To try to get a few answers in to a lot of postings:

1. Eliot's explanation is pretty good. You believe someone trusts you in a certain way and are taking advantage of them because of it. I would probably add the idea that the person taking advantage of the target is getting something out of it (winning? Seeing them suffer? Money?).

2. I'm sure there are a lot of groups out there that do a lot of PvP. If someone honestly does not believe that a significant number of groups play without intra-party sabotage and conflict then I point them to the Internet where you can ask around.

Again, though, this is why we are using the dating example of the same philosophy: that person believes all dates are a game and will tell you (maybe honestly) they have never met anyone who thinks otherwise.

They'll tell you it doesn't matter what the girl thinks--what, is the guy supposed to be some kind of mind reader?

That still doesn't make what the guy does okay, no matter what his experience has been.

3. I don't understand the not-breaking-up with the person example. I don't see that as espeically predatory. I'm not sure how she's manipulting his trust to gain something.

To respond to Bagpuss's question about how they should deal with the suffering caused by other players? My advice: Talk to them about it.

4. Tony, I refer you to your deep-sea fishing reference. I'm not sure how round-and-round definitions of every term will help anything. The hypotheticals you are bringing up don't really explain enough.

Furthermore: I don't think it matters.
1. You have unspoken standards you expect others to adhere to (doubling your date's drinks to get into her pants is wrong).
2. Your reasoning for them is simply because you believe it is wrong.
3. You are willing to apply them and blame people.

Just because you don't accept/understand someone else's belief that something is wrong doesn't have any more bearing on your stance than if you  are faced with the dating guy who tells you indignantly that you have no right to judge him.

Either you accept that you do blame the guy and therefore standards of behavior exist outside of explicit rules (in which case you have to analyze your behavior in other cases with respect to non-stated rules) or you don't blame the guy and you're weak.

Since you blame the guy, then the question is whether you accept that taking advantage of a misplaced trust is wrong.

I suspect you do think it's wrong in the most common sense even though you are loathe to admit it. This is because it would be very easy for you to constuct a clear hypothetical that illustrates that you think it's okay (Bob and Joe are back-to-back fighting monsters for some treasure. Bob gets hurt and and Joe kills Bob before killing the monsters, knowing Bob expected him to cover his back, in order to get the treasure).

I look at the examples you have posted:
1. Back on RPG.net you introduced a first-strike on the part of the 'cooperative party' (the leeches). Rather than having your stand-in act in a first-strike himself, you cited, and expected us to believe that the well meaning paladin had unknowingly assaulted his team-mate.

We have a mistake.

2. Here you present the case of the drunk, poor, and naive guy who is put-upon to buy the second round of drinks (rather than the case where a person who knows that when people are buying rounds it is customary for everyone to buy his round).

Again, this is a mistake.

3. In the next example, we already have people involved in PvP combat when one of them tries to invoke trust to save his character.

This is already PvP.

Were I to go by your examples, I would conclude that you actually DON'T condone predatory abuse of trust of the type we are talking about.

-Marco

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

Is the girl's trust justified on her date?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoWere I to go by your examples, I would conclude that you actually DON'T condone predatory abuse of trust of the type we are talking about.

Hey, that's entirely possible.  If I knew what you meant by "predatory abuse of trust" then I might be able to give you an answer as to whether I think it's immoral or not.

I mean ... you stopped objecting to what I've actually said many posts ago.  I don't think that making people unhappy (even when you realize that they're going to be unhappy) is always immoral.  Neither do you, apparently.

So at this point you're talking about this whole "predatory breach of trust" thing which, frankly, I haven't expressed any opinion on yet.  I'm interested in expressing an opinion, but first I have to know what you're talking about.

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

Not exactly. It implies that the person breaching the trust isn't justified in assuming the other person wasn't expecting that trust when entering into the relationship.

Let me try to eliminate the multiple negatives without mangling the meaning. It implies that the person breaching the trust would reasonably infer that the other person was expecting that trust when entering into the relationship.

There's an important difference there.

