Fully coded combat would make things easier. Lord knows the length of time stops for combat even with NPC opponents is a good reason to avoid any sizable plot in WoD.
And I do think a Yes game would be a good thing, however I do not have the same generally good outlook on people that are has. My own opinion is much better summed up by W S Gilbert.
I also think in most cases of PK there should be at least some oversight to avoid the game becoming a mud.
@Ghost I've no idea what you're trying to say there. 
I'm happy to debate points about game design but "I'm making an army of NPCs to rape every character on the grid" would quite likely fall under 'ooc trolling' and be handled by staff on that front rather than an IC one. I don't see the (rather remote) possibility as something to be particularly concerned about though.
As for the rest, if disrespect shown toward players' wishes goes unreported in the first place then staff can't help it no matter what system of policing you are using, unless you're prepared to grossly violate everyone's privacy. In other words if a player is being pushed OOC in pages to not fade to black although it's perfectly within her clearly written rights and she doesn't tell anyone else how would they find out?
What kind of policing do you have in mind for any system which fixes this? Because I've seen some really gross players over the years but they didn't exactly helpfully put "rapist" on their resume in CGen for staff to catch. It emerged in game, well after the fact.
I seem to have pushed a button here concerning rape. I am sorry for that, it wasn't my intention at all with this thread. But I don't know what we're debating at this point.
No button pushed. Just playing devil's advocate and trying to point out reasons why I think a liberal, yes-first type game could run into some major staffing/player base issues.
@Ghost said:
Staff has a responsibility to protect their player base from predatory players, and the only way to do that is to establish expected guidelines of roleplay, conduct, and some realistic trigger rules.
I think that ultimately the best way to ensure this is not by having specific IC actions being prohibited but rather ensure that all players are on the same page when it comes to what is expected from the game. An asshole will always find a way to be an asshole within the letter of the rules.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@Groth Agreed. ALL I am trying to illustrate here is that some red tape is required, some guidelines or code of conduct needs to be set, and some kind of expected communication-between-players-type behavior needs to be highlighted. Once you highlight that, the liberalness of the game takes a hit, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
@Ghost I think I understand where you are coming from. You are saying you don't want rape RP to be 'legal', period. Not as something bad players try to push on each other, not as a purely IC possibility in general, not at all.
Well... to me a 'yes-first game' mandates putting the players in a position where they handle their own shit. You want staff to take an active hand in telling them what's okay to roleplay about and what isn't. That's a philosophical, fundamental difference I don't know if it can be reconciled.
What this design document can do is come up with additional ways for OOC abuse to be prevented, reported and dealt with.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on rape per se. People of which mushers are a rather random subset will clash over things, in this case not just IC things but over the direction of the game, what kind of game is this type of things.
How do you resolve those issues? If you do not have something in place you will end up with it turning into lord of the flies.
Someone on the old Wora had a sig to the effect of It is a your interpretation of the game vs My interpretation of the game. That is the central conflict that leads to a good share of the ooc drama. This is one of the reason sandboxes have become popular they short circuit that conflict to some extent. Since you are not going that route how do you intend to deal with that conflict, while still maintaining the Yes game philosophy you desire.
So, question.
How is this proposed game different from Dark Metal? And what's to stop it from becoming Dark Metal?
Caveat: I never played there. I've only heard stories. But to my knowledge, it was an open cgen, free for all where players could basically do what they wanted and might made right. I could be wrong in that impression and I know there are people here who played there so they can say better if I am.
@Arkandel So, you want a yes first game then tell someone amassing an army icly is trolling. So someone calls you on that and the response is that players should have the right to decide what they feel is appropriate. Would you care to take a single stance? Either they can or can't do what they feel is acceptable icly. Either they are or aren't self policing. Sounds like it's a bad idea and you're having trouble making it sound like a good idea.
Rape aside, there is no situation in which staff can run a yes game. Your first post even says you won't be a yes game, you'll be a yes as long as I think it's okay game. When confronted with that fact you go back to player advocacy and self empowerment. When called on something that would be unfavorable you're back to being a staffer ready to say no.
