Okay.  I generally think that people should live up to their obligations, which has an awful lot of overlap with "trust" but is not exactly the same thing.

For instance, if Bob and Sarah game together, and Sarah trusts Bob to play purely cooperative, without giving Bob any indication that she expects this of him, then I don't think Bob's done anything wrong when he has his thief stab Sarah's character in the back.  He's violated her trust, but he hasn't violated any of his obligations.  The fact that she trusts him doesn't entail obligation directly (although it often correlates, especially when people communicate clearly).

I mean, I can trust my friends to bring me free food when I GM a game, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to do it if I never said anything, right?

How are you feeling about the "I don't like to be hurt" thing?  Do you think that actions that hurt people are also wrong?

Quote from: MarcoI don't think that's an honest assessment, in fact I'm pretty sure that's not true.

Are you suggesting I'm lying, or just that I'm wrong or mistaken in my assessment, I'll except the second case being a possibility (after all that's what debates are about finding out) but not the first.

QuoteMany books suggest that PCs are a team in ways not codified by actual rules.

Members of political parties are a team doesn't stop leadership battles. I work for a business, I am on the same team as my workmates, doesn't mean I am willing to let them get a promotion before me, or if they do something I disagree with I won't take issue with it.

QuoteGames like Paranoia distinguish themselves by a PvP focus. Etc.

I don't believe it's especially credible to say that there is an expectation of finding Player vs Player in RPGs the same way there is in chess.

People have disagreements even on teams, why should characters be any different? Many RPG characters are driven by less than superior motives (like treasure hunting) and even the ones that have superior motives (like Paladins) might find them conflicting with other party members. Interparty conflict to some degree seems to exsist in most games, often it is at the level of friendly rivalry, but occasionally it boils over to violent disagreement. It's to be expected when you consider how violence tends to be the default solution to a lot of problems in RPGs.

QuoteI'll also note that lots of people have spoken up about how there can be emotional harm (even trauma ... even brain damage) from RPGs. Ask Chris Chinn. Ask Ben Leyman.

I'm afraid these names mean nothing to me could you give a reference. I fail to see how a RPG can cause brain damage or trauma unless the person is already mental ill or prone to mental illness already.

QuoteThe amount of harm done is not the relevant factor.

If any level of harm to another is wrong, how do you get through the day?
How can a person predict how everyone will respond to my actions? What someone might take as a friendly joke, might deeply offend another person. What some people take as a friendly pat might be harshment or sexual assault to another. While I am responsible for my actions, I can't be responsible for the unexpect harm they might cause.

If in character actions on my part might upset another player, then tough. Sure I get upset if a character gets killed but that's just part of the game, like losing at Chess, or having a date never call you again. I'm not prepared to wear kid-gloves around adults, getting overly upset over a game is something most people grow out of by their teens.

Quote from: TonyLBHow are you feeling about the "I don't like to be hurt" thing?  Do you think that actions that hurt people are also wrong?

No, I don't. We're talking about predatory breach of trust. If you want to poke around, stick with that.

-Marco

Quote from: BagpussAre you suggesting I'm lying, or just that I'm wrong or mistaken in my assessment, I'll except the second case being a possibility (after all that's what debates are about finding out) but not the first.

Not lying--but maybe overstating? Interparty sabotage isn't a norm in a hugely significant number of games. I'd expect honest agreement on that even if the numbers aren't known.

QuoteI'm afraid these names mean nothing to me could you give a reference. I fail to see how a RPG can cause brain damage or trauma unless the person is already mental ill or prone to mental illness already.

Sorry--old internet baggage. If you're not aware of those conversations, I'll just leave it at the idea that someone can feel for-real betrayed based on actions in a game. And that friendships and relationships can get damaged by people's behavior during an RPG without having to get to the *really* degenerate cases.

QuoteIf any level of harm to another is wrong, how do you get through the day?
How can a person predict how everyone will respond to my actions? What someone might take as a friendly joke, might deeply offend another person. What some people take as a friendly pat might be harshment or sexual assault to another. While I am responsible for my actions, I can't be responsible for the unexpect harm they might cause.

If in character actions on my part might upset another player, then tough. Sure I get upset if a character gets killed but that's just part of the game, like losing at Chess, or having a date never call you again. I'm not prepared to wear kid-gloves around adults, getting overly upset over a game is something most people grow out of by their teens.

The issue here is the predatory violation of someone's trust in a way that will cause them harm. That's something I think is wrong, seek to avoid, and would hold myself responsible if I did.

Not "any amount of harm."

Not "any violation of trust" (however small).

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoWe're talking about predatory breach of trust.