We've agreed that groups can play competitively or cooperatively with no harm done. There's no universal contract to justify trust in-game. However, there is a universal contract to justify trust when entering into a social relationship. (The Golden Rule, social contract, categorical imperative, whatever.) If I go from one game group to another, my new pals implicitly trust me not to take advantage of them and vice versa, except if it's in the context of what's allowed by the game. So if I have a reasonable belief that their welcoming me is contingent on their belief that I'll play cooperatively, then if I intend to take advantage of their belief in order to further my competitive play, incidentally hurting their fun, then I'm a bad guy.

(Now just for fun suppose I'm a competitive player but I pretend to be a cooperative player so I can sucker a bunch of competitives into taking me into the group. (That is, I'm pretty sure they're competitive, and that they're planning on taking advantage of me on the assumption I'm a cooperative.) Then I can execute the double-double-cross! Is that wrong? Oh, man, I wish it weren't, but I suspect it might be. It's like conning a con-man. Basically it's a form of vigilantism--and that's a whole other kettle of fish, I think.)

Quote from: TonyLBHey, that's entirely possible.  If I knew what you meant by "predatory abuse of trust" then I might be able to give you an answer as to whether I think it's immoral or not.

I mean ... you stopped objecting to what I've actually said many posts ago.  I don't think that making people unhappy (even when you realize that they're going to be unhappy) is always immoral.  Neither do you, apparently.

I've not objected to your absolutes, no. They're ridiculous.

QuoteSo at this point you're talking about this whole "predatory breach of trust" thing which, frankly, I haven't expressed any opinion on yet.  I'm interested in expressing an opinion, but first I have to know what you're talking about.

It's already been expressed in plain, simple English. Your hypotheticals are all directly aimed at giving the competitive guy a solid excuse--if you really didn't have any clue about what I mean--and really didn't agree with it--then I doubt your examples would be as carefully designed to look for extreme edge conditions as they are.

-Marco

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt implies that the person breaching the trust would reasonably infer that the other person was expecting that trust when entering into the relationship.

So, suppose that for a moment we set aside the possibility of misunderstandings (where one person says "You must have known we were playing competitive!" and the other person says "How could I have known?" and the whole thing gets tangled ...)  In that idealized state of perfect communication we can assume (for simplicity's sake) that if a person would reasonably infer that the relationship was contingent upon obligating yourself to uphold that trust then the person will in fact infer that.  Even though it's never been said out loud they will somehow know going in that the terms of the relationship are "By joining this activity you're obligating yourself to uphold the following trust."

I'm totally down with blaming a person who violates the trust under those circumstances.  They knew what they were obligating themselves to, chose to undertake the obligation, then violated it.  Very naughty.  Wrong.

You'll understand, I hope, that I don't think this idealized case always occurs.  Misunderstandings can and do happen.  Moreover, misunderstandings occur such that one or both sides are totally unwilling to believe that a misunderstanding has occurred, and insist that the other person must have understood the trust being placed in them and consciously violated that trust.

We cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBYou'll understand, I hope, that I don't think this idealized case always occurs.  Misunderstandings can and do happen.  Moreover, misunderstandings occur such that one or both sides are totally unwilling to believe that a misunderstanding has occurred, and insist that the other person must have understood the trust being placed in them and consciously violated that trust.

We cool with that?

Do you suppose that a significant number of people consider cooperative play the implicit contract and that by joining their group you are expected to enter into that contract?

Edited to add: Would you consider a session or two of cooperative and open play reason to think so? Or would you hold the position that until you had finished with the group (over, maybe, years) and there was no PvP from them that you still didn't know for sure they had a cooperative expectation?

Or do you think that since some groups out there have PvP contracts, there's never any reason to suppose that joining a group that they have a cooperative contact? Even if they seem cooperative in general?

-Marco

QuoteWe cool with that?

Absolutely. I'm setting up principles but your conscience must be your guide.

Next step: how to inform your conscience. I've already given what I think are good signposts. (1) Overall assessment of probability based on whatever data you have at hand. (2) Empirically, whether you find yourself frequently getting into misunderstandings.

If (1) is ambiguous, then communication is called for. If perfect communication is impossible or undesirable, I'd also advocate a strategy of least harm while feeling out the situation. In case (2), either improve your ability to discriminate people who expect coop from people who expect competition, or see (1).