@TNP said:
Caveat: I never played there. I've only heard stories. But to my knowledge, it was an open cgen, free for all where players could basically do what they wanted and might made right.
Well, I don't know, since I didn't play on Dark Metal either. I doubt though that the similarities between the two games can be encapsulated in that they both have a more or less open CGen - which is only one of the proposals for this system.
For instance I have no idea if they used employed a mandate for small staff or an XP system designed to prevent dinosaurs from taking over (but allowing room for XP incentives to be meaningful).
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Okay, so.. really nitpicky but... please, PLEASE for the love of God... stop forcing people to have a desc before approval. Its a pointless barrier to RP.
LOL. +1 there. I stopped reading descs ages ago.
I like having short-desc information to reference (like, how tall somebody is compared to you really affects how you interact with them) but there's no reason you can't stick that on a wiki or even just plug some information into a form in cg that autofills, like you do a +fullname or whatever.
@Alzie said:
@Arkandel So, you want a yes first game then tell someone amassing an army icly is trolling. So someone calls you on that and the response is that players should have the right to decide what they feel is appropriate. Would you care to take a single stance? Either they can or can't do what they feel is acceptable icly. Either they are or aren't self policing. Sounds like it's a bad idea and you're having trouble making it sound like a good idea.
Rape aside, there is no situation in which staff can run a yes game. Your first post even says you won't be a yes game, you'll be a yes as long as I think it's okay game. When confronted with that fact you go back to player advocacy and self empowerment. When called on something that would be unfavorable you're back to being a staffer ready to say no.
Would you care to bring up a specific, viable example of what you're asking? I'm not sure where you're saying. "Someone amassing an army ICly is trolling" - what does that mean? They have PC (or NPC?) followers and they are trolling OOC? Because those are irrelevant issues, if someone's disrupting the game OOC then it's staff's job to step in. If you explain further I'll try to address how I'd handle the matter within these confines.
This is not a "yes game" proposal. It's not even the case in the thread's title. It's a yes first game, meaning that when staff is approached with an idea for anything - a character concept, a plot, a new faction, anything - it should be their primary inclination to say yes, and work with the player to try and iron out all the parts which need tweaking or don't work. It in no way takes from them the ability to say no if something is unworkable.
There were concerns raised in the forum we're engaged in groupthink and perhaps that's the case. I am not claiming this is somehow the solution to all issues (in fact I'd be shocked if it was anywhere near ready to be used in an actual game), which is why I brought it up for debate by the community.
Having said that I do think there is something profoundly defeatist in assuming the players are incapable of handling their own shit if given the tools and ability to do so. I know @Ghost means well for example while playing the devil's advocate but one of the examples used there was that a single character would be physically, socially and legally superior to every other character in the game and rape them all. That puts me in an awkward position because it implies other players need someone to rescue them - that they are victims-in-waiting. There is near XP parity within the game by design, so is there really no one who can handle this villain on any or even all of these fronts?
Let's poke all the holes we can into this guys but please let's also keep an open mind?
He 's say that with a Yes Game, you can buy the allies and contacts and influence to be fairly immune to the law (though everyone can buy the same to counter it, and there is no system for law enforcement or counting it so dunno), and other means to in theory make it really hard to stop their rapist concept.
I'd still go with the basic idea that some concepts are only acceptable with OOC consent. You wanna play a rapist, and you have three friends who want to be raped, great you RP that. There is no reason to force players to play with anyone.
So I guess the question is what is the theme?
@Songtress said:
So I guess the question is what is the theme?
At this level there is no theme although what we're discussing should fit any setting. Unless of course there is an argument to be made that it could fit specific themes more or less than others.
Mostly.
Also to recognize that the other players are the entire source of fun on a game, and so if your agenda is to force other players to do things (not have their characters forced) you should probably not be playing.
I am always stunned at how often players try to frame forcing players as some sort of IC choice. No, people don't have to play with you. No, people don't have to play through things just because. Not for any reason, ever.
If you aren't making a story they want to be a part of, then find a new audience. Or get the hell off the game.
