GMs and Players

[BetterNow]

For me, I think it depends on the very nature of the game. Is it a game where something can be gained over other players or give them an advantage in a PVP type setting, or set them above others, give them all the cool stuff in a PVE one? Then maybe having NPCs start romantic or sexual relationships with PCs is not the best idea. That is where favoritism is born.

Is it a sandbox type game, slice of life, a game in which the NPCs aren't going to be handing you anything not readily avail to everyone else by every alternate means out there? Then it doesn't matter one whit if your NPC is banging that PC. Have at it, enjoy. There are no stakes involved.

[Misadventure]

@betternow and if the stakes are disproportionate involvement and staff effort?

[mietze]

@krmbm I like court scenes and meeting scenes too bc I'm sick like that. However people do join L&L games to get their dynastic/game of marriages/procreation kicks on too. So still I don't find either less valid or legit than the other. Except for usually people are less whiny about TS scenes being boring/bad unless they're trying to attack or isolate the person being complained about. Meanwhile people feel compelled to tell peolle including runners about all the ways they don't like the court/large social scene they're voluntarily attending.

[bear_necessities]

I guess I've yet to see why you would need to puppet an NPC and write dirty-talk to someone for several hours for story purposes. If pillow talk is what you're trying to gain out of it, why not FTB the sex and get straight to doing the pillow talking?

I have had a staff try and use an NPC to TS me. I felt intimidated, I felt like if I said no it would affect my ability to stay on the game, and thus I did not stay on the game. And maybe it all boils down to trusting staff, sure, but again - what story purpose does the actual TS have aside from it's something you like to write? And if it's something you like to write... what is the problem with just going on your PC and humping to your heart's content?

[Kanye Qwest]

I think there's a few things being discussed here? Having a sexual or romantic rp relationship with a character doesn't necessarily mean frequent or hours of TS. Or any TS.

And frankly, you will probably never know how much time someone else spends TSing so /shrug?

[mietze]

So I have never engaged in romantic/TS scenage on any NPC I have ever run, so this is purely conjecture on my part.

But if someone utilizes static (as in those npcs don't change 'ownership' between staff members) NPCs on a game, and there aren't restrictions on types of play/relationships to get involved in, I would guess that one of the reasons why someone might elect to RP out entire scenarios vs FTB (BIG ASSUMPTION HERE of player full and enthusiastic consent, ability to say no, ect) is because they're not there to just type "dirty words" at someone else.

It's part of the story, and it's a part of the story that both parties are okay with graphic content about.

So no, in that case, the staffer in question wouldn't just go TS someone willynilly because it's not describing sexual content that is the point--it's the interaction between those two characters.

THis is one of my frustrations sometimes with how we talk about TS in the community.

I have never engaged in graphic sexual content with any PC of mine JUST for the sake of itself. The characters involved weren't interchangable (For me anyway) with whoever had the time and was available right then. It was part of the story, and I (whether wise or not) decided that I didn't mind playing it out at that particular time. I presume that many people are the same way (and btw I think it's okay too if people DO just want to type erotica and their enjoyment has nothing to do with the relationship building between the two PCs, ect). That doesn't stop people from smearing others with the "ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS TS WHY DON'T THEY GO TO SHANG" crap. And I do get annoyed when people presume that if you do not have a problem with RPing out sexual content when appropriate that means you only want that sort of thing, or that it monopolizes your time. Because most of the time, even with people who do it a lot, it doesn't.

[faraday]

@kanye-qwest said in GMs and Players:

I think there's a few things being discussed here? Having a sexual or romantic rp relationship with a character doesn't necessarily mean frequent or hours of TS.

Yeah it also seems like we're not making any distinction between types of NPCs or motivation of the parties involved.

A staffer pressuring a player for TS? Abusive no matter whether they're doing it with a PC or NPC.

A staffer making up a NPC at a player's behest to portray their IC significant other? Who cares?

A staffer romancing another PC with the Staff-Run NPC King? That's a little unusual, and certainly has potential for bias (i.e. if the king does special favors for the PC, it gets a bit sus), but I don't think it's inherently unethical. Just tread carefully.

[3543thrh67]

@faraday Isn't a character, PC or NPC, suppose to have depth when it is 'named'? Why shouldn't they have IC bias and do something extra for a character they have some sort of relationship? Even if the character is an NPC King.

IT is safe to say, with a detailed NPC, that it has bias in favor of the person they are banging/romancing/being friends with/whatever. It is why people seek out the favor of an NPC in X position or can do X thing. If they were doing the favor on OOC levels for OOC benefits is different. An NPC that doesn't have an agenda/plans/whatever is not generally much more than nameless NPCs people use for canon fodder.

