Quote from: MarcoWe'll get to this. I want to know if you condemn the date-player or not?

You want to know it again?  Try to keep up with the conversation, 'kay?  Sex without mature, informed consent from your partner is wrong.

Now, suppose two people play a game, and neither one expresses their competitive/cooperative intent.  It turns out they have different intents.  They discover this through the course of play.  They're both in the same jam, for the exact same reasons, right?

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

If you go in not expecting to frag another player or to be fragged?

In general, I believe you will get a better gaming experience.

You still get competition against the GM.
You also get team and camaraderie benefits from being part of  the team.
You get to experience more 'content' because you aren't wasting time fragging each other.
Nobody else at the table will think your'e being an ass.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn general, I believe you will get a better gaming experience.

Better than what?  The game where you say "Hey, let's not frag each other, 'kay?" and everyone says "Yeah"?

Quote from: TonyLBBetter than what?  The game where you say "Hey, let's not frag each other, 'kay?" and everyone says "Yeah"?

(Hopefully you haven't got me confused with anyone else, I'm not involved with the date rape discussion, as funny as that one is).

All I am saying- is that if you sat down at most tables and said that, I suspect that everyone would look at you like you were crazy. I'm saying people in general would pretty much expect not to be fragged at all.
I suspect strongly that the thought (screwing each other over as a point of play) doesn't even occur to most people playing.

I certainly don't think it does any harm to establish it one way or the other. I do think if you sat down and declared that "hey everyone, I like to play as someone who messes with and possibly even attacks other party members." I hypothesize that you'd get some odd looks and some people might even get up and leave or even protest until you left.

Thats why I think of not fragging as the norm.

Quote from: TonyLBYou want to know it again?  Try to keep up with the conversation, 'kay?  Sex without mature, informed consent from your partner is wrong.

I'm glad to see you think so! We agree. Now: would you blame the date-player for his actions? Actually cast blame?

Or would you just say "hey, I think it's wrong but I sure wouldn't blame the guy!"

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI'm glad to see you think so! We agree. Now: would you blame the date-player for his actions? Actually cast blame?

Or would you just say "hey, I think it's wrong but I sure wouldn't blame the guy!"

Marco, you're going to have to go on your deep-sea fishing expedition without me, 'kay?  When and if you get back, and want to talk about roleplaying games, maybe we'll talk.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI certainly don't think it does any harm to establish it one way or the other. I do think if you sat down and declared that "hey everyone, I like to play as someone who messes with and possibly even attacks other party members." I hypothesize that you'd get some odd looks and some people might even get up and leave or even protest until you left.

In practice, when I say stuff like that, people usually say "We'd rather play cooperative."  I usually say "Okay then.  Not my preferred mode, but we'll still have fun," and then we play.  Or, sometimes, people say "Cool!  I wanna play the thief.  Backstabbing rules!" and we play like that.

I don't really have a question about "What do you get from playing cooperative?"  I understand the appeal.  I'm wondering "What do you get from expecting everyone to play cooperative?"  Why not just go in without expectations, and then establish terms by communicating?

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

I think its fair to assume (or expect), that most people you meet, won't attack you out of hand, otherwise you'ld be getting mugged every couple of minutes.

In the same way I think it's fair to assume that characters in a roleplaying game won't attack each other without provocation.

But in both cases I assume if provocation is provided, then a violent response is a possible outcome.

I think it is wrong to assume characters won't attack other characters, especially with the mix of characters often get thrown together into a "party".

The CN Priest and LG paladin is one example, but just looking at D&D I've rarely been in a party that didn't have characters opposed on at least one alignment axis.

Cyberpunk-like games the characters are often driven by self-interest, Call of Cthulhu characters often go insane (and violently so), the Storyteller games most factions have reasons to work with, but still not get along well with others, etc. etc.

I think inter-party conflict at some level is the norm, and that occasionaly that going to lead to violent disagreement perhaps ending with PC's killing other PC's.

I think it is far from the norm, for players to deliberately act out of character to avoid disagreements and conflict.

