Posts made by Pandora

@Roz Ah, perhaps there's a miscommunication. The writers are Roleplayer A, as they are the ones writing the script. They give it to the actors who are Roleplayer B, who have to deal with what's been written as the roleplay partners in this analogy.

They might not like what's written, but they deal with it, without knowing 'Is this kidnapping plot going to lead to my death?' or 'Is Johnny cheating since my character seems to have seen a silhouette of him kissing Jane?' and so on.

They aren't always given reassurances about what's coming or explanations for what's happened, they just roll with the punches, something I wish more roleplayers were willing or able to do. What I wish doesn't matter one bit of course, but it's just my opinion.

Okay guys, seriously. We're not really going to find a perfect real-world analogy for pretendy fun-time relationship cheating; it was close and it was apt & I think my point was clear.

@Arkandel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

@Pandora said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

Much like the actors in a television series are not given advance warning of their characters being betrayed or killed, in order to keep their portrayals authentic, I believe that there is a watering-down of authenticity when secrets are discovered OOC rather than IC.

I'll need to disagree with that specific part. Actors are professionals being paid to do a job and thus there's less need to consider their feelings. Communication with fellow players who're there to be entertained is a different matter.

I'm not saying there should be a warning given, mind you. Just that the comparison here isn't sound.

I'm not making a feelings-based argument, I'm making an ethics-based argument.

@mietze said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

there are definitely people who weaponize being a sad moppet.

No, we're bronzing this one, if my signature wasn't already perfect, this would be it.

I'm not @ing anyone in this clusterfuck, but I'll say this: If a game has 'DO NOT TS' as a rule, you fucking obey it. Why? Because you don't know WHY that rule is in place. Perhaps the staffer is a prude. Perhaps the staffer's kid plays the game. Perhaps the staffer is not tech-savvy enough to figure out how to get their game registered with net-nanny or Google to make it internet-child-safe. Perhaps the staffer wants their game to focus on the theme and not get bogged down in the undeniable mess that is IC interpersonal relationships when font-fucking is involved.

If you want to write erotica, play somewhere else. Period. No one owes you a smut repository, this entitled shit from even veteran players is fucking crazy, ok boomers?

Edited to add: If as a staffer you don't want to 'deal with' anyone's TS bullshit on your no-TS game, the correct answer is to ban anyone that's decided to TS anyway. Responsibility fulfilled, drama avoided.

@Arkandel said in The ethics of IC romance, TS, etc:

• If your PC is going to cheat IC on another character do you feel obligated to let your partner's player know?

No. If we both signed up to play a role, my intention is for the characters to deal with the situations presented. Much like the actors in a television series are not given advance warning of their characters being betrayed or killed, in order to keep their portrayals authentic, I believe that there is a watering-down of authenticity when secrets are discovered OOC rather than IC.

• Do you think you are responsible for a character whose roleplay is related to yours if your paths are to separate? In other words do you feel guilty someone else's PC might become quote/unquote unplayable because of your IC choices?

I am not responsible for any character I did not apply for. If a character is so closely entwined with mine that the concept no longer works without mine, that's a design fault. Similarly, it is the job of staff to ensure that everyone has a path forward, I am not my rp-brother's keeper unless I've signed up for that responsibility.

• Very closely related to the above, what if the choice that takes a PC mostly off the table is OOC? For instance if you stop being active on my PC's spouse to play an alt with Theno's PC. Do I have the moral high ground to get pissed off?

You don't need the moral high ground to be pissed off. We really need to stop emotion-regulating people and telling them when it is/isn't okay to feel a feeling. There is a difference between having a feeling & treating people badly.

• Being pissed off - Valid.
• Attempting to discuss why you're pissed off and negotiating some terms that all parties involved can deal with - Valid.
• OOCly talking shit about the player of your PC spouse and forming an OOC lynch mob against Theno - Invalid.

Run your rough draft of the attempt at communication by a non-MU friend. They'll have no dog in the race and can help you with your tone if that's something important to you; it's easy to come off as aggressive or worse when you're understandably upset.

• When it comes to TS what's the correct way to suggest it? Do you let the RP become more explicit until the big words come out or you get told no? Do you page the other player first and explicitly ask if they want to do it? Something else?

If you're suggesting TS before the RP has gotten into TS territory, be careful you don't come off as a creep. I wouldn't do it, but different strokes for different folks. Just like any other sort of RP, approach it ICly the way your character would do so.

