TS - Danger zone
-
I guess maybe PRP needs to be broken down further:
Is the ST Staff or is it just another ST?
If it's Staff, I think there needs to be consideration.
Is the NPC a community NPC (because I sure don't want to step in to run an NPC for a few weeks, or as a new Staffer, and have someone jumping into my PMs asking when we get to TS again)? Is there risk of other duties/players being neglected? ('Hey guys we're gonna handwave the rest of this plot so I can go RP with Bob one-on-one.')If it's just a player-ST, sure, whatever. If you wanna use your NPCs to TS... go for it?
It's not something that 'does it' for me, personally, but hey. You do you.
-
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
your uber powerful NPC Vampire Prince, elf Prince, Jedi Master, etc being used to do RP that seems much more PC-like rather than being used a critical force to drive the plot.
Says who? Can those people not be seduced? Are they somehow immune? If so, then you're looking at potentially bigger problems than who's boinking who, and I would consider that a bigger staffing red flag than if they were just getting busy with someone, especially since there are often systems to handle who's getting what out of a relationship.
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
Does it seriously matter? It probably depends on the game. I think most people would be upset if they found out, for instance, that PC X became the controller/leader of a new org/fief/resource/whatever based on having been granted a boon by fucking an influential NPC run by their usual PC TS partner. Right?
I think they probably would. I also would tell them that they most likely had equal opportunity to do so, and didn't. I don't TS on my own NPCs because frankly I don't have time and I don't like many people that much, but I'm not ruling that out as a viable path to power, because it's a completely legit way to get it.
-
But is TSing the prince more viable than FTB with the prince?
-
@WildBaboons said in TS - Danger zone:
But is TSing the prince more viable than FTB with the prince?
Probably not? I mean, I'd take it to FTB, but if people wanna play it out then is there any practical difference?
-
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
I don't think your definition is much different than mine. But you're missing that there's already an advantage there: the NPCs you get to run usually violate PC restrictions. This is a big part of the staffside problem that people seem much more on board with: your uber powerful NPC Vampire Prince, elf Prince, Jedi Master, etc being used to do RP that seems much more PC-like rather than being used a critical force to drive the plot.
From an ethical standpoint I wouldn't use characters with IC leverage within the present setting itself. I'll revisit the issue of gaining advantages through this in a second, though.
On top of that, XP rewards, stat increases, items, faction improvements, etc are pretty often PrP rewards. Many games will demand you run a PrP to justify any kind of larger impact on the world. So again, benefit.
To me this is fair game as long as it makes sense.
For one thing I see no issues with someone sleeping their way to the top as long as they can take the appropriate thematic hit for it. So if my justification for raising Status to 3 is that hey, I slept with the Primogen and she's favoring me... that sounds about right - but then I can't complain about it when next time my character struts his new title in Elysium there is snickering and rolling of eyes in response.
Similarly the requirement can't be that you need ro run a PrP in general to be allowed to raise your Gnosis from 2 to 3 but that somehow the PrP can explain why your character learned from it. If the RP itself involved sleeping with my PC's mentor that'd be insufficient, but if we were both shapeshifted at the time... it could make more sense.
Please note there comes a point where considering the poor staff who have to read these logs must enter the picture. They shouldn't have to read log after log of weird-ass fucking to evaluate whether these things 'make sense'.
I think most people would be upset if they found out, for instance, that PC X became the controller/leader of a new org/fief/resource/whatever based on having been granted a boon by fucking an influential NPC run by their usual PC TS partner. Right?
I would hope so, yes! Just because you get what you want from sleeping with someone it doesn't mean that comes free of consequences. Shortcuts should have a price, too.
-
@Derp said in TS - Danger zone:
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
your uber powerful NPC Vampire Prince, elf Prince, Jedi Master, etc being used to do RP that seems much more PC-like rather than being used a critical force to drive the plot.
Says who? Can those people not be seduced? Are they somehow immune?
TS. Not sex. I draw a line between 'sex for story' and 'spending 4 hours engaged in mutual erotic stimulation' and I did so in my earlier post. One is purely IC, one is not. A character can be seduced with a single roll in front of five other players, FTB'ed through, and you can be right back to stabbing goblins in five minutes. TS is another thing entirely.
@WildBaboons said in TS - Danger zone:
But is TSing the prince more viable than FTB with the prince?
I mean, this is the point I'm getting at and that people will constantly either intentionally ignore or fail to pick up in their reading. If the two are 100% equivalent for a given staffer, it probably doesn't matter if they TS all over with their NPCs. But I've seen it go the other way far too many times to trust staffers to make this distinction (or rather, to make this lack of distinction).
