Quote from: MarcoNo: that RPG-play is often more like dating than it is like chess.

Are you serious?

RPGs are (for you) more about establishing and maintaining relationships than they are about getting together to have fun and play a game?

Quote from: TonyLBAre you serious?

Yep.

QuoteRPGs are (for you) more about establishing and maintaining relationships than they are about getting together to have fun and play a game?

I wouldn't put it quite that way--but that's not quite what I wrote either (I said "more like a date than like chess.")


-Marco

Okay then, Marco, I'm going to ask you to expand on your one-liner.  How is an RPG more like dating than chess, in ways that are relevant to our discussion of the responsibilities of players to each other?

Some quickly noted thoughts on the subject (I suspect that most people who don't see roleplaying as intrinsically competitive will see a *substantial* difference between RPGs and chess and might find the social interaction of a date closer to RPGs than chess simply by elimination--but I could be wrong about that):

Chess for me is a competitive game with a winner, a loser, no social intrinsic aspect, no intrinsic sense of emotional investment beyond winning/excitement of winning, and no intrinsic connection to the other player.

Dating involves a social and emotional connection with the other person, no sense of winning and losing save perhaps as a team--and then in a subjective and personal sense, and a highly important social component.

RPG play has, for me, winning and losing only perhaps as a team in a subjective and personal sense, a highly important social component, a connection to the other people involved.

I have had RPG play be romantic. I have had dating be romantic. I have never had chess be romantic.

I have competed with people I am romantically involved with but that has (of course) never been the extent of the relationship. It has been with chess. I consider the RPG interaction I have had with people I am otherwise not related with to be far deeper and more meaningful than the chess games I have played in competition tournaments (for example: comparing con-games to chess games).

I have felt "emotionally real" with other people during RPG-sessions. Not so during chess. I feel this has, in cases, brought the group closer (nothing mythical here--but, you know, playing chess with folks has never brought me closer to them in and of itself).

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI have had RPG play be romantic. I have had dating be romantic. I have never had chess be romantic.

-Marco

You don't know what you're missing. The Thomas Crown Affair with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway has a very romantic chess playing scene in it.

Hey Marco ... are you citing all of those as being relevant to your contention about what players owe each other in roleplaying?  Because I, frankly, don't see how the way you choose to play the game has a great relevance to the obligations I should consider myself bound by.  You're going to have to do some more work connecting the dots there.

I can list a whole lot of ways that the way I play chess corresponds with the way I play RPGs, too (competitive, rules-focussed, lots of funny voices, shared fiction about in-game events, etc.) but just listing those doesn't establish relevance either, y'know?

You schmuck.  You rapist.  I wanted to get the name calling out of the way right up front...

What caught my eye, in the original discussion, was Levi's take on the Shark game:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot "good story" - just fiction. As a kid myself, I helped the Autobots raid any number of evil Decepticon plans, ruining those beyond measure. We made fiction, by collaborating. Also as a kid, I played games like tag - inherently competitive stuff. But these games didn't create fiction.

Two things...

One: what if you, as a kid, took the part of the evil Decepticons, while your friends were the Autobots.  Would you not be competing - that is, trying to vanquish your foes?  My kids do it all the time.  As we speak, they are playing a cooperative game.  Often, however, they compete - Cops/Robbers, Sith/Jedi, etc.  When they do so, they are competitive, yet they are creating fiction, making up a story as they go.

Second: I hope that your juxtaposition of Autobot/Decepticon and Tag were not meant to imply that inherently competitive stuff cannot create fiction. As I point out above, I see my kids do it all the time. Heck, I've even see them turn tag into a competitive game of fiction by putting their own story around the actual game of tag.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, it doesn't. It indicates that competition is possible along the way towards the goal you're co-operating for. If you've no common goal, if you're competing as to which goal you'll go for, then you're entirely competitive the whole way, and that is not healthy, no. That leads to misery and frustration.

First: Is it safe to assume that you're excluding sports from this; that is, your declarative about entirely competitive=not healthy does not include sports?

Second: This is a bit of a..well...I don't know the philosophical debating term.  I mean, in just about any situation, you could abstract as much or as little as needed to find the result you want.

It seems to me that just about any game we discuss has elements of both, and that to talk about them as if they were mutually exclusive is, as Levi and Tony seem to have agreed, like saying Love and Hate are mutually exclusive.

I'd expound further, but my son is waving his light saber at me telling me I'm the bad guy, Darth Vader.  He's telling me the general plot, and is waiting patiently while I finish typing before I go join the fun....

Quote from: TonyLBBecause I, frankly, don't see how the way you choose to play the game has a great relevance to the obligations I should consider myself bound by.  You're going to have to do some more work connecting the dots there.

