn't seem like fun," I'm probably going to believe that they have the maturity of a pre-pubescent. One might as well say "I think this is boring" or "you're boring me," or something equally ribald.

Better approach: "I think we're heading in a direction I'd rather not RP through. Can we figure out a resolution that works out for both of us?"

Or: "I'm not really feeling this path of RP. Can we take it in a different direction?"

Treat your comrades like a fellow player, not a character who has to do things because otherwise your character won't get their spotlight time. Appease to their better nature or let them go.

As said above, jaded people get paranoid of being burned. Similarly, jaded people get tired of other players running over them because they attempted to appease to their better nature. Perhaps I am cynical, but I have found in the past decade that players are more than happy to take advantage of a situation to get what benefits them.

These nights, as I've become an elder, I find myself less and less willing to appease to anyone's better nature because, well, I can't find it. I have become increasingly frustrated with my experiences on games. I have trouble connecting by reaching out publicly to do so. So I am preparing not to give up, but instead to go back to building the game I want to see.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede

All of the above. Even down to 'make the game you want to see.' SGM has reinvigorated my love of storytelling like nothing else in years.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

Is that punitive? Arguably. Consider the following:

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

Who you decide to help and spend your time with is up to you. This is ultimately a selfish hobby, and nothing, nothing can make you play well with others if you don't think they deserve it.

I think it is unreasonable for the player who elects not to play through a scene that I would like to player through to expect me to carry on, my wayward son, as if nothing at all just happened.

As do I. But I detected a quite negative bent toward anyone who would even consider it. The key is to work together as much as possible, which is how I take @faraday's "good sport" comment.

But being a good sport is not a rule, it's a method. You can absolutely be frustrated when someone doesn't give you a chance, but is it reasonable to complain about it? Sometimes.

The solution is to be deserving of it, of being self-aware.

Being self-aware sometimes means understanding that you may have to play through something that is boring in order to let others have their fun. It means understanding that it's not just about you and, maybe, you're part of a group whose needs and wants may be different from yours.

Hold on, I've got something about that here...

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

It would be awesome if we all got what we want out of it, but we can't. We have to negotiate, because we're not in it alone.

Yeah, okay, there we go.

If someone says, "Hey, this doesn't seem like fun," don't think less of them. Think, okay what can we do that's fun? Have a conversation.

To be honest, if someone says "hey this doesn't seem like fun," I'm probably going to believe that they have the maturity of a pre-pubescent. One might as well say "I think this is boring" or "you're boring me," or something equally ribald.

Better approach: "I think we're heading in a direction I'd rather not RP through. Can we figure out a resolution that works out for both of us?"

Or: "I'm not really feeling this path of RP. Can we take it in a different direction?"

These are good suggestions. We can all have better communication skills, but part of what you're either going to have to get used to or not (that's my I-M-Smrt comment of the day) is that a lot of people don't.

In my vocabulary, if you can't take "that doesn't sound like fun" as open feedback, I could say that's on you. Then we get into one of those truly fucking annoying pedantic discussions about how something was said ruined everything.

Is it up to me to change because you don't take the connotation the same way as I? Because I've been blamed many, many times of not saying something correctly enough.

On here.

Recently.

(note: If anyone wants to accuse me of same, that's a fair cop, gov. I'm willing to apologize and try to understand better, or explain myself better. I am not trying to be hypocritical.)

If anyone wants to see a barrier to newcomers, it's this kind of nitpicking which is not the slightest bit useful.

I have become increasingly frustrated with my experiences on games. I have trouble connecting by reaching out publicly to do so. So I am preparing not to give up, but instead to go back to building the game I want to see.

GASP! Mass Effect?

[Wretched]

This might be a tangent, or not but it is where my brain is going. 'Thanks for being a good sport' in my mind, suggests some sort of repi- er whats the word, some back and forth. For me, the most frustrating people to RP with have always been the super strict 'I dont talk about anything ooc, only IC'. Because communication can open up larger avenues of trust. If we are talking and laughing about our PC's conflicts and misfortunes and even goals, we can reduce the ooc stress of IC conflicts. Talk about ways where you might want your characters to fail, ways to highlight thier merits and flaws, give and take. Suddenly having territories that border one another becomes fun and engaging, going back and forth, clashing having a great time ooc. But too many people wanna play 0 sum, and people get paranoid whenever any pvp type of anything comes about.