@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:
For one thing I see no issues with someone sleeping their way to the top as long as they can take the appropriate thematic hit for it. So if my justification for raising Status to 3 is that hey, I slept with the Primogen and she's favoring me... that sounds about right - but then I can't complain about it when next time my character struts his new title in Elysium there is snickering and rolling of eyes in response.
First, again, since no one in this thread seems to be able to keep the two terms apart, by 'sleeping their way to the top' do you mean just IC sex having happened, or TS? Because again, it's not the same thing. And I am 100% only talking about #2.
With that in mind, is it fair if the primogen is TSing X because the staffer running them really wants to fuck X's PB IRL? Why does the Primogen player's OOC sexual interest determine who gets favor? What if the staffer is quasi stalking that player and want to win them over by showing them that sleeping with them comes with a mix of IC and OOC benefits? Will that staffer let players they don't care for OOCly seduce them with equal opportunity?
Do you honestly not see the potential danger here? Come on.
Similarly the requirement can't be that you need ro run a PrP in general to be allowed to raise your Gnosis from 2 to 3 but that somehow the PrP can explain why your character learned from it. If the RP itself involved sleeping with my PC's mentor that'd be insufficient, but if we were both shapeshifted at the time... it could make more sense.
I mean, this sounds like a busywork example. If the PrP requirement is bullshit to begin with, then people gaming the system in return is going to happen. Shitty game all around. Still, it would kind of suck for someone in, say, a small sphere if they couldn't find someone to run that PrP for them because they didn't want to TS for it, or they weren't attractive to any of those players, etc, right? 'Sorry, no other gay werewolves in this sphere, so no advancement PrPs for you.' (Edit to add: I don't play nWoD werewolf so I have no idea if there's an actual thematic reason for them to be homophobes, that wasn't my point: replace it for a different preference, sphere, etc)
-
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
First, again, since no one in this thread seems to be able to keep the two terms apart
I mean, I know how annoying it can be when people refuse to stick to the definitions that you've laid out for the argument, because the argument breaks down otherwise, but I think in this case you're needlessly splitting hairs, and people aren't quite as offended by 'not-posed-out sex' and 'posed-out-sex' as you'd like them to be for purposes of making an ethical argument that people are disagreeing is an ethical problem.
-
@Derp said in TS - Danger zone:
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
First, again, since no one in this thread seems to be able to keep the two terms apart
I mean, I know how annoying it can be when people refuse to stick to the definitions that you've laid out for the argument, because the argument breaks down otherwise, but I think in this case you're needlessly splitting hairs, and people aren't quite as offended by 'not-posed-out sex' and 'posed-out-sex' as you'd like them to be for purposes of making an ethical argument that people are disagreeing is an ethical problem.
Dude, it's a thread about TS. I'm not 'laying out a definition because my argument breaks down otherwise,' I'm sticking to the fucking OP topic. 'But romance is important and sex is important and people can use sex in stories!' is a straw man that I won't engage with, and I'm not going to engage further if you choose to continue to hammer on it.
Edit: Did you also call me a prude? First, fuck you. Second, I'll just add a big old LOL that anyone who's ever RP'ed with me will appreciate, I'm sure.
-
No, I didn't call you a prude. I have no idea what your preferences are.
I'm simply saying that by insisting that people abide by whatever terms you're using, which you absolutely just did, you're attempting to constrain a definition for the purposes of your argument.
What if people don't agree that the 'two terms are distinct' thing you're arguing is a valid argument, as they can be close enough to synonymous as to make no difference? What if people then, having opted to not follow those, disagree with the potential dire ramifications that you've laid out?
Nobody is setting up a straw man. I'm saying that I don't accept the premise of your argument because I think you're making a pointless distinction to prop up an argument that people don't agree with otherwise. That's not setting up a straw man. That's just me saying 'I see what you did there, but no'.
-
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
TS. Not sex. I draw a line between 'sex for story' and 'spending 4 hours engaged in mutual erotic stimulation' and I did so in my earlier post. One is purely IC, one is not. A character can be seduced with a single roll in front of five other players, FTB'ed through, and you can be right back to stabbing goblins in five minutes. TS is another thing entirely.
Although I agree with the distinction itself, it doesn't really mean anything from an ethical point of view.
Whether my character received advantages from sleeping with the Prince or not has nothing to do with whether there was TS involved. Either way the IC bumping of uglies took place just the same.
-
@Derp said in TS - Danger zone:
@WildBaboons said in TS - Danger zone:
But is TSing the prince more viable than FTB with the prince?
Probably not? I mean, I'd take it to FTB, but if people wanna play it out then is there any practical difference?
Practical difference, no. But realistically based on historical behavior that has been anecdotally witnessed by many there will be a difference.