Now, I have to say I'm not a big fan of strategies of least harm. I'll bet you aren't either. But let's combine that with indirect communication and game structure and I bet we can come up with something.

E.g., if we're playing a dungeon crawl, consider how people approach it. Do they play their roles with personality? Then maybe you'd think that characters who're willing to go into a hole in the ground filled with monsters might have a history or something that serves to reassure them that everyone's got everyone else's back. Or if not, maybe they look and act like a bunch of desperate scum who'd just as cut your throat as look at you.

Do they run their characters as pawns? Tricky, but again, if the challenge is the centerpiece of the action, and everyone treats the characters almost as group property ("Why don't you use that 'stone to mud' spell, Jim?" "Good idea, Mark!") I'd take that as a clue that we're a team.

I don't know, maybe The Mountain Witch or something has a mechanic for regulating the switch from coop to competition, but absent that I'd expect the initial interactions to set the tone. If the party feeds the thief to the woodchipper in the opening scene, that's a good sign that all bets are off.

Mechanically, if it's easy to generate characters, that reduces the cost of competition and, in my opinion, makes it more fun. So choice of game is a sign. Somebody who works hard on a character either in generation or via the experience system is someone whom you might want to check with on the whole cooperation vs. competition thing. A game where character death means sitting out the rest of the session imposes a high cost on "losers". Might want to check.

And so forth. Now you might say it's not your responsibility to read minds, and it isn't. However, there's a rough medium between deliberately ignoring all the cues, and feebly sitting in your shell, afraid to offend anyone. That's where good faith lies.

(Cross-posted with Marco.)

Quote from: MarcoDo you suppose that a significant number of people consider cooperative play the implicit contract and that by joining their group you are expected to enter into that contract?

I believe I answered "No" to this some 127 posts ago.  It is, indeed, the very first question that I approached when I started discussing this, because I have had people go to this argument about whether cooperative play is a privileged default so very often.

Wow, what a lot of discussion about a very simple thing.

"Mate, you're being a prick. Stop it."
"But I'm just playing in character!"
"But you designed your character to be a prick. And you always do."
"So?"
"So stop being a prick."
"ZOMFG u r oppressing an' deprotagonising me!"

:rolleyes:

Quote from: TonyLBI believe I answered "No" to this some 127 posts ago.  It is, indeed, the very first question that I approached when I started discussing this, because I have had people go to this argument about whether cooperative play is a privileged default so very often.

I remember! But perhaps something has changed through the course of the debate. You recognize that you have some responsibility for unstated contracts and now you are aware that since many people play cooperatively, you could probably deduce that with a little observation.

Putting two and to together, the idea that cooperative play is *privileged* is unnecessary. But if a group is one of the many cooperative ones, and you can identify that to a reasonable degree, you should adhere to the contract or explicitly discuss it.

Same for competitive groups. If I show up for one and people are feeding the theif into the wood-chipper, I don't have to be explicit--I can just pick it up right away and play cut-throat right along side them.

Suddenly these misunderstandings can be reduced *dramatically*! It's a win-win.



-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI remember! But perhaps something has changed through the course of the debate.

Well, I've come to know you guys's positions much more intimately, that's for sure!

Quote from: MarcoYou recognize that you have some responsibility for unstated contracts and now you are aware that since many people play cooperatively, you could probably deduce that with a little observation.

Seriously?  No.  The difference between "We must cooperate forever and ever" and "We should cooperate, unless getting into conflict would be really cool" is pretty much impossible to detect (through in-game action) until after a really cool opportunity has been taken.

The idea that this kind of vague communication is uncommon doesn't hold much water with me.  From everything I've seen, such ambiguities are rampant.  I don't have to go very far to hear about GMs who've taken a character aside and say "You've been replaced by a doppelganger ... you up for playing the creature as it sabotages the party?"  Helms of Opposite Alignment, for pete's sake.  Paladins and thieves in the same party, arguing with each other about whether it's moral to kill newborn orcs.  Vampire coteries that snipe and challenge each other.  Werewolves and their freaky-fur duels.