I think he answered your question -- you asked that he explain what he meant; he explained what he meant.

You don't see how that obligates you -- after all, you say you see RPGs differently from him. You don't feel obligated by his constraints or perspective.

It seems like you're asking him why you should feel some obligation to the fun of your fellow players.

In theory -- your theory -- you shouldn't. Everyone's responsible for their own fun. Any problems, then, are their problems. Not yours.

Nice theory.

Problem is, it breaks down when the theorist gets into "can dish it out but can't take it" territory.

Most people would expect someone with a philosophy like that to meet the standards they hold others too -- in otherwords, *not* to be "peeved" when the folks they play with don't meet their unspoken expectations.

Now, it's true: there are some muy-macho uber-men who stand tall and never get pissed when the people around them don't behave the way they want them to.

But if that person isn't you -- the way you really are -- not who you wish you were -- then having that macho, cold-blooded philosophy is problematic.

I don't know you in real life. I don't know if your philosophy is symmetric or not.  But I can read your posting history here, and in other places.

I've read your reaction when the people you play with don't meet your unspoken, uncommunicated expectations. It's an emotional reaction -- a degree of entitlement that I wouldn't expect from someone espousing only adhereing to formal contracts.

Seems asymetric to me -- and frankly, I think most folks who espouse those kinds of philosophies don't, themselves, live up to the ideals their system imposes on others.

It's probably a better idea for most people to meet the standard they hold other people to; to hold a symmetric philosophy rather than an asymmetric one.

Cheers,
-E.

I'm liking what E just said.

Okay.  Let me get this straight.

You don't know me.  You've never played with me.  You conclude, from the way that I have talked in internet posts, that you know how I play.  And you conclude that I'm a hypocrite.

Is that about right?

Quote from: TonyLBHey Marco ... are you citing all of those as being relevant to your contention about what players owe each other in roleplaying?  Because I, frankly, don't see how the way you choose to play the game has a great relevance to the obligations I should consider myself bound by.  You're going to have to do some more work connecting the dots there.

I can list a whole lot of ways that the way I play chess corresponds with the way I play RPGs, too (competitive, rules-focussed, lots of funny voices, shared fiction about in-game events, etc.) but just listing those doesn't establish relevance either, y'know?

Hmm. I was asked by you explicitly and, perhaps, incredulously to explain why I thought RPG-play was "more like a date than chess." Having gone and told you, getting the "I don't get it post" seems a little surreal.

As to why it might be relevant? Unfortunately this conversation is getting poisoned really fast, which makes it hard to do *anything* productive--but I'll take a shot and see if I can manage to be as clear and unconfrontational as I can.

You've said (here and RPG.net) that you think non-consensual hurting of another person is okay so long as any rules aren't being broken. When I brought up a pretty abysmal implication of that policy (taking advantage of your date) you didn't endorse that.

So somewhere there's a line and it doesn't seem to be based, at all, on an idea about how you should treat other people with regards to their happiness or comfort. Whatever makes you think it's okay to ambush people competitively in a venue that you know a large number of people regard as cooperative, it isn't clear to me how the same argument doesn't apply to the guy on a date who secretly orders double-strength drinks.

Maybe you could clear that up--I'm thinking the thread is already smoking ruins though.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBYou don't know me.  You've never played with me.  You conclude, from the way that I have talked in internet posts, that you know how I play.  And you conclude that I'm a hypocrite.

Well, he did say he was only going on your posts. If your posts are not an accurate reflection of what you really think and feel, that is your fault, not anyone else's.

You have often posted bitching and moaning about how some other players ruin your fun.

Now you say that no-one is responsible for anyone else's fun.

So you are a wuss who can dish it out but can't take it - you can ruin others' fun, but complains when his own fun is ruined. A wuss, and/or a hypocrite.

It could be that this does not at all represent who you are, but this is what your posting has been. "Waa waa, my fun was ruined by other meanie players! They should have helped me have fun! They are responsible for my fun! But me? I'm not responsible for their fun!"

Again, for the third time from me - this may or may not be what you're actually like. Seems like you have friends, and a game group or two - so probably you're a lot more co-operative and friendly and non-wussy in real life. But this is what your posts have brought across. And you wrote those posts.

*shrug*

None of which actually bears on TonyLB's philosophical position. Whether he is personally a wuss or a hypocrite or whatever doesn't matter, doesn't affect the truth or untruth of his proposition "I am not responsible for your fun." If Ted Bundy tells me that one and one is two, I'm not going to say, "well yeah but he's a serial killer, so I won't believe him!" If Gandhi tells me I've turned into a purple elephant, I won't believe him just because he's a nice person.

