Not a bar, but plays one on TV

3:10 AM

hey again @Emrakul -- you around, or out for the night?

user61230

I am roughly here! Multitasking a bit, though.

aaah, I'd like to throw the other set of RP problems I run into by ya'; namely, they're the "I wind up trying to put too much science into my world-metaphysics for some systems/types of settings" family

(this usually bites me in FRP -- scifi and modern/near-modern settings don't have this issue because their metaphysics don't diverge nearly as drastically from reality)

user61230

I think that's a highly related, if not identical, problem.

an example -- I have been known to call BS on someone stopping a sorcerial lightning bolt cold in its tracks b/c you can't do that to RL electricity -- I gave them the "out" of shunting the bolt to ground prematurely instead

(i.e. "yo dawg, current flows in loops")

user61230

With the right players, that doesn't sound like it's an issue.

user61230

3:15 AM

You have to read the people you're playing with to know whether that's something they'd like, though.

yeah, there are many players who don't tolerate that well in FRP contexts, though -- worse yet, some systems don't tolerate it well (D&D isn't too keen on such things for instance)

user61230

That's a signal for you to let the issue go.

user61230

"I don't think that's perfectly correct, but I'm willing to go with it anyway for the sake of your fun and enjoyment."

yeah, and I've had mixed success at best doing so. it's somewhat easier in D&D because the world metaphysics are generally better defined -- this tends to rear its ugly head most when the world metaphysics are defined the least.

Q: How to avoid arguments with a player about what "should" happen?

19

I recently GMed my first real role-playing game with a few friends who are also new to tabletop RPGs, and it went quite well except for a few parts. Here's an example; the basic scenario was (a few parts left out for brevity): Me: "Okay, so you shoot the lock of the door. It's made of strong ...

user61230

3:18 AM

In games where things are less well-defined, you necessarily have to be even more willing to let things like that go.

user61230

Because you're not just playing with your conception of the world - you're playing with everyone else's, too.

I especially like Zach's insights.

> Apparent realism is build by creating verosimile descriptions, not by applying verosimile effects. [...] You took away some narrative focus from your player.

@Emrakul the problem comes, I think, partly because the way my brain solves problems is detail-dependent -- if you want a world where Kirchoff's Current Law fails to hold, OK, but expect me to a) figure out how it fails to hold, and b) to use that fact later

(and c) hold you to the consequences of that at least some of the time)

user61230

Then... let go of that. I don't know how to really communicate that.

user61230

If you find yourself in a situation where you need to solve details, but those details seem to conflict with what's going on, let go of the details.

user61230

3:22 AM

Start by assuming the consequent is true and playing it out.

@Emrakul that's a very dangerous assumption, because you've left the barn door open to a false implies anything whatsoever situation

user61230

Is that really what roleplaying is about, though?

user61230

You can play your way into a resolution of the apparent paradox.

user61230

(And if something is objectionable because it's just not fun to play with, you can communicate that with the players you're with.)

user61230

Imagine a situation where I'm playing an inventor who's made a real, bona fide overunity machine in a world that is in every other way identical to this one, and you're playing a character who really just doesn't get it.

3:27 AM

@BESW I actually read that previously, but read that as something specific to the Solar System

@Shalvenay Nope. Most folks in RPGs have an experience-oriented process value, while you're coming at it from something more like a logic-oriented solution value.

@Emrakul and where that falls down for me is I will then have an expectancy that the consequences of not having the Laws of Thermodynamics in effect will be applied consistently -- the world will be drastically different from then on.

RPGs are a game you cannot win, so the process of taking the journey is more important than whether you achieve the goal at the end.

user61230

@Shalvenay In the most blunt way I can communicate: you need to let go of that.

user61230

What you know is the following: everything you know about the world is identical to this one; there is an overunity machine.

3:31 AM

You're focused on logically applying best practices to achieve efficient solutions; your fellow participants are focused on enjoying a messy, inefficient but emotionally cathartic experience.

