@Coin said:
Sex is still sex, and sex is great. But.
But blood is better. And sex + blood is just something good taking its place as the warm-up act for something amazing.
I just hate tapas. No matter what anyone tells me, inviting me out for dinner and taking me to a tapas joint will result in a flurry of fists in your face.
@Roz said:
Ahahaha and then Galvatron comes back and kills him
Galvatron: Coronation ceremony, Starscream? This is bad comedy.
Starscream: Megatron? Is that you?
Galvatron: Here's a hint. (transforms and obliterates Starscream)
Man, I miss Leonard Nimoy.
@HelloRaptor said:
Banning a subject of roleplay for the stated reason that it causes people OOC distress and drama, while engaging in roleplay that causes people OOC distress and drama, seems pretty spot on.
But only if I'm engaging in role-play that causes people OOC distress and drama. If I don't, then I'm not being hypocritical. Your argument assumes facts not present in anything I've said so far in this thread.
Regardless, I justify the ban because I don't want to have to deal with the fallout as staff. It is less about others, and more about me. So, you can call me a capricious, unreasonable bitch, but I whole-heartedly deny that I regularly engage in role-play that causes OOC distress and drama -- or have done so in recent memory.
@HelloRaptor said:
Most games are ultimately in the hands of one or two people, who are ultimately responsible for game policy. If said person(s) wanted to ban a particular line of roleplay because they personally had issues with it and didn't want to deal with it there's not much I could say. But to pretend that's not what it is, and act as if that very specific sort of subject matter deserves to be stepped on because it makes some nebulous percentage of the population too uncomfortable to allow while virtually every other subject matter that makes some nebulous percentage of the population uncomfortable is A_OK? Meh. You can say unreasonable, but I'm fine with calling it hypocrisy.
Sure, you can call it that, but that's not what the word means.
As I said, I'm old and mature enough to deal with the consequences of banning a particular form of RP. I've stated the reasons for banning rape RP, and set the boundaries for it. In this case, I think it is easier to justify the ban on rape RP than to justify permitting it for the sake of moral absolutism.
@HelloRaptor said:
... the hypocrisy of singling it out as if it's special is, along with the absurdity of the alternative which is spreading the umbrella to cover 'You may not RP anything which will cause other players on the game OOC distress or force staff to deal with uncomfortable OOC drama because of that distress.'
There's nothing hypocritical about finding one form of RP more disgusting, disturbing, and unacceptable than another, and therefore prohibiting it. It may be unreasonable in your opinion, but it's not hypocritical.
The line between rape RP and other sexual RP is not fine. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the difference. To make it clearer, lump in child-sex RP with rape RP, since they are practically and legally similar.
@EmmahSue said:
If you want to play rape-plot, do your thing.
The only way I would ever allow a rape-plot or rape RP is if the player who allegedly committed the rape did so with an NPC victim off-screen. If you want to play a villain, that's fine. Be prepared for strong, harsh reactions.
Otherwise, upon receiving notice, I would investigate the truth of the allegations, and, if verified, I would probably boot the offender and and all of his/her PCs off the game. If the offender and the victim consented to the RP, I would probably warn them, retcon the entire situation, and warn them very sternly not to do that shit ever again.
While one can make a philosophical or sociological statement regarding the harshness of the penalty, and I don't mind discussing that, that does not mean I, as staff, do not have the authority and discretion to deal with what I believe to be inappropriate behavior harshly and with prejudice. I am old and mature enough to deal with the consequences.
@Arkandel said:
It's harder for me (YMMV) to maintain the premise of a conflicted, down on his lack character when the majority of the time I'm actually posing it's in a happy, committed, stable situation.
I don't understand this at all. You're suggesting that a conflicted, down-on-his-luck character cannot have a happy, committed relationship, which is false. At the same time, you're suggesting that your character must have a happy, committed relationship, which is also false.
There's nothing stopping you from having a dysfunctional relationship with your dysfunctional character. The other player may not like it, but that's kind of how dysfunctional relationships work: one person is generally fucked up and ruins the relationship.
I mean, Clarice (my PC on The Reach) seems to have a healthy relationship. She sure does love her partner. The problem is that her partner is flighty, un-committed, and very, very, very, very different. That doesn't mean that Clarice can't imagine that everything's fine (which she does), that nothing will go wrong (which will happen at some point), and that, if her partner leaves town, she will happily go with her (which will likely not happen). Their laughing, fun picnics are merely a cover for the inexorable truth that they ain't gonna make it.
But, what do you expect from a Winter Courtier? A HAPPY relationship?
I think you should explore your relationships a little more, bub.
@Arkandel said:
We're talking about slightly different things, Gany.
No, we aren't. You said this:
You may always, always, ALWAYS fade-to-black
and that's about it. It's all we can do. (Emphasis added.)
And you're wrong. That's not all we can do.