That might be gibberish.

[Auspice]

@Wretched said in Consent in Gaming:

suggests some sort of repi- er whats the word

Reciprocation?

I think you're on the ball there and I think that's why people get annoyed when someone constantly ducks out of RP because 'it's not fun for me.' Yeah, well, I wouldn't be asking you TO RP if it wasn't fun for me, so thanks.

I think that's why I bristle so hard at the 'my fun' or the 'I shouldn't have to RP anything that isn't my fun' idea. Because it implies: someone else's fun is worth more than mine.

On Ithir, there's a lot of people who want teaching scenes in exchange for giving/receiving a teaching discount on a skill. I don't particularly enjoy teaching scenes. On either end. I don't wanna be the student, I don't wanna be the teacher. So I will pass. I'll just say 'let's RP about whatever and just say the teaching happened off-camera.' But I know some people really like those scenes so yes, I've absolutely sucked it up and RP'd giving someone swordplay lessons. I tried to keep that part of the scene short and sweet, but they wanted it and I knew from experience that they had been willing to handwave the teaching part for something for me.

But it absolutely would have been a dick move, IMO, to refuse. So, what, it cost me a couple hours and let our characters talk and have character development while I played out a scene that isn't in my preferred things to do. Whatever.

[Ominous]

@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:

GASP! Mass Effect?

[Tinuviel]

@Ganymede said in Consent in Gaming:

We all arguably want to be as accommodating as possible, but if someone is "depriving" me of my opportunity to do what I want to do, then I don't think anyone is going to look at me side-eyed for being a bit salty.

I mean, that is literally what we're talking about but from the reverse position.

Unfortunately, you're in a terrible position to argue about this, because I don't believe I've ever had a dull interaction with you on a game. Like I said before, it's not a matter of what is being roleplayed about, but how it is being roleplayed. If I'm bored in a bar scene, I'm leaving and probably not going to play with that group configuration again in that situation.

That said, if something is not fun for me but it is fun for you (ETA) and you expect me to just deal with not having fun. That is you putting your fun ahead of mine. The exact thing I would be accused of if I didn't want to play out something not-fun for me. (ETA) Sure, it's a balancing act, but both sides of this discussion need to work at the balance.

[bored]

These arguments are always framed as if there are sides. The people who just want to reasonably engage in thematic RP vs. the selfish cowards who just want their own fun and fuck anything that inconveniences them in the slightest. Or is it the players who just want to have fun vs. assholes who abuse in-game power to get their own selfish jollies, regardless of anyone else's comfort? Is it the useless, whining do-nothings who can't make good RP vs. the sainted leaders who get burnt out making fun for others? Or is it the sinister RP-hoarding cliques vs. the average players who just want a little more, guv'nah. Which is it?

Well, there aren't actually any sides because it's all the same pool of assholes.

More generously, its all the same pool of people rotating through different game experiences, with different degrees of investment, connectedness, OOC or IC power. It's all people who are fun on a good day but prickly on a bad one, inspiring when they're energetic but a drain when they're not. Who are positive when they're happy, but downers when they feel like things have turned against them. Etc etc etc. I could write up long lists of faults and shitty behavior for my favorite people in the hobby, for the players I've enjoyed the most over the years. They'd find no difficulty doing the same for me.

Every one of these arguments is reversible. There's no righteous side, and realistically, we all are in it for our own fun, or we'd do some other activity in lieu of logging in. The fun we (hopefully) create for others is always going to be a byproduct of our own enjoyment, and one sours with the other. I don't know if this points to any useful solution, but I think it's an important point of perspective. A player who isn't having fun will soon not be a player. What common good you expect out of a player, you have to make worth the effort.

[Tinuviel]

@bored said in Consent in Gaming:

I don't know if this points to any useful solution, but I think it's an important point of perspective.

To be honest, I don't think there is a solution. At least not to the sub-discussion regarding 'fun/not fun'. It's preferential, subjective, and not even really a problem that needs solving. If you don't have fun in situations or with people, you stop doing those things or being with those people. It solves itself.