Cooperation punctuated with occasional competition and conflict is deeply ensconced in mainstream, traditional roleplaying.  It's not just the guys who throw each other in the wood chipper 24/7.  You can play a game with people for years and still not know where they stand on this if you don't talk to them about it.

So my advice is that people should talk about it, explicitly.  But, if you haven't done that, my advice is not to take the moment when your long-term misunderstanding becomes obvious as your cue to get all self-righteous about what "everyone agreed to," no matter how certain you are that you're right.  In my experience, the odds are that the people on the other side of the misunderstanding are just as sure that they're in the right, and treating the whole thing as a crime to be punished rather than fuzzy communication to be worked through is a terrific way to piss everyone off.

Quote from: TonyLBSo my advice is that people should talk about it, explicitly.  But, if you haven't done that, my advice is not to take the moment when your long-term misunderstanding becomes obvious as your cue to get all self-righteous about what "everyone agreed to," no matter how certain you are that you're right.  In my experience, the odds are that the people on the other side of the misunderstanding are just as sure that they're in the right, and treating the whole thing as a crime to be punished rather than fuzzy communication to be worked through is a terrific way to piss everyone off.

This is good advice!

So long as the misunderstandings aren't "misunderstandings," I think we're good. IME a serious attempt at achieving an understanding with a group goes a long, long way towards success (espeically if the player has good social skills). And certainly we've put the lie to the idea that it's okay to come into a group where it's reasonably clear they play cooperatively and, because we like to play competitively, viciously ambush someone. That wouldn't be a mistake

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoAnd certainly we've put the lie to the idea that it's okay to come into a group where it's reasonably clear they play cooperatively and, because we like to play competitively, viciously ambush someone. That wouldn't be a mistake

Yep.  But since, as I point out, there's really nothing short of explicit discussion that will make it "reasonably clear" that they're playing cooperative forever, as opposed to playing cooperative right now, that remains a matter best examined in the confines of your own conscience.

I can say of myself "Yes, I am convinced by the events of play that this is a cooperative-forever group, and so I am obliged not to jump into intra-party conflicts," and that's legitimate.

The moment I say of someone else "Yes, Hector obviously must be convinced by the events of play that this is a cooperative-forever group, and so he is obliged not to jump into intra-party conflicts," I'm talking out of my hat.  I don't know how Hector thinks about the game unless he tells me.

So ... great principle for moderating your own conscience based on your complete information of yourself.  Crummy principle for trying to deal with other people based on your incomplete information of them.  Does that sound right to you?

Quote from: TonyLBYep.  But since, as I point out, there's really nothing short of explicit discussion that will make it "reasonably clear" that they're playing cooperative forever, as opposed to playing cooperative right now, that remains a matter best examined in the confines of your own conscience.

I can say of myself "Yes, I am convinced by the events of play that this is a cooperative-forever group, and so I am obliged not to jump into intra-party conflicts," and that's legitimate.

The moment I say of someone else "Yes, Hector obviously must be convinced by the events of play that this is a cooperative-forever group, and so he is obliged not to jump into intra-party conflicts," I'm talking out of my hat.  I don't know how Hector thinks about the game unless he tells me.

So ... great principle for moderating your own conscience based on your complete information of yourself.  Crummy principle for trying to deal with other people based on your incomplete information of them.  Does that sound right to you?

Heh heh

What if when someone tells me they're interested in playing cooperatively, I decide they haven't fully defined the meaning of the word so it's okay to back-stab them? Here too I have incomplete information, right? Most people don't define common English terms during normal communication do they?

Or if they explain it, in painstaking detail (predatory abuse of trust) and I've gotten all the words, I consider the fact that I may have been hallucinating the conversation--again, my world-view is startlingly incomplete!

Woah.

I mean, we never have all the information we'd like (scrolls up to see the rest of the thread). Right?

Or maybe you just do what everyone does and make a decision based on incomplete information--as Elliot said: "let your conscience be your guide" and then inform your conscience with a little observation.

Doing otherwise--selectively ignoring information so as to "make a mistake" wouldn't be ethical.

-Marco