I don't really believe in long lectures because they're not fun for me to act out. I know perfectly well that the other person at the end of the screen either made a legit mistake and needs OOC guidance OR deliberately did what they did for their character's 'story' and wants or needs a kick in the ass. Either way, I find out what happened and protect those that need protecting and issue appropriate consequences. If someone doesn't adhere to what is negotiated, they get tossed to the wolves. No one has time for that, I want to enjoy my playtime too.
On the flipside of that and what gives me twitchy flashbacks, is being someone's IG subordinate and minding my own business only to have someone or several someones DECIDE that your character is a screwup. This could come from lack of game knowledge or a general dislike of your character or you as a player. It's pretty lame because no matter what you do, it's hard to get out from under, they rarely explain fully, and they spread this narrative to everyone who will listen. When THESE people dole out consequences, you get frustrated because you are legit trying to just play the game and not deal with their borderline or overt harassment, almost to the point of avoiding them, but its not always possible.
@Ghost we need to have a chat about the lack of acknowledgement in your sig for your 2nd gif violation
see me in my office
@Trix The 'IC punishment because I don't like you OOC' kind of situation -- which I have definitely seen on and off over the years -- is the sort of thing I'd mention to staff. It's not easy to prove, but in an ideal world, the staffer in question will look into it and drop a bug in the player's ear to knock it off at the very least. That -- ideally -- is often enough to get someone to not continue that behavior, since they know they're being observed for potential abuses.
@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.)
If there's character development, sure, but because our experiences differ, I try to lean toward being more forgiving.
"I'm going to chew you out now."
You're asking me to trust you and that your idea of fun, character development, or propriety even considers me or mine. The idea broached a little earlier that people shouldn't play purely for their own concerns, that goes every direction.
Staff, players, protagonists, antagonists, kobolds, child magicians, all of them should play to see what happens, and that means wanting the best for everyone around them.
I have been in plenty of scenes where my character has been chewed out. Those times where I've nope'd out is because it was not interesting, immersive, or developing. I was just a stand-in for some other player to play out their character.
Being a static prop to someone else's idea of fun, character development, and/or propriety is boring. As. Hell. Whether or not this is a dressing-down, a combat scene, torture-porn, a public meeting, if I am doing my best to take the consequences without playing out the scene then I'm still playing the game.
And I've played through every dressing-down anyone's ever brought to me.
"I'm going to chew you out now."
If you're not trustworthy to treat me like a member of the game, I'm going to not give you the satisfaction. If this upsets anyone, they are selfish and wrong.
So it comes down to trust.
"I'm going to chew you out now" does not itself indicate trust. Only duty. And this is a game, a hobby; duty is something we pour into it as love, and that love demands respect just as the game demands respect. There are no islands on a Mu*.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I come down pretty hard on the 'lol, I'm not going to RP something that's not fun' side of things. Especially after more time in the hobby, the idea of putting in RP 'work' (and this isn't the only area where that trope applies) is just kind of a non-starter. If it's not entertaining (OOCly), there's no force that's going to make me sit there and take it.
Now, I think there's valid points about players who continually shit-stir then never RPs the other side of it, but that's back to making policy for the lowest common denominator. And it also cuts both ways. Something can be ICly harsh but OOCly fun if the players on both sides are trying to entertain each other, but I have zero interest playing punching bag for some asshole getting their jollies on quasi-OOC cruelty and power trips. This was a huge trope on Firan, and it looks like Arx hasn't fully escaped it: "If you roster a character after a crippling scandal, it means you're a bad player avoiding consequences (despite uh, losing a character). You should keep RPing them so we can all enjoy harping on your mistake for the next 6 months. It'll be loads of fun, trust us! 
:)" Yeah fucking right.
Mostly, I feel like there are as many bad winners as there are bad losers. Why shouldn't there be, it's all the same players? So you should aim for getting rid of these people, but in the meantime, not create situations where anyone is forced to deal with unpleasant interactions. A big thing there is not putting quasi OOC discipline and thematic guidance in player hands, since that's really staff's job.
@Thenomain and @bored touched on some really great points about A) Not being required to sit through a scene because it has low value but one player wants to use it to play out their opinion and B) the angle that people think it's a sign of a good player to roleplay for 6 months of being treated like an idiot because it's "in character". The latter can be exhausting and always feels like you're going through penance to help other players succeed.
I tend to use a lot of childhood references when it comes to MU behaviors; not because I think everyone is immature, but because I think we may all understand these similar concepts:
The bossy asshole when playing "house" who becomes a dictator, pointing out who gets to play the daddy, the mommy, what the house is like, how things are supposed to go, then getting angry when people don't follow their direction.
Kids playing tag. "I got you first!", "No, I got YOU first!*".
