I think Marco, -E, and JimBob have the right of it. In a nutshell...

When you sit down to play a game, you're agreeing implicitly to help each other get something out of it. (Why else would the other person play if they weren't going to get something out of it?) Let's call that "fun", just as a shorthand for what people want.

You can't guarantee someone will have fun, but you can try to live up to their expectations, in terms of what they think, going into the game, will be fun for them. So I take it as given that when someone plays a game, they have expectations, and there's an implicit agreement to try to meet the other person's expectations. Because, again, why else would they be playing with you?

So the problem is that you have entered into a contract, so to speak, but you don't know the precise terms. The basis of the contract, though, is: a mutual agreement to help each other have fun. It follows, then, that you have a responsibility to try to find out what the other person's expectations are. I also think the other person has a responsibility to tell you. If telling what they expect or want will spoil their fun, then as sane mature individuals they must know that they're engaging in a risky proposition. So be it.

But to the extent that the expectations of the other person can be reasonably ascertained, you're bound to try to meet and fulfill them.

This is where cultural elements come into play.

Chess is known to be a competitive game. If you sit down to play chess with someone, you can reasonably expect that both of you will be trying to win. It's possible to have a misunderstanding about this but you can't really be blamed for assuming that your opponent wants you to try to beat them, if they don't say otherwise.

RPGs on the other hand have a great deal of cultural ambiguity. The continual debates over whether it's okay to attack fellow PCs should tell you that the game itself usually doesn't have the answer. But when you sit down to play with someone, the best thing you can do is to simply ask what they expect. The next best is to assume cultural norms. The worst is to deliberately go against the prevailing assumptions and maximize your chance of not meeting the other person(s)' expectations--which, again, are the terms under which they've agreed to play with you.

Note that if you ask, you're only bound by the expectations  people express. If you don't ask, cultural norms apply. Similarly, people are under a greater obligation to express their expectations if they're aware that they deviate from cultural norms, than if they conform. However, if either culture or personal preference then includes an expectation of non-communication, then, again, we're implicitly consenting to a risky activity and have no one to blame but ourselves if we're disappointed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenRPGs on the other hand have a great deal of cultural ambiguity. The continual debates over whether it's okay to attack fellow PCs should tell you that the game itself usually doesn't have the answer. But when you sit down to play with someone, the best thing you can do is to simply ask what they expect.

Elliot, this seems quite sound to me.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe next best is to assume cultural norms. The worst is to deliberately go against the prevailing assumptions and maximize your chance of not meeting the other person(s)' expectations--which, again, are the terms under which they've agreed to play with you.

But this ... I don't see the connection to a clear-cut "next best plan."  There's cultural ambiguity, as you said.  There are no norms.  There may well be a majority, but that's a whole different thing with (to my mind) substantially less implications.

Quote from: MarcoWhen 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?

Yep!

Quote from: MarcoWhat if I say the same thing about covert competitive play in an RPG?

I say "I disagree.  What's your argument for that?"  Isn't that what we've been doing?

Quote from: MarcoRe-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.

Ohhhh, I see.  You're addressing a strawman.  Why are you doing that, rather than engaging in the main discussion?

I'll make an example right in the middle, 'kay?  I go out to a bar, intending to have one drink.  Joe stands up and says "Here, I'll get the first round, then each of you can get one in turn."  I think the right thing to do is to say something like "Oh, hey, count me out of that.  I can only afford one.  Happy to hang out while you guys drink though," or to otherwise make sure that the expressly communicated rules of our evening are rules that I can live with.

Saying "Oh, hey, how about you guys buy me drinks and I buy nothing?" up front is cool too.  You can't blame a guy for trying!  But I don't think anyone's going to go for that

Quote from: TonyLBYep!

I say "I disagree.  What's your argument for that?"  Isn't that what we've been doing?

Your response seems to be "it goes without saying it's wrong"--which means that for reasons you won't say, something is different. But you don't say what they are--so it's not an argument ... which is what this thread is about (in a debate sense).

Does that mean you're stuck on that point?

QuoteOhhhh, I see.  You're addressing a strawman.  Why are you doing that, rather than engaging in the main discussion?

I'm not addressing a strawman--see the bit about being stuck.

QuoteI'll make an example right in the middle, 'kay?  I go out to a bar, intending to have one drink.  Joe stands up and says "Here, I'll get the first round, then each of you can get one in turn."  I think the right thing to do is to say something like "Oh, hey, count me out of that.  I can only afford one.  Happy to hang out while you guys drink though," or to otherwise make sure that the expressly communicated rules of our evening are rules that I can live with.

Saying "Oh, hey, how about you guys buy me drinks and I buy nothing?" up front is cool too.  You can't blame a guy for trying!  But I don't think anyone's going to go for that

The reason there is no strawman is that I'm pretty sure (from talking to you) that you won't be the guy to "go first." You know a lot of people consider RPGs cooprative. The same way that a lot of people don't consider dating a competitive "game."

If you weren't essentially okay with taking advantage of people so long as it meets your moral context you could just come to every table and say "I'm a PvP guy. Everyone good with that?"

I'm pretty sure you won't do that--you'll say there's enough ambiguity (read plausible deniability) that everyone *else* should have to protect themselves from *you*--same as the date "player" guy. After all, if he told his dates that, he'd be giving his whole game away.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoYour response seems to be "it goes without saying it's wrong"--which means that for reasons you won't say, something is different. But you don't say what they are--so it's not an argument ... which is what this thread is about (in a debate sense).

Uh ... it was your response, though.  You chose how to word it.  I was just agreeing "Yes, I think date-rape is wrong, even for people who think it's okay."