-
@WildBaboons said in TS - Danger zone:
@Derp said in TS - Danger zone:
@WildBaboons said in TS - Danger zone:
But is TSing the prince more viable than FTB with the prince?
Probably not? I mean, I'd take it to FTB, but if people wanna play it out then is there any practical difference?
Practical difference, no. But realistically based on historical behavior that has been anecdotally witnessed by many there will be a difference.
Let's rephrase it then.
What's the difference between sleeping (whether it's FTB or TS) with a ranked NPC and a ranked PC from a a thematic or an ethical standpoint?
-
So here's my issue with the idea of 'Why can't the big influential NPC be influenced?'
We're all biased.
We know we are.Unless it's purely decided by dice (as I think @bored suggested), then there's going to be cries of favoritism. And likely accurate ones. It's not 'you had the same chance as anyone else!' at all. Brad and Chad both could be flirting with Janet the Primogen but if the Staffer controlling her likes Brad's player and RP better.....well. Too bad so sad.
That's why people prefer it not be done. Plain and simple.
Because staff will RP with the people they enjoy RP with more. They'll give favor to the people they enjoy more. This isn't about TS. It's about bias.Plenty of us are bold enough to take chances so it's not nyah nyah you're just salty you didn't think of it. It's 'I don't want to lose out on stuff because I'm not the inner circle.'
So sure. Give shit out that way......provided it's based on social influence dice.
-
WHY are we discussing Ethics, when we could be playing 'Who is in my mouth?'?!?
-
It's spider(s).
-
@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
TS. Not sex. I draw a line between 'sex for story' and 'spending 4 hours engaged in mutual erotic stimulation' and I did so in my earlier post. One is purely IC, one is not. A character can be seduced with a single roll in front of five other players, FTB'ed through, and you can be right back to stabbing goblins in five minutes. TS is another thing entirely.
Although I agree with the distinction itself, it doesn't really mean anything from an ethical point of view.
Whether my character received advantages from sleeping with the Prince or not has nothing to do with whether there was TS involved. Either way the IC bumping of uglies took place just the same.
What? I am seriously confused here, so, being generous I am going to assume that I just don't understand what you're trying to say and try and parse it out so it makes sense.
If you mean that from the IC view, TS doesn't change anything, then yes I would agree. The consequences you mentioned earlier of 'sleeping your way to the top' would apply either way. Sex has occurred ICly, benefit was accrued ICly, quid pro quo is an element that other PCs can react to, etc. Sure.
But when you say you don't see an ethical distinction I lose the thread.
In the FTB case Character A, run by Player A, has had an IC interaction with NPC B, run by Staffer B (or maybe PrP runner, but there's somewhat different dynamics here that I want to look at separately, so I'll stick to the easy case). They gained an IC benefit that presumably some Character C could also gain (or at least could have gained, if its a one-off boon) by following similar actions (ie, rolling a Seduction check, or simply offering sex to a lusty NPC with a character with Striking Looks of appropriate attracted-to gender, etc).
In the TS case, Player A was willing to cybersex with Staffer B for several hours. Player C does not TS.
Do you not see a problem? (Edit: Or I should say, potential problem. Obviously, Staffer B could pass this with flying colors and TS Player A while FTB'ing with Player C. But if they do not do so, is TS not to blame?)
-
@Auspice You pick up your phone, video it and post it on Pornhub, of course!
-
@Scissors said in TS - Danger zone:
@Auspice You pick up your phone, video it and post it on Pornhub, of course!
only if it's bees so PornHub can kick off a new category to donate to bee-related charities.
-
I mean you can argue that TS is to blame, but by the same token lets say that the NPC played by the staffer wanted someone to do something evil or betray something they have a close connection too. Not all characters or players are going to want to do something objectively bad or betray something they have a connection too. If we're trying to say that TS is just a facet of RP and the majority of the issues with it are player hangups than what would be the difference between those two scenarios?
Less chatty example
Example 1 - Player Character sleeps with NPC run by staff and gains advantage. Not all players would write out TS and thus they do not have this opportunity.
Example 2- Player Character murders their best friends puppy for NPC run by staff and gains advantage. Not all players would want to betray a friend or kill an animal even if using FTB.
-
@bored said in TS - Danger zone:
In the TS case, Player A was willing to cybersex with Staffer B for several hours. Player C does not TS.
Sure, but the problem isn't TS. @Auspice already put it well so I'll just quote her here:
Because staff will RP with the people they enjoy RP with more. They'll give favor to the people they enjoy more. This isn't about TS. It's about bias.
The staff member in question might have ran a special scene without any sex at all, FTB or otherwise, as long as they were having fun. Do I agree that dice or some more 'fair selection' process should be involved? Yeah, probably. Is it true that people who're fun to play with often get advantages others don't? For sure.