People who don't want to TS are generally quite happy to make that apparent, usually by suggesting a FTB or making some sort of (usually endearing) ooc comment/joke to diffuse the situation. Read the room OOCly. If it seems like a no (or even a hesitation) now is the time to discuss.

Do not ever OOCly pressure/cajole anyone to roleplay period, this isn't even TS-specific. I will never understand people who can derive pleasure from the act of being given something the other person doesn't want to give, whether that's a RL rapist or someone that uses whining/pitygaming/coercion to get RP.

• Assuming OOC consent between adult players is there anything in an IC relationship, including TS, that you consider unethical? No, I'm not going to give examples since I'm keeping this classy! But you can.

Plenty of things in relationships can be unethical IC, we play monsters, demons, manipulators and murderers all day long. That's part and parcel of playing a role. Nothing one does ICly within the rules of a game can be OOCly unethical, but if you're talking OOC actions, the list is extensive and exhaustive and I won't get into it personally because my own stance is to not talk to people about IC things whenever possible. I'm not here to fuck anyone over OOC, so I'm good.

• Any other choices not found in this short list. I'm sure it's far from complete.

Well?

One thing I do find to be a matter of ethics is OOC intent. Many of you know the story of how I was roped into TS (It wasn't bad TS!) with someone that unbeknownst to me had a history of seeking TS in-character, then crying rape IC and OOC to have pity parties and lynch mobs form in defense of her 'too irresistible' PCs.

If your OOC intention in IC interactions/choices is to make life hard for someone OOCly, you're a bad unethical person and I will never RP with you again, and once your character is dead/retired I will certainly be dragging you on MSB if it comes up. Shots fired; keep that dramatic bullshit in your pants, not mine.

I TS when the character I am playing experiences chemistry with another character that signifies adding a sexual component to their banter & interactions, as well as a concern for the happiness and well-being of another person, would be a positive and enriching layer to my roleplay.

I love TS, I've never played a character I wouldn't TS as.

But I also haven't TSed with anyone in years, because that chemistry is rare & I'm not interested in TSing anyone for clout, or to make someone else jealous, or because I'm bored, or because it'll get me attention or approval, or any of the other negative reasons I can think of that people TS. I'm definitely interested in reading what sorts of positive, roleplay-healthy reasons people have for TSing.

I can't believe that actually got a response. I win this thread, InB4 @Arkandel shows up and ruins my fun as usual.

This is why NPCs don't play grab ass with you people, you're annoying as hell.

@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:

ETA: @Ghost It's okay if sometimes you don't have anything useful to say; not-chiming-in has never in and of itself killed anyone.

Nanneh
Nanneh
Boo
Boo

It's na na na na boo boo, pleb.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

I would say "spicing up the grid and handing out plot nuggets" doesn't include typefucking.

That's one opinion. Typefucking is a huge draw for many people, don't knock their spice.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora said in TS - Danger zone:

Do you disagree that if no one is currently seeking RP with this NPC, that the player behind it should be free to do what they want with it, provided it is not some shared NPC?

No. If nobody is seeking RP with it, it shouldn't be used. It's a tool, not another PC.

ETA: Allow me to explain my view further. When you are using an NPC, as I have defined them previously, to roleplay, you are at work. You are performing a job. An NPC can, ICly, bang whomever or whatever. A person in charge of that NPC does not need to typefuck at people for that to have happened. TS is a luxury, not a necessity of the job.

You want to typefuck? Do it on your own time, not when you're using a game resource. In this case, 'your own time' is literally logging into your own PC to do it.

Ah, so this is a game-specific thing for you. Because there are plenty of games where NPCs are just powerful staff alts or powerful characters handed to an ST for a plot or arc, during which time they are not playing any PCs and are charged with spicing up the grid and handing out plot nuggets and interacting with the masses in general.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

ETA: By "NPCs time" I mean available RL time to interact with the NPC.

Again, if the NPC is taking care of their duties before indulging, where is the harm? Do you disagree that if no one is currently seeking RP with this NPC, that the player behind it should be free to do what they want with it, provided it is not some shared NPC?

I don't care that the NPC's IC time is mostly oriented towards chasing tail, or whatever, but if it's impossible to get a chance to interact with the NPC because their RL time being taken up with the arduous task of TSing for hours, that's my issue.