If you ... want to get into a debate about that point, I suppose we could, but saying that the wording of the response says something about me when you're the one who wrote it ... odd.

Quote from: MarcoThe reason there is no strawman is that I'm pretty sure (from talking to you) that you won't be the guy to "go first." You know a lot of people consider RPGs cooprative. The same way that a lot of people don't consider dating a competitive "game."

Uh ... okay.  Don't really see what your opinion of my behavior has to do with our discussion, but I'll try to derive something from it.

Let's see:  Are you saying that, in a case where nobody goes first ... nobody says explicitly "Let's play competitive" or "Let's play cooperative," and then later a dispute arises, the person who's playing competitive is wrong for not having explained themselves, but the person who's playing cooperative isn't equally wrong for not having explained themselves?

Or did you just want to express your opinions on what I would do?  I could understand that.  I am an endlessly fascinating topic, after all.

Quote from: TonyLBLet's see:  Are you saying that, in a case where nobody goes first ... nobody says explicitly "Let's play competitive" or "Let's play cooperative," and then later a dispute arises, the person who's playing competitive is wrong for not having explained themselves, but the person who's playing cooperative isn't equally wrong for not having explained themselves?

I would say that. Cooperative play is kind of an established norm.

I play co-operatively, my CN Cleric of War "co-operatively" punched the LG Paladin of Heronius in the face, in an earlier game session. In previous sessions we have co-operatively shoot other PC's in the head, riddled them with bullets from an M-16, and flushed them out of an air lock. All in good fun.

Saying co-operative play is the norm doesn't mean much.

No I mean- what is the way most players expect it's going to be before the game even starts? The cultural norm. I'm saying I think most people default to a cooperative format. Players might do something different, but the unspoken expectation is normally that they won't be attacking each other.

Lets say it's a convention game or people you just met- complete strangers.

Quote from: Abyssal MawLets say it's a convention game or people you just met- complete strangers.

I wouldn't assume anything.  The guy's a complete stranger.  Why should I assume?

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... it was your response, though.  You chose how to word it.  I was just agreeing "Yes, I think date-rape is wrong, even for people who think it's okay."

Here's the example: We're talking about a 'player' (using the common dating-sense of the term) who, in a predatory spirit, takes advantage of his date by using an unexpected (by her) strategem to get her liquored up.

He's not using rophonol or other chemicals. He's not raping her when she's unconscious either. He is, however, *taking advantage of her*. He'll pretend to be a nice guy (her kind of nice) but when she gets really drunk, faster than she expects--because he's doubling her drinks--he'll become really and viciously pushy once she's in a weakned condition.

He is breaking no rule or law and he argues it's okay because she didn't declare her rules before hand (if she did, he'd terminate the date).

Are you okay with that? If not, why not?

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBI wouldn't assume anything.  The guy's a complete stranger.  Why should I assume?

Not assume, but expect. (There is a slightly different connotation.)

And I'm not offering you any excuses or explanations of why this is (honestly, I have my personal beliefs why this is is, but they aren't exactly scientific).

I am offering the observation that people in the mainstream normally sit down and by default expect to act as a team or 'party'. Other roleplaying groups vary, obviously, but I think those are the exception to the norm. I'm offering this purely through unprovable personal observation.

I can also cite that the RPGA has a code of conduct that covers this exact topic for it's Living Campaigns and 'Official Campaigns' played at conventions. Most people on these online forums generally just scoff at the RPGA, but the fact that they have an actual policy on this matter might be of interest.

Quote from: TonyLBI wouldn't assume anything.  The guy's a complete stranger.  Why should I assume?

This gets into the heart of the: that there's enough ambiguity for a legitimate misunderstanding. In hypotheticals, that will always be the case (the competitive player will always be a saint who is led astray by the well-meaning but essentially dull-minded cooperative players. We can set up counter hypotheticals, of course).

Given this alleged massive gray-zone, anyone who doesn't protect themselves with concrete declerations of intent and expectation is, in Tony's opinion, open to anything.

The question is whether real-life matches these hypotheticals to any meaningful degree.

To look at that, we have to dispense with personal experience (too narrow) or hypotheticals (too contrived) and look at the philosophy.

Under the philosophy that you can do whatever you want so long as no rule is being broken, you endorse all kinds of assinine behavior (the date-player guy) and, if you don't like that, you have to start adding some ethical conditions outside of simply "the rules."

Once you start doing that, you are left with legitimate misundertandings which you would rather avoid.* At that point, you would, ethically, announce PvP intent.

-Marco
* Other options do exist (like being a hardcore egoist--basically a jerk).

Quote from: MarcoOnce you start doing that, you are left with legitimate misundertandings which you would rather avoid.* At that point, you would, ethically, announce PvP intent.

Communication is a good thing, yep.  And, likewise, you would be better off announcing cooperative intent, right?

So suppose both players fall down on the job ... nobody announces intent on either side (possibly because they assume it goes without saying, possibly just because it doesn't occur to them).  Both sides could have done better.  In that case, is there any difference between them?

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot assume, but expect. (There is a slightly different connotation.)

Okay.  I wouldn't expect anything either.  Again, the guy's a total stranger.  What benefit do I get from having expectations?

Quote from: TonyLBCommunication is a good thing, yep.  And, likewise, you would be better off announcing cooperative intent, right?

So suppose both players fall down on the job ... nobody announces intent on either side (possibly because they assume it goes without saying, possibly just because it doesn't occur to them).  Both sides could have done better.  In that case, is there any difference between them?

We'll get to this. I want to know if you condemn the date-player or not?

-Marco