@Emrakul and to me, those statements are blatant contradictions of each other, and trying to say anything else is logically dishonest -- it's something that cuts fairly core to my personality.

This is NOT a different problem from the one you discussed earlier, it's the same "preferring logical efficiency to dramatic story" thing which you've expressed as "not valuing round character."

@Shalvenay So, the idea that humanity's current understanding of physics could be dramatically inaccurate isn't something you're willing to even speculate about?

@BESW so basically, you're implying I should stick to the "drifter" style of character?

@Shalvenay "Journey" is not a literal description of in-game action.

The journey is the player's experience of moving through the story, not the character's movement through the world.

@BESW what I'm saying is that if humanity's current understanding of physics is dramatically inaccurate when applied to your 'verse, you need to define the replacement to a like level of detail.

user61230

3:36 AM

Why do you need to do that?

user61230

Does it matter to your characters?

@BESW when I say "drifter", I mean "characters that have no goals whatsoever"

@Shalvenay Well, again, that's talking about the character rather than the player.

A character can have a goal which is not the goal of the player who controls her.

My ARRPG character's goal is "to save innocent people by fighting bad guys." My goal with her is "Make situations more chaotic by shooting stuff with a time gun."

@BESW the problem with the "conspire against my characters" mentality is that I find myself pushing my fellow players too hard in that regard. I once had to talk fellow players into breaking my problem child character's arms and legs in order to bring said character down fully physically

My goal is about the experience of play: I want to stir things up and make the stories more complex. Jessie's goal is about making the world a better place through socially-condoned violence.

user61230

3:41 AM

@Shalvenay If the players didn't want to do that, what motivated you to push them into it?

@Shalvenay See, you're immediately jumping to "different goals have to be in complete opposition." The world's a lot more nuanced than that.

@Emrakul because I felt my goal for the encounter as a player wouldn't be met otherwise

My goals and Jessie's goals align and oppose depending on the exact scenario.

@BESW I only jumped to that because Greener brought it up recently :P

user61230

@Shalvenay The thing is, you're not the only one playing the game. If you need to force other players into taking in-game action they clearly don't want to take, you need to find different goals for your character to operate on, or concede the scene.

3:42 AM

@Shalvenay Nah, it's a common challenge you've identified in the past: when you try to change a behaviour, you tend to swing to the opposite extreme.

@Emrakul furthermore, their characters would not have achieved their goal had I not talked their players into doing what they did

[sigh] This is not new ground and I'm tired.

...nap. ttfn

user61230

Have fun, @BESW!

user61230

@Shalvenay This is a really, really important point. Player desires come before character desires 100% of the time; under no circumstances does a character roleplay precede what a player is willing to do. Also, under no circumstances does any player's desire trump any player's qualms.

@BESW yeah...you could see it as the lack of effective feedback at work

@Emrakul and I try to ask about player desires and qualms AOT and get evasive answers or nothing at all.

user61230

3:48 AM

@Shalvenay If the people you're playing with appear hesitant or uncertain, you can't proceed.

user61230

It's not a situation of "okay until people say no;" it's always "not okay until they say it is."

user61230

This isn't an issue of in-game progress and enjoyment; this is an issue of interpersonal trust.

@Emrakul that rule causes serious problems with action-at-a-distance...never mind that I will hold people very firmly to their original consent to something.

user61230

Action-at-a-distance?

user61230

I don't mean to be harsh, but that is a massive red flag.

user61230

3:53 AM

As a human being, that raises an enormous alarm in my mind.