Except we aren't. Since there is no reason for that trust to be there in the first place. I trust the other PC's as much as I trust the NPC Bartender my character mets in a tavern. As much as I trust a complete stranger I meet in a bar. I know some people will breach that trust, after all there are conmen in the real world, and I expect some PC's also to be untrust worthy (especially CN rogues).

Quote from: MarcoNo, I don't. We're talking about predatory breach of trust. If you want to poke around, stick with that.

Okay, so what's the "predatory" mean?  It's quite possible that it will mean that you're looking at a subset of breaches of trust that lies entirely within what I consider breaches of obligation, and we can both agree "Yes, doing that would just be wrong."

Yes, I'm thinking of that episode where Faith and Buffy switched bodies.

Quote from: BagpussExcept we aren't. Since there is no reason for that trust to be there in the first place. I trust the other PC's as much as I trust the NPC Bartender my character mets in a tavern. As much as I trust a complete stranger I meet in a bar. I know some people will breach that trust, after all there are conmen in the real world, and I expect some PC's also to be untrust worthy (especially CN rogues).

I recognize that you're arguing the trust is misplaced. That's where I brought in the dating-game situation. Her trust is misplaced too. That doesn't make what he does okay.

D&D is actually really good for this with alignment flags. That fixes a lot.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoNot lying--but maybe overstating? Interparty sabotage isn't a norm in a hugely significant number of games. I'd expect honest agreement on that even if the numbers aren't known.

Okay maybe your games, but from previous campaigns I've played or run.

Shadowrun, Cyberpunk and the like PvP is common place, rarely a game has gone by without at least one player on player death (most have several), and frequently there is player on player conflict of a lesser degree. It's too be expected in a setting where most of the players are mecenaries.

Vampire Games - Too many PvP incidents to count, after all most Clans have beefs with other clans.

D&D - Current campaign my CN Cleric of a God of war is having constant arguements with the LG Paladin over treatment of prisoners (an if we should even take them) this has come to blows in the past. Other campaigns have featured a doppleganger joining the party with the aim of killing another character, and several other lesser examples. I fully expect my LE Warlock and the LG Paladin in the other campaign we have running to come to blows at some point, but at the moment they seem to have more agreements over the Lawful way of doing things than on the Good/Evil axis.

Admittedly in D&D the number of inter-party conflicts can be reduce due to DM's enforcing a Good (or neutral) only restriction on alignment so if that's all you are use to then, I can see why you might

The one Wild West game I played in had one character shoot another in the back of the head once they realised that they were effectively a traitor to the South during the civil war.

Call of Cthuhlu, there have been cases of insane characters being "put down", to stop them being a danger to others, and one case of a character knee-capping a fellow character so that the monster would stop to feed on them while they made their escape.

QuoteSorry--old internet baggage. If you're not aware of those conversations, I'll just leave it at the idea that someone can feel for-real betrayed based on actions in a game. And that friendships and relationships can get damaged by people's behavior during an RPG without having to get to the *really* degenerate cases.

Again my point is how can I be expect to predict how someone may react to certain actions, the several groups I've played with in the past have never had a problem with player on player action.  There was one incident, but then it was one character raping another (they guy wanting to do the action got thrown out of the group), but I'm aiming for a middle ground, you seem to be implying that you need to announce any form of player on player activity.

QuoteThe issue here is the predatory violation of someone's trust in a way that will cause them harm.

The problem is if you joined our group I wouldn't trust you, and I wouldn't expect you to trust me not to do some level of player on player plotting. So if I did plot against you I wouldn't declare it before hand, and your character could certainly be harmed.

It wouldn't be a predatory violation in my view, but it could be in yours, and again I wouldn't view harm to your character as harm to you yourself, but you might be upset by it.

To avoid the possibility of ever harming anyone through a RPG, I either have to moderate my level of play to some artifical PC's "always play nice with each other", or be some sort of mind reader to know how my actions may or may not upset you.

I'm not prepared to do the first since from my experience, some level of PC on PC conflict is common in every game I've played, and I'm incapable of doing the second.

I take "predatory" breach of trust to mean that, believing that the other person trusts you in a certain way, you take advantage of the fact that the other person trusts you not to do certain things. You then do them for your own benefit regardless of the harm to the other person.

Marco may think differently, but that's my concept.

Quote from: MarcoI recognize that you're arguing the trust is misplaced. That's where I brought in the dating-game situation. Her trust is misplaced too. That doesn't make what he does okay.

Using the dating example (not that I particularly like it)...