#1 happens with some players, and just like when you were kids, aside from dice there's no laser-tag speed of light and circuitry that can run who got shot first (Han shot first). When it comes to stuff like bored and Theno pointed out, then ply these 2 concepts in, it can be very very very hard to simply have a referee make a ruling.
In some ways, role-playing in MU as adults isn't far from playing "Star Wars" at the playground with broomstick spraypainted red and blue. Sometimes the only way to settle shit without it being about who argues loudest is to create good rules.
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
@Ghost said in Consent in Gaming:
In some ways, role-playing in MU as adults isn't far from playing "Star Wars" at the playground with broomstick spraypainted red and blue. Sometimes the only way to settle shit without it being about who argues loudest is to create good rules.
And sometimes people enjoy being spanked.
I try not to judge. I have the motto of "play through." I don't expect people to do the same, but it'd be nice if we try it until we get to a point that's boring or of low value. Then, just tell me, and I don't mind moving on.
@Ghost Makes Me Think Of:
We all game for different reasons. I've had mild tense fights with my board game group because I get frustrated and bored when they take too long to play a game I'm mostly there to play because I'm being social, and they're some of my best friends. Ultimately the paradox is that the vast majority of us socially game for selfish reasons. I don't think most people want to make the game boring for other people, but other people are going to think what you think is right is frustrating, and that's going to create some drama that is going to have to be dealt with by someone. Every time I see someone on this forum say, "Well it's not up to me!", I cringe. It's not always up to you, no, but if you have no introspection then how do you know?
You don't.
And if you can't express this, how can anyone else know that you do?
They can't.
Sometimes you just don't care if someone else thinks the game you like is frustrating. This attitude can be healthy. This attitude can be toxic. And the difference between one or the other can be wide as the gulf between telling someone to calm down and them freaking out on a public channel, or as thin as the line of perception of a joke taken the wrong way.
It's that fine line that I'm interested in. Of course every scene or game night doesn't need a decompression or talking-through, but damn the knowledge that it's an accepted option is one less fine-line situation to worry about.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@Thenomain @Ganymede + to you both.
I think you both hit some nails on the head. Id like to add that:
I think you can tell in a situation when the people are more important than the game. I think everyone does want the right mix of that. I've met some LARPers and TT gamers who were just there for the game and it shows. Likewise it's always obvious when someone is there for the people and the game itself is secondary. This also shows.
I like a good mix, myself. 9/10 times, though (The 10th probably being some kind of Xwing or Warhammer tournament) I would definitely choose the mix of friendly people who don't care enough about the game to fight over it, but love the game enough to be happy to share it with me.
And I think when everyone is emotionally in sync (with: friendly enough but love game enough to share), things like consent aren't treated like fun-roadblocks.
"Tim doesn't like that kinda shit. Okay, let's do a different idea that sounds fun. No biggie."
Vs.
"Tim doesnt wanna do my torture scene because he says it depresses him. Dude needs to check his priorities or get off the game."
Delete the Hog Pit. It'll be fun.
I really don't understand He-Man
So I'm reading this thread and I'm finding my perspective might differ when I Rp than others here. Even if its a bad situation, I'm still there, playing my character, who is the protagonist of my show, as I imagine other PC's are the protagonists of theirs, reacting to stimuli and responding, in character. What is even the point of playing if to avoid any conflict you cannot dominate? Sometimes you get yelled at, or face consequences. You are still there, RPing right? How does this reflect on yout he player? I love it when bad things happen to my PC's... thats the most fun part. Conflict, and playing that character within that conflict. Right?
But if I'm playing a Private who thumbs their nose at the Commanding Officer, it's damaging to the brand of the game to let that go. I mean, why are we playing Space Soldiers?
In a tabletop, we can say that we're playing Dirty Dozen Space Edition.
In a Mu*, it's a harder proposition, and if someone doesn't want to deal with someone stepping off-brand then I don't blame them.
All of this goes both ways, which means everyone must try for the sake of the game.
It is possible to impose in character consequences for in character behavior without forcing anyone to scene about it. People forced into those situations really usually arent looking forward to the scene even if they have the upper end of the power differential.
That is a separate issue from a player expecting no consequences at all, on screen or off, from their actions.
You can bar a PC from certain missions (or all in extreme cases), demote, remove, ect, all via message or off screen action. I really cannot think of any action serious to fluff that necessitates that people have to have an on camera scene if they do not want to, that's more of a policy thing, and in the case of an unpleasant situation that may become unpleasant oocly, that's what off screen resolution is for.
It doesn't mean that people will be /happy/ about what happens/is enacted off screen, but that's a separate issue.
Ugh. All this thread does is make me think of every time a player thought they were being a super cool flippant rebel against the grain quirky mcquirkster to me in RP but what they really were was super annoying and draining OOC.