@Emrakul this is an issue in sandbox worlds, whenever traps or like constructions come into play.

user61230

Trust - particularly in a role-playing game - is without a doubt the most significant part of functional gameplay.

user61230

If someone says it's okay to play something out, and then later decides it isn't, you must concede to that.

basically, strict consent and the presence of traps in a world are mutually incompatible. either you have traps, and action against arbitrary actors, separated in time and space from the originator, requiring basically an unlimited scope of consent (including from future actors which may not exist at the time the trap is set)

or you reject such things in favor of strict, one-on-one consent, but you wind up with a world where not a single trap can exist

user61230

IF you're sure someone's okay with something - and there are certain expectations being set going into a game, like "there will be traps" - that's fine to include supposing someone doesn't say "that's not okay" once they know what's going on.

user61230

3:59 AM

This is all beside the point, though.

user61230

The situation you described is that the players were uncomfortable with something, and you talked them into it. It wasn't a trap, it was an action those players' characters would take.

user61230

Talking other people into doing something they've clearly communicated they don't want to do is an enormous violation of trust.

@Emrakul well, I suspect the players simply didn't expect to have to go that far

user61230

And if they were uncomfortable with it, it was your responsibility to respect the fact that they don't want to do it.

user61230

It's fine if they didn't expect it, but if it surprised them and they said "no," talking them into do it is a violation of trust.

4:02 AM

@Emrakul let me put it this way -- you have to explicitly communicate the change in consent state

user61230

Sorry, this isn't something I'm comfortable arguing about right now.

user61230

I'm with people - need to be present. Will maybe be on to talk later.

I likely will be in bed then

@Emrakul (I should be around some to talk tomorrow, though)

4:29 AM

@Shalvenay Okay, so... this consent thing is very troubling. If someone told me that they would "hold people very firmly to their original consent" I don't think I could play with them. Things change. Someone might not expect to feel uncomfortable when they do. They might be exposed to things they didn't actually agree to. They might run into something they can handle on some days and can't handle on others.

@Pixie I suspect that was an overstatement on my part -- basically, I need changes in consent communicated to me explicitly

The thing is, if I were to perceive that someone is uncomfortable but go ahead anyway, I'm in the wrong, even if they didn't say so explicitly. If I know what I'm doing will bother someone yet do it anyway, I'm responsible for that. If I'm introducing something to the game that I know is a touchy subject, it's my job to ask first.

@Pixie I will ask upfront if I know I'm dealing with a touchy subject -- but at the same time, I will press for quality answers upfront as well.

@Shalvenay What do you mean by "press for quality answers"?

"this makes me vaguely uncomfortable" or "I dunno" is a non-answer to me, and I will perceive it as evading the question.

or "try whatever" for that matter

4:36 AM

@Shalvenay That is not okay. If someone says they're uncomfortable, even vaguely, or that they don't know what to say about something, that's not consent. This is especially true when it's a touchy subject because not everyone is able to talk about it and not everyone is able to say no strongly. (If someone says "try whatever" that might be okay. It kinda depends on the situation.)

@Pixie I'm expecting either a firm "yes, it's cool", or "no, it's not, it's something I don't RP as a rule/doesn't fit the character/isn't suitable for the time or environment"

@Pixie if someone's evading the question -- I won't consider it consent, but I will continue to press them for a hard answer to it.

trogdor

that can end up making some people more uncomfortable

@trogdor I'd rather press someone to a hard "no" up front then have someone decline halfway through a RP

analogy: a bistable circuit that's in a metastable state -- I will keep sampling the output until it settles to one state or the other.

user61230

bad analogy

This is stuff that should be sorted out beforehand, yes. But, the thing is... if someone is pressured to make a decision and they say yes, they might not be doing it because they really want to. They might be doing it because they have trouble setting boundaries, or because they've been worn down emotionally, or because they feel like they have to.

user61230

4:42 AM

90% of the time, if someone isn't comfortable playing a scene, they won't be comfortable giving a clear answer about it because the subject matter makes them uncomfortable

user61230

not only that, but you continuing to talk about it, and continuing to press them for an answer, will make them uncomfortable with you personally

user61230

(sorry, vaguely following along; break in the conversation I'm in)

trogdor

if you press someone too hard you can cause them to react badly, in a number of ways

I have direct experience from both sides of that

@Emrakul yeah, that's not something I understand well -- the only subject matter I've run into that makes me viscerally uncomfortable are vivid descriptions of being crispy-fried

An appropriate response might be, "Let me know if you decide you want to do that." or "If there's anything that would make it easier for you, let me know." and then dropping it.