We can recognize that our IC actions have OOC consequences. We can recognize that RPing on MUs is inherently cooperative. We can engage in considerate, measured RP that doesn't force people into situations they don't want to play through.
In short, there's a shit-ton that we can do to make RPing on MUs more fun and less painful. Most don't because it's easier not to give a shit, and just fade-to-black.
I'm not sure how you are apparently unable to see the problem in your logic. Let me try to make it simpler.
Suppose I make an unstoppable combat monster who is, indeed, unstoppable. Suppose I take that PC out and challenge each and every person I see on the game to fight him, with the end result being death. It is true that each player can opt to fade-to-black, but that implies acquiescence to the result, which is death. It is also true that each player can choose to simply disconnect, but that means there will likely be no one left on the game.
The argument that "you can always fade-to-black/disconnect" implies that players should choose not to play on the game if they encounter RP they do not want to participate in. If they choose that, you may no longer have any players on your game.
The better policy is to make exceptions whereby staff can ensure players that they will not encounter certain forms of RP. Most games adopt a "no rape RP policy" with this argument in mind, and usually stomp down on people PKing others willy-nilly.
I can understand your preference, and I think I understand what you're trying to say.
Frankly, I find rape RP disturbing on all sorts of levels. I've been in violent scenes on stage, but there was still consent involved. I recognize that people that engage in rape RP are not actually raping one another, but are engaging in role-play that they enjoy, even if it disturbs or disgusts me.
But people who seek rape RP from unknowing or unwilling participants need to cut that shit out. You are figuratively raping that player by attempting to force them to engage in potential sexual activity against their consent. While I concur that rape is likely implicated in World of Darkness material, that does not mean that one must engage in it.
Again, role-playing on a MU* is like improv on a stage.
@Arkandel said:
I'm not in the "there's nothing to talk about" crowd. I'm in the "it's none of my business" crowd.
People will judge for all sorts of really stupid reasons. I'm pretty sure at least one person judges me harshly because my PCs are either teeny-tiny women (Clarice, Ripley) or uber-mensch (Max, Sam (if I finish up that damned BG)). And my PCs tend to be frosty-boxy or incredibly flirty too; at least, I think they've been perceived as such. Maybe not, but I honestly don't give a shit -- I have fun.
If a player is TSing so much that they are not spending time in their IC roles, presuming they have one, then that's a problem that staff has to deal with. If the player is TSing so much because of staff, or boredom, or, fuck, it's not worth dealing with anyone else on the game, then you have a game-wide problem. I'm of the theory, however, that the average player would rather RP through plots, politics, and other events than TS every single night because, like dungeon-crawling in Final Fantasy XIII, it's fucking boring after a while.
If we're going to have a discussion about "sexual themes in roleplay," then let's talk about sexual themes. That's not what you presented: you asked, bluntly, why people do or do not engage in TS. In my opinion, that has very little to do with sexual themes in roleplaying.
Some of the most sexual scenes I've had involved very little mention of thrusting, kissing, or nibbling. There was seduction, character development, emotional moments, and a lot of other roleplaying that was far more interesting than TS. And to me, it was all very sexual.
Then again, we lawyers find the weirdest shit arousing.
@Arkandel said:
For example I know people who only play ghouls under the condition that they won't TS. If sex ever comes up, it'd be faded to black. I don't see why that makes them morons if it makes them uncomfortable for any reason.
So, what you're saying is that there are certain situations that players won't RP through. TS is one of them.
Right. And? That doesn't make TS not RP. It's RP of a different variety, and people can choose to engage in it or not.
Maybe I consider this a dead topic, or one that is so laden with truisms and outdated arguments that I can't take any discussion thereof seriously any more. Just do TS or don't do TS, I don't give a shit why.
Some people are fucking morons too.
I'm sure someone will respond more meaningfully, but I don't think I can.
I role-play. Not sure why TS is still considered to be something different than that.
Updating:
On The Reach: Clarice; Ripley.
On Reno: Max
On By Right of Blood: Nick
In the works:
From the Ashes: Sam (slow-going)
Finished up my PC. No longer "Dan," he is now "Nick." GJack helped get the PC set up fast.
If you like(d) old-school Vampire, this might be your thing. Also, it's now open-CGen. No risk! Potential reward!
Reading all of this is fascinating, but only highlights how deeply-steeped I still am in the '80's.
I mean, fuck, I still have The Touch on my iPod playlist.
@Thenomain said:
Grunt from Mass Effect 2/3: Heh, heh, heh.
I laugh like that from time to time to indicate conceit in my humor.
I also use "heh" as James Brown would. To wit: "harsh, unintelligible, high-pitched noises, HEH."
I'm going to put myself back into this once life settles down.
The fight for food is tedious. If I wanted to do that, I would set Fallout 3 to the appropriate level, and just play that.
The fight for influence can be exciting, but you would have to have a system for it that takes into account the vagaries and complexities that such political battles demand.
I can't think of anything worse than a +hunt code, and I say this with the experience of being on such games.