[faraday]

@icanbeyourmuse said in GMs and Players:

@faraday Isn't a character, PC or NPC, suppose to have depth when it is 'named'? Why shouldn't they have IC bias and do something extra for a character they have some sort of relationship? Even if the character is an NPC King.

Which is why I said it wasn't inherently unethical. Nevertheless, I think that a majority of players would infer a degree of OOC connection from a romantic NPC-PC relationship that they would not from your usual political gamesmanship.

Some games attempt to avoid this in a number of ways, from maintaining top-tier staff-run NPCs as aloof guest stars to having them run collectively by staff for greater impartiality. Others don't, and just lean into the idea that staff NPCs are really more like quasi PCs. As long as you're transparent about what you're doing, players can vote with their feet about what's intolerable to them.

[kk]

My opinion (Just an opinion)

Could care less who staff is tsing or romancing on their pcs so long as they not pressuring anyone or being a jerkface about it. It is not even my business and for me to spend time worrying about that would feel creepy af to me.

I also support staff in having pcs who engage in romance/sex if they so wish, because it is important for us to still have staff on games and if we put too many restrictions on them we are not going to have many willing to give up their own fun to staff.

I don't really care about staff doing ts/romance on minor npcs who don't have a lot of power/influence/sway or as someone said before in sandbox games or slice of life type of games. It also is just not by beeswax what people are rping privately.

However when tinysex/romance between powerful npcs and pcs is starting to have massive and noticeable effects on the game's ic storyline and ooc culture, it likely is a problem.

If pcs are getting huge plot advantages or lots of gear/wealth/rare items, an edge in PvP conflicts, having catty fights over npc's sexual attentions, toxically making sure to tell everyone they are tsing staff so you better do what they want and etc, then it is a problem.

Nobody should feel like they need to ts with staff to get ahead, get plot, get stuff on a game.

But the biggest thing to watch out for staff (on npcs or pcs) tsing with players is that nobody feels likes they will have negative consequences for not doing this rp.

Even good intentions can go haywire and perception does effect things even if nothing was mal intended. Also the staffer doesn't need to be toxic for there to be a problem. A toxic player might take a lot of advantage of it being known they are in a relationship with a powerful npc.

[Ganymede]

@tinuviel said in GMs and Players:

Especially if/when other staff use that same NPC.

I hate it when other staff return my NPCs without washing them first.

[BloodAngel]

Sindome was very guilty of staff t/s players and protecting them. One of the reasons I walked out of that game, so I have seen it hurt a pvp game. Making them the pcs that not a single person could touch and than striking down those that came for the preferred players.

Edits: Did this on my phone and I suck at phone posting.

[Crawfish]

@ganymede said in GMs and Players:

@tinuviel said in GMs and Players:

Especially if/when other staff use that same NPC.

I hate it when other staff return my NPCs without washing them first.

It wasn't me, I press and hang them after I've washed and dried them, thank you.

[Carma]

This post is deleted!

[silverfox]

How do different people define NPC? It seems like there isn't a commonly accepted definition within the last set of pages.

[kk]

What is up with @Seraphim73's post saying it doesn't exist when I try to upvote it even though I can clearly read it!

[kk]

Posts have been vanishing off this thread and the Arx thread.

[Seraphim73]

Yeah, it took a long while to post, and then once it did post, it's now gone for me again.

[Seraphim73]

Let's try this again, since it disappeared the first time:

I generally define PCs as characters played by a person for the purpose of telling the character's own story (hopefully) as part of the larger story on the game. I generally define Staff-run NPCs as characters played by a person for the purpose of adding to the larger story of the game rather than to tell their own character's story.

I strongly believe that Staff-played PCs should be able to get involved in whatever relationship they want, so long as those relationships do not come with OOC favoritism (as has been mentioned by others above, recusing yourself from a situation where your biases might change your ruling). Sure, Staffers have to be careful due to the inherent power imbalances between Staffer and Player, but they should still get to experience the game like any other player too.

I also strongly believe that Staff-played NPCs shouldn't be TSing unless how that TS plays out is going to have a noticeable impact on the game's story (I would assume that most TS wouldn't, but I don't want to assume that none would). I don't have a problem if a PC wants to seduce the town's NPC sheriff, but unless the -how- is important, I believe that it should be FTBed, so that Staff NPC time/focus can be spent on furthering the game's plot (note, I believe they can still do whatever the heck they want with their time on their PCs). I feel that even if the TS doesn't impact a Staffer's decision-making, a) it's a lot of time and effort that could be spent furthering the game's storyline, and b) there's going to be the perception of bias even if there's no bias.

[GreenFlashlight]

@silverfox I'd guess in this context it means "a named character who is not a distinct charbit emitted by staff, or a named character who is a distinct charbit allowed to be played by more than one member of staff."