4:46 AM

@Pixie and then I never hear from them again

@Shalvenay Because they didn't want to do that and there was nothing that would make it easier for them.

user61230

they also might not want to come back because they've learned that if they do, you'll pressure them about it again

worse yet -- there are people I've run into who will refuse to respond to explicit consent questions

mmm. And sociocultural pressures almost always push people toward letting themselves be uncomfortable rather than telling other people "no." "I'm not sure I really like this a whole bunch" is, in almost every case, someone desperately trying to get out of a thing without being "the one who spoiled everyone's fun."

user61230

@Shalvenay then what they're telling you is "no, I'm not okay with that, and I don't want to talk about it or open it up for discussion and analysis."

4:50 AM

but the greater problem is midstream -- if you are changing consent on something midstream with me, you must communicate that explicitly in an out of character medium

"This makes me vaguely uncomfortable" isn't avoiding the question, because--again--the world isn't an on/off kind of place. Social interactions require mutual cooperation and you're being unreasonable if you're expecting the other person to shoulder all the weight of effective communication.

And some people can't even get that far. I've been that person.

otherwise, I won't know that there's even been an attempt made to change consent.

user61230

If you're ever at all uncertain whether someone's okay with where something is going, you can honestly just ask.

@Emrakul I don't know when to ask, that's the point. I don't read OOC intent into IC actions, as a rule.

user61230

4:53 AM

And then accept the first answer you get, regardless of whether it cleared things up, because if it didn't, that's a clear sign you should de-escalate and back away from the subject.

Handy rule of thumb for interacting with people who aren't machines: If the question you've asked is "Is this okay?" anything except "Yes" should be treated as "No."

5

@Emrakul and this isn't a problem that limits itself to sensitive subjects for me -- there are players who won't even consent to sitting across from my character in a tavern for a peaceful discussion

@BESW understood.

@BESW Yes. This. A lot.

And if you know there's a particular thing you have trouble with --like reading OOC from IC, which is admittedly tricky-- it's okay to tell folks beforehand that it's something you're struggling with and to ask them to help by being more explicit.

user61230

Reading people is hard - I know this from experience. I've had a rough time with it growing up, and I like to think I've gotten better.

4:57 AM

Sometimes misunderstandings do happen. It's inevitable.

user61230

But a lot of that is due to the amount of caution I'm putting into it. I'm not sure how much better I've gotten at actually reading people, but I've definitely gotten better at taking more care with the health of my friends.

@BESW yeah, and I do try to communicate that to people -- but at the same time, I'm dealing with some folks who say that if you can't RP using IC information only, you shouldn't be RPing to begin with, which I find to be grossly unfair to those who do not intuit foundational playerbase norms easily.

@Shalvenay Yeah. This goes back to some of the original advice I gave you way back in the day: if the people you're playing with aren't interested in talking like that, they are bad people for you to play with because of your situation.

@Shalvenay Then you should not play with them. They're not playing in a way that works for you, and if you try, it's likely that you'll play in a way that doesn't work for them. Likewise, you can't make them consent to sitting across a tavern from your character or anything else.

They aren't just not helping, they're actively making it harder for you to meet the challenges you're facing.

user61230

5:00 AM

@Shalvenay This is possible to do, but it's very difficult. When I go LARPing in large groups, we do almost a full week of trust workshops and exercises - activities designed specifically to help people set boundaries and become familiar with each other. Without that active framework of trust, acting only on IC information would be nigh on impossible.

user61230

And even amongst ourselves, there are a number of signals we have for OOC indications that something has gone too far and we're no longer comfortable, because that does happen rather frequently (we play very intense games).