@Arkandel said:
Would you care to bring up a specific, viable example of what you're asking? I'm not sure where you're saying. "Someone amassing an army ICly is trolling" - what does that mean? They have PC (or NPC?) followers and they are trolling OOC? Because those are irrelevant issues, if someone's disrupting the game OOC then it's staff's job to step in. If you explain further I'll try to address how I'd handle the matter within these confines.
You literally just talked about this specific situation a couple of replies up.
@Arkandel said:
I'm happy to debate points about game design but "I'm making an army of NPCs to rape every character on the grid" would quite likely fall under 'ooc trolling' and be handled by staff on that front rather than an IC one. I don't see the (rather remote) possibility as something to be particularly concerned about though.
So, as I said, 'Amassing an army of NPCs,' which is quite possible given the merits available, would be considered trolling by staff. What makes it trolling? They wouldn't be breaking rules. I thought you, as you stated, want players to be able to handle their shit and decide what should be okay and not.
@Arkandel said:
This is not a "yes game" proposal. It's not even the case in the thread's title. It's a yes first game, meaning that when staff is approached with an idea for anything - a character concept, a plot, a new faction, anything - it should be their primary inclination to say yes, and work with the player to try and iron out all the parts which need tweaking or don't work. It in no way takes from them the ability to say no if something is unworkable.
Yeah fine, but if that's what it is, then it's not a yes-first game, it's not even really a yes game proposal, it's a normal game proposal. You aren't suggesting anything new. That aside, that isn't what you're suggesting. This is completely opposite what you listed in your first post.
@Arkandel said:
- Create a liberal, yes-first roleplaying game. If we say no it's for a really good, thematic reason.
- In the IC setting roleplay and players decide as much as possible. Staff decides as little as possible.
- Coopt the game to its players so they will have a reason to invest creatively in its course. Allow them to have a lasting impact.
Which you've been echoing in various forms, though mostly in this one:
Well... to me a 'yes-first game' mandates putting the players in a position where they handle their own shit. You want staff to take an active hand in telling them what's okay to roleplay about and what isn't. That's a philosophical, fundamental difference I don't know if it can be reconciled.
My point is that you are not suggesting a yes-first game. You're not even suggesting a yes game. You're not even suggesting a new concept. You're suggesting a normal game. You want control over the game because you know that people will be people. You write all these words, they sound great, it's an open world where players decide what the theme is and everyone gets what they want out of the game and that sounds amazing, but as soon as someone throws a situation in your face you don't want to deal with your response is 'We'll just staff backhand them.'
My point, in my salient terms, is you're either for player's having the agency to 'amass an army of NPCs legally through the merits' or you're against it because you view it as a form of trolling. Both of those cases mean something for the stance you're trying to champion in this thread. One means you believe in the stance you're trying to sell me on, the other means you believe in it up until the point shit might go down.
TLDR: Make your mind up. Denying people a concept that uses legal merits because you think it's trolling isn't a 'thematic' reason.
Players also have to say Yes. They are not helpless consumers that are Bound, and ready for Torture and Kill.
@Alzie said:
My point, in my salient terms, is you're either for player's having the agency to 'amass an army of NPCs legally through the merits' or you're against it because you view it as a form of trolling. Both of those cases mean something for the stance you're trying to champion in this thread. One means you believe in the stance you're trying to sell me on, the other means you believe in it up until the point shit might go down.
I don't know what you are even talking about. Would you be kind enough to quote the specific massages you think involve a contradiction?
To clarify though:
Staff wouldn't be involved at all in how a player amasses any IC resources. They don't 'justify' (and thus, can't deny) spends, merits, NPC acquisition within the rules, contacts.
Any OOC means of harassing a player are within staff's purview. If you are paging a player pushing for what you want, making alts to keep track of them, not accepting the right to fade to black... staff can and should step in immediately to shut that down.
Any conflict on the IC grid remains under the control of players. If your PC picks a fight with another you can either resolve it through mutual agreement or let it be decided by dice. If asked staff can monitor a fight to answer questions about mechanics and ensure the result is respected if needed.
I'm not sure what you are reading in any of this at all which would be 'denying people a concept that uses legal merits".