TonyLB's statement, "I am not responsible for your fun," is both true and untrue. It is untrue in that roleplaying is a social group activity, and cannot work without co-operation towards various goals, and co-operation about various rules and ways of doing things. But it's true in that anyone who actually tells me he's not responsible for my fun, he won't be, because I won't game with him. And people I don't game with aren't responsible for my fun.

"Okay, let's have sex. But I'm not responsible for your having an orgasm."
"You're right, you're not responsible for my having an orgasm, because I won't bonk a selfish person."

Quote from: MarcoHmm. I was asked by you explicitly and, perhaps, incredulously to explain why I thought RPG-play was "more like a date than chess." Having gone and told you, getting the "I don't get it post" seems a little surreal.

Yeah ... I asked you to explain the relevant similarities you saw.  So when you gave a whole laundry-list of similarities, I was a bit at a loss.  Thanks for clearing up where you think the relevance is!

Quote from: MarcoSo somewhere there's a line and it doesn't seem to be based, at all, on an idea about how you should treat other people with regards to their happiness or comfort.

Well, where the line is drawn is certainly something that I think has implications for other people's comfort:  but I don't start and end my thinking about morality by saying "Is this what the person I'm dealing with wants?"  I make the judgment based on what I think is right, not what they want to see happen.

So ... and I gotta say, I am a little appalled that this doesn't go without saying ... sex without informed, mature consent from your partner is wrong.  It's wrong if it makes them unhappy.  It's wrong if it makes them happy.  It's just flat-out wrong, in a way that isn't dependent upon their feelings on the matter.

Likewise, beating someone at chess is not wrong.  It's not wrong if they say "Hey, good game!"  It's not wrong if they flip over the table and storm away in a huff.  It's a "not wrong thing" in a way that isn't dependent upon their feelings on the matter.

I'm pretty much okay, in my life, with doing what I think is right, and not doing what I think is wrong, even if people decide to get pissed off about it.  I've accepted that, while there are ways I can make my actions more palatable to others, their reactions are ultimately beyond my control.

I genuinely don't see that you've made an argument that non-cooperation in roleplaying games is a wrong thing in that sense.  I totally get that it is something that would make you unhappy if somebody did it.  You've made that quite clear.  But that doesn't make it either wrong or right.  Those are your feelings, and you get to be responsible for them.  What I get to be responsible or is the morality of my own actions.

Does anyone remember the scene in the Cable Guy where Jim Carrey punches one guy in the face and steals the ball in order to score? Then he shatters the backboard to display his awesomeness.

He didn't think he was doing anything wrong of course.

EDIT: The best line he uses!

"Hey, Rick! I never made a slam dunk before. Thanks for the boost."

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... and I gotta say, I am a little appalled that this doesn't go without saying ... sex without informed, mature consent from your partner is wrong.  It's wrong if it makes them unhappy.  It's wrong if it makes them happy.  It's just flat-out wrong, in a way that isn't dependent upon their feelings on the matter.

When faced with the guy who just *doesn't* agree with you--who says that when the girl went on the date she was starting the game--that if she wanted to be safe she should've monitored her drinks, paid for her half of the meal, never invited him into her apartment--no matter *what* it *seemed* like, how do you respond?

That it just *is* wrong? In a flat-out, plain and clear fashion? That it's not dependant on anyone's feelings?

What if I say the same thing about covert competitive play in an RPG?

QuoteLikewise, beating someone at chess is not wrong.  It's not wrong if they say "Hey, good game!"  It's not wrong if they flip over the table and storm away in a huff.  It's a "not wrong thing" in a way that isn't dependent upon their feelings on the matter.

I'm pretty much okay, in my life, with doing what I think is right, and not doing what I think is wrong, even if people decide to get pissed off about it.  I've accepted that, while there are ways I can make my actions more palatable to others, their reactions are ultimately beyond my control.

So is the "player" who goes on dates. He knows a lotta people consider him wrong--but he considers their reactions unimportant.

QuoteI genuinely don't see that you've made an argument that non-cooperation in roleplaying games is a wrong thing in that sense.  I totally get that it is something that would make you unhappy if somebody did it.  You've made that quite clear.  But that doesn't make it either wrong or right.  Those are your feelings, and you get to be responsible for them.  What I get to be responsible or is the morality of my own actions.

Consider that *your* example had the non-buying drinks guy making a *mistake*.

Re-write the example where the guy decides that his buds haven't properly protected themselves so he's right to welsch on his turn (he knows they expect it and will be upset by his refusal--and he doesn't care)--and that's the situation I'm addressing.

I think that guy, the player, and the guy who comes to an RPG planning on playing competitively--knowing many people consider the game cooperative (and planning to take advantage of that) are all using the same basic argument.

-Marco