@Pixie -- how common is an "IC information only" norm in online freeform or near-freeform RP communities?

user61230

@Shalvenay Almost never, because of the inherent lack of clarity of text.

@Shalvenay Nnnot very, in my experience, and if I ran into it I wouldn't play it.

The LJ RPGs I saw back in the day had a strict "IC only" policy for their main blogs--so they had a dedicated "OOC" blog for it.

5:04 AM

We often separate out the OOC -- but there is OOC. The first thing I do when I create an RP is make an OOC space for it.

that does leave me wondering how a norm like that developed that strongly, then. I suspect it's a simple lack of understanding of how non-intuitive a set of shared social norms can be for some

user61230

@Shalvenay They could have a solid trust framework in place between each other.

user61230

The more familiar people are with their interpersonal boundaries, the less necessary OOC chat becomes - though it needs to always be an option.

@Pixie yeah, I've been known to split OOC chatter off into dedicated spaces as well (this is useful in scenes where OOC clarification is often needed, such as combat scenes)

It's an elitist assumption that what works for them but not for others is because they're better than the others. This is a really seductive way of thinking.

5:05 AM

@Emrakul and in the fluid environs of a persistent world, that trust framework needs to be explicitly accessible in order to develop and retain (role)players

user61230

That's one of the main functions of OOC chat.

@Emrakul no kidding! but I'm going to hit the sack. (this really clarified some points that you folks have hinted at previously, thanks!)

user61230

G'night!

See you! I'm glad it helped.

10:04 AM

@BESW so, on that note -- my suspicion is that its' due at least partly to a lack of effective feedback about what's working and what's not, or should I be looking somewhere else for the source of that issue? also, what should I do about it?

Don't expect too much from me. It's after 8PM, I'm late for break, and still at work dealing with people who want a $20 discount for the new iPhone :\

But hi :)

@Nyoze aaah. well, I was going to toss the "when I try to change my behavior, I tend to swing to the opposite extreme" challenge by you...

Oh god. Don't ask me for help on that one.

aaah, you run into the same problem? :/

I go between getting sucked in to exploring every inch of every nook and cranny of something, to complete and utter avoidance for fear of ruining my life.

10:11 AM

@Nyoze ick.

So, what I do know is comparmentalise everything. I have work - which is for browsing and gaming. And home, which is for my home life, and nothing to do with computers shall every cross.

@Nyoze ugh

Hey. It works, but it sucks :\

on another note -- you mind helping me test a 3.5e dungeon of mine sometime? (it's an admittedly-experimental one-shot theme dungeon, although it seems to have held up well so far in testing)

10:59 AM

Sure thing, if you don't mind running it online, I don't mind helping :)

Sorry for the late reply, I had to get some food before I passed out :\

@Nyoze yeah, I have it on roll20, and no worries

Awesome, shoot me a link sometime and I'll head on over :)

Oh, one thing. I don't do voice chat, cause I'm at work and all. Just in case that's a problem.

@Nyoze yeah -- now's not a good time, as I think I'm going to try to get a bit more sleep (also -- everyone else is asleep here :P)

aaah -- it's a rather narration heavy dungeon (I don't have tokens set up for how the rooms look because I haven't really been able to bother with that)

I'm good with narration through chat, or see if someone else can help. And yeah, I'm out of this place in an hour lol

@Nyoze (I can't do voice chat here either)

11:09 AM

Well, I'm not the only one then :)

Anyway - You use Gmail or G+?

@Nyoze yes, but only for wax eagle's game :P it's probably easier to get a hold of me in here when I'm around. (and the limitation on voice chat on my end is temporary, btw -- but I've played roll20 w/o it before)

Hit me up at helpivefallen227@gmail.com if you ever want to get hold of me and I'm not around. It's a bit easier if you want to chat about things and them not to be saved forever :P

gonna try to get an hour or two more sleep