Say the were both prefectly lovely and truthful on the date, and they start going out its all chocolates and roses, until for some reason or other she goes off him (probably dislikes his choice in footwear or something). At first she tries to resolve matters (she gets him some new shoes), but is unsuccessful (he insists on wearing those battered lime green Converse), so she is left with two options she could keep going out with him just to keep him happy (but suffer herself), or dump him knowing it will cause him some upset.

Should she
a) Suffer herself indefinately
b) Make him suffer for a short period.

This is how I am with PC verses PC conflict, I find my character has come to some sort of impass with another character, now I can ignore it and suffer myself, or attempt to resolve it, knowing that I will probably upset the other player to some degree.

Should I
a) Suffer myself indefinately.
b) Make them suffer for a short period.

Assuming we go with (a) in each case, if the ex-boyfriend flys of the handle cuts up all her clothes, pours paint-stripper on her car and then throws himself of a bridge, is she responsible?

Similairly if I kill another character and the player rather than being a little upset and rolling up a new character, decides that the character is his life throws a fit storms out of the game and suffers emotionally for the rest of his life, am I responsible?

It's a character in a game, you can't really expect people to suffer extreme emotional harm from a game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI take "predatory" breach of trust to mean that, believing that the other person trusts you in a certain way, you take advantage of the fact that the other person trusts you not to do certain things. You then do them for your own benefit regardless of the harm to the other person.

So, the following exchange seems, to me, to meet your definition of "predatory breach of trust."  Does it look that way to you too?   Tony:  "Yeah!  Natural 20!  Now you're just a few gore points away from bein' knocked unconscious, and the ruby from the statue's eye will finally be mine!  I've wanted that since I first saw the players handbook!"
Cody:  "Okay.  My guy puts down his sword.  After all, I trust you.  Sure, we've been trying to chop each other up into sashimi, but I know that when push comes to shove you'll stick with the party, rather than benefit by hurting us."
Tony:  "Dude.  No!  Never said I would.  I clock your wimpy paladin over the head.  Don't need to roll to hit, because you've lowered your defenses.  12 points.  He's down!  The jewel is mine!  w00t!"

Can't tell. Not enough context based on how the game got together, how things have been handled till this point, etc. For example maybe nobody talked about it when the game got together, nobody's played with anybody else, but once the game started, Tony observed two other players fighting and said, "Dudes, that's not cool. Look, Cody's character doesn't have the strength to win this fight, so why don't you agree that he'll let Steve have the Scarab of Righteous Awesomeness?"

Now how do we know if Tony said that as part of "the game", i.e., setting up Cody to trust him, or if he said that as part of the social context of the game? Can we trust Tony at all once the game starts? What if the other players responded, "Man, you're probably just trying to break up this fight so you can catch us with our pants down later," and Tony solemnly insisted with a straight face that they were wrong? But he was lying, and he hoped the others would buy it.

Except in a very few social contexts, I'd consider such deception to be unethical, because it goes against the idea that we can separate the game from real life and relate to each other as actual people talking about the game, not in the game. The reason it's unethical is because I think most social contexts do allow that separation--so Tony would be taking advantage of that expectation--that you can trust someone when they say, "No, this is me talking, not my jerkwad character."

Okay.  If hypothetical-Tony is, in addition to everything else, lying about not having promised to behave cooperatively then he's into what you consider "predatory breach of trust" territory ... he's deliberately cultivated trust through deceit.

Now ... suppose everyone there is being sincere and truthful.  Hypothetical-Tony really hasn't promised that he'd behave cooperatively.  Hypothetical-Cody really does trust H-Tony to behave cooperatively.

It still strikes me that H-Tony (1) believes H-Cody trusts him, (2) takes advantage of that, and (3) benefits himself, (4) at H-Cody's expense.  Predatory breach of trust or not?

Is there a hypothetical in which the script I've proposed doesn't mean predatory breach of trust?

Oh, yeah, definitely. I mean it could be a game where the GM handed out secret "victory conditions" to each player with the pregame notice that "anything goes". Or the group could have said "anything goes" without the victory conditions.

I mean in Diplomacy, two adjacent players can be very successful if they strip their common border and work together, and I feel quite strongly that if I engaged in such an alliance, only to be backstabbed toward the end of the game, well, no matter how much it hurts, it's my duty to keep a stiff upper lip and limit myself to good-natured swearing.

For that matter, if this was a group that you had played with before and you had a reputation for playing jerk characters...yet they still enjoyed playing with you...again, no foul. Same thing with Bagpuss's examples, all of which I strongly suspect are cases where either the history of the group or some other mechanism (genre assumptions? mechanical flags?) put everyone on notice that "trust and betrayal" was something that was going to be handled in-game.

Elliot:  So "predatory breach of trust" seems (check me on this) to imply that the trust you are breaching is, in some way, justified.  Yes?