What, people sometimes play games to portray special snowflakes? Gasp! It's like people see cool things in media and want to enact those!
I'm not making fun of you, by the bye. I'm making fun of this entire hobby for missing out on some wildly key concepts and at once encourage and complain about them.
For decades.
I love our broken hobby.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@Thenomain I mean, it's fine if people want to play those kind of concepts. I just find that most people don't understand where the line is between 'this is fun for me' and 'oh I might be annoying the shit out of this person who has had to deal with my crap 89 times this week alone'
They're like villain/antagonist PCs really. When done well they're awesome and can add a lot of fun for most everyone. I find slightly more people are able to be non-thoughtless as a snowflake/rebel than all out antagonist, at least.
@thesuntsar said in Consent in Gaming:
@Thenomain I mean, it's fine if people want to play those kind of concepts. I just find that most people don't understand where the line is between 'this is fun for me' and 'oh I might be annoying the shit out of this person who has had to deal with my crap 89 times this week alone'
But is it? Is it fine? As a hobby we have never been able to come to a conclusion on this.
On the surface, yes, people who suck are a problem. I also hate people who suck. I think from perspective, not a single person likes people who suck. We constantly rally behind "people who suck are not good!"
And then one person says what they mean by "suck" and it ends up being a clusterfuck of an argument.
@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:
I love our broken hobby.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@Thenomain said in Consent in Gaming:
But if I'm playing a Private who thumbs their nose at the Commanding Officer, it's damaging to the brand of the game to let that go. I mean, why are we playing Space Soldiers?
I think 'This is the military, insubordination has consequences' is a matter of theme-enforcement, and thus staff's job. Leaving this in player hands is going to cause problems far more often than it's going to create great, memorable RP (even if it does on rare occasion). If someone is insubordinate, staff should step in and demote them in the org, and make it clear that their character is on probation and in risk of serious consequences. If it happens again, they lose the character to brigging, being taken out and shot, whatever.
There was a lot going on in this thread and I have my own opinions, but I tend to keep those to myself these days, for a variety of reasons. Though I'm not just posting for a completely useless reason. I did think of something while I was reading the thread. On the topic of a "getting yelled at by superiors" scene, what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of not-fun things about playing it out, but there's also a lot of not-fun things about having it happen off-screen. So, if I'm correct, the ideal solution would be one that does both of the following:
The mention of staff being brought in is a good one, I think. IC insubordination, particularly if it's random or "done for shiggles", can affect the quality of a game overall. I think it does need to be brought to staff's attention that a particular character is being insubordinate in certain ways, if for no other reason than to make staff aware of the situation so they won't be surprised by what comes next.
!! BEFORE I GO ON, PLEASE NOTE, I DO NOT THINK MINE IS A PERFECT SOLUTION !!
However, as is often the case where compromise is concerned, not everyone gets everything they want. But I think that IN SOME SITUATIONS, it can provide a reasonable solution. Mileages are always going to vary from situation to situation. And there's no such thing as a "perfect solution for every problem" where something as complicated as human social interactions are concerned.
With that out of the way, my suggestion? Since a dressing down type scene tends to lean towards being one person simply making a soliloquy at a mostly-silent second person (or more), if it's agreed to offscreen it, post the dressing down on a bulletin board, perhaps a Cutscenes board. That way, not only is it technically "played out", the player(s) whose character(s) was/were dressed down knows exactly what consequences were levied. Furthermore, EVERYONE ON THE GAME knows that consequences were had. Thus everyone's on the same page.
That said, one could note that doing it that way is unfair, because sole responsibility for the lecture comes from the players whose character is delivering the lecture. To offset this, the player who delivers the lecture might be able to gloss over and give only the "high points" (or low points, as the case may be) of his/her lecture, and merely narrate from a third-person perspective what actions were taken.
So instead of having to improvise an R. Lee Ermey style dressing down, the player can simply choose to say something like "<Commander> pulled <Character> into his/her office to discuss their actions on their last mission. S/He was very disappointed in <Character's> lack of discipline and forethought. As punishment <Commander> has ordered <Character> to <punishment>."
There's a bunch of problems with this suggestion, I know. Like I said, I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm not saying it's 100% fair and just, I'm not saying that it's going to be the best solution for EVERY situation. I'm just offering it as a possible solution for SOME of the problems with the "getting yelled at" scenes.
But if I'm playing a Private who thumbs their nose at the Commanding Officer, it's damaging to the brand of the game to let that go. I mean, why are we playing Space Soldiers?
In a tabletop, we can say that we're playing Dirty Dozen Space Edition.
In a Mu*, it's a harder proposition, and if someone doesn't want to deal with someone stepping off-brand then I don't blame them.
All of this goes both ways, which means everyone must try for the sake of the game.