Agreed 100%, I am anti-anything that takes away from story/plot progression, including TS between players/staff/STs/goats/anything. I'm not arguing against irresponsible NPC-runners, I agree that they suck. My argument is solely against the idea of banning all NPC-boning, full-stop, because somehow their TS (which we all agree can be a meaningful roleplay interaction, I think?) is unfair.

ETA: @Ghost It's okay if sometimes you don't have anything useful to say; not-chiming-in has never in and of itself killed anyone.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora That is in no way what I said, and you know it. "They are playing favourites" does not mean "and nobody else is."

Then why does it matter so much if they TS, when you acknowledge that any other sort of behavior is just as likely to lead to favoritism? I know staffers, very good ones, that appreciate a good turn of phrase or bit of wit far more than the Ikea Mambo. Is it favoritism if they decide to banter with those best at good conversation?

Secondly, we were asked for our opinions, not for balanced debate. Not every group of people with a similar opinion is an echo chamber.

Of course, but what I meant was that there's only really going to be one opinion here, because the majority opinion is 'NPCs shouldn't TS!' and any other opinion is just shouted down because there is no room for debate in the echo chamber.

ETA: I also didn't say that they were playing favourites if they TS'd with their NPCs. Just that it comes across as such, which is often more important than what is actually happening.

I might be putting words into your mouth here, but if you play somewhere that you can tell who is fucking the NPCs because they are getting more shine/loot/plot/demigod-babies than you, you probably play somewhere with shitty staffers and TS is the least of your problems, but I can at least understand your stance in that case.

If you think anyone prone to playing favorites isn't playing favorites with or without TS, I'd like to borrow those rose-tinted glasses. Any staffer or ST prone to fucking PCs with their NPCs isn't likely to defend the choice in this thread, so this isn't even a balanced debate so much as an echo chamber.

@Ganymede said in TS - Danger zone:

To no one’s surprise I presume, I concur with bored’s distinction.

NPCs are calculated to drive plot. If a staff member is languishing in 4 hour TS scenes with an NPC when that NPC could be driving a plot, that staff member is wasting time. That NPC could and should be used in a better manner, and for that I see a meaningful distinction.

But what if their 4 hour scene of relaxing, no-stress TS with a player they enjoy writing with comes just after a fraught 4 hour scene of PCs shouting each other down while building complicated, far-fetched plans that try to account for every possible variable so they can't possibly lose, accusing the NPC of being too cryptic in borderline-OOC ways that amount to 'If I were in charge this would be going much more smoothly but I can't be bothered to run things I'm not the star of' and now finally they can just bump uglies with the chick that requested this plot in which she gives birth to a potential Chosen One?

As much as I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE when people are TSing to the detriment of the game/plot, I really don't think it's anyone's business who is TSing whom so long as the game/plot is being taken care of.

@Auspice said in TS - Danger zone:

@magee101 said in TS - Danger zone:

@Arkandel said in TS - Danger zone:

( @bored was kinda right when he said this feels like I'm running a survey here)

TS with NPCs or during PrPs. Where do you stand on this? What I'm thinking is PrPs involving one ST and one player but y'all might surprise me.

Admittedly only on Shangrila, but I've definitely ran gangbangs for 1-2 players.

That's not a gangbang.

I assume if it's being run, that means there are NPCs + the 1-2 players, so it is a gangbang.

Stop slut shaming STs guys. Free sex for everyone, remember.

People like TSing 'important' characters. If the only thing the player is getting out of TSing the NPC or ST character is a memory of TSing someone important, there's no harm. Unless fucking players is noticeably distracting said NPC/ST from doing their bit for the story, why is it any of anyone else's business? Someone did bring up the point that it'll draw a bunch of slut-shaming and accusations from players, but that's a player-problem, not a TS-problem.

@mietze said in TS - Danger zone:

@Pandora here's the thing though. If a person knows that they are not going to be comfortable without negotiated cliff notes before they engage, it really isnt IMO asking for babysitting for them to ask that of someone. The someone can then decide if that price of admission is worth it or not.

Again, agreed 100%. I am not knocking anyone's pre-consents; as I said previously, you have to know what works for you, where your boundaries lie, and make sure you are comfortable. I'm just saying it's not fair or reasonable to expect everyone to do this, because everyone has their own level of comfort with OOC conversation/negotiation.

I may not initiate OOC contact with anyone (my preference) but I'm always happy to listen if someone has something to say/ask/request OOCly & if it seems they're being unreasonable I run it by staff to see if I'm just being irritable (Usually it's a little of both.)