Quote from: TonyLBMarco, you're going to have to go on your deep-sea fishing expedition without me, 'kay?  When and if you get back, and want to talk about roleplaying games, maybe we'll talk.

Understood--well, I'll tell you where I was going anyway. If you're no longer endlessly fascinated with this, we can play the home game.

If you do condemn the guy then you either acknowledge the right to blame people for their actions based entirely on your own internal principals of right and wrong that are not in the rules. That's where your big question of assigning *blame* comes in. You do *blame* date-guy even when he should be blame-less under your philosophy (as he is within the rules).

He is doing something *you* find distasteful in this case--so you blame him. Perfectly human. When someone else does the same to you, though, they're out of line.

This is inconsistent (you object to being blamed on the same basis that you assign blame). Worse, it is hypocritical (you argue for the ethical/moral integrity of your position but will violate it when it suits you).

If you do not condemn the guy then you are holding a position where you kinda-sorta-disapprove but you just can't get to the blaming section of that disapproval. Someone might *claim* they hold this position--but I would not likely believe them. Especially if they'd spoken out fairly strongly against the act in question previously.

This would be consistent if it were true--but it means you can never really condemn *anything* when the person is "playing by the rules" so you wind up letting all sorts of things in as okay and not condemnable (some kinds of date-rape, racism, etc.) It's weak--and that's if it's true.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoHe is doing something *you* find distasteful in this case--so you blame him. Perfectly human. When someone else does the same to you, though, they're out of line.

Heh... you've got a strange, funny argument there.

I blame rapists because rape is wrong, not because I find it personally distasteful.  I do, but that's not the basis of my blaming them.

I don't think people should blame each other for playing competitively because I don't think it is wrong.  I think it is, in fact, a matter of personal distaste.

Now if you've got some sort of argument for why playing competitive is wrong in that same way ... wrong if people are happy with it, wrong if people are unhappy with it, globally wrong, then let's have it.  Let's hear that argument.

Quote from: TonyLB

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.

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.

"Norms" was a very poor choice of words on my part. I think I can be clearer, so here goes.

If you don't ask someone what they expect, and they don't volunteer that information, then the next best thing is to act on reasonable beliefs. The worst thing to do is to act contrary to what you think the other person expects of you.

If the other person doesn't express their expectations, then they're partly to blame. But that blame is mitigated to the degree that they might reasonably believe you to know their expectations implicitly. Conversely, if you don't meet the other person's unexpressed expectations, you are to blame to the degree that you could reasonably assume them.

For example, sitting down to play chess with a random stranger in the park, and no clock, I think both of us can reasonably expect that we will make our moves at a pace which allows us to finish the game in, oh, half a day at the most. If I deviate either by taking hours for each move, or by pestering my opponent to make a move every five seconds, then I bear a greater share of the responsibility for the misunderstanding.

With RPGs, I see room for a good deal of ambiguity and misunderstanding. What I don't see room for is plausible deniability. You're responsible for making your expectations known, and you aren't let off the hook by the other person's failure to do the same--especially if you can't in good conscience say that that you had no idea based on the overall context. That's like the driver who refuses to swerve for the clumsy motorist making a U-turn. Yes, if the other person is paying attention and driving properly, they should be able to get out of your path in time. But that doesn't absolve you of responsibility if you just plow into him.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWith RPGs, I see room for a good deal of ambiguity and misunderstanding. What I don't see room for is plausible deniability. You're responsible for making your expectations known, and you aren't let off the hook by the other person's failure to do the same--especially if you can't in good conscience say that that you had no idea based on the overall context.

So, all those people who are (say) expecting cooperative play and only adjusting their style when someone explicitly tells them that they want competitive ... are they equally to blame for any misunderstandings that may occur (like some guy stabbing their paladin in the back in order to steal the ring of wishes)?

'cuz I don't think I have a huge beef with the difference between "everyone is equally to blame for the misunderstanding" and "nobody's specifically to blame for the misunderstanding."  Maybe a philosophical one, but not a beef that would impact play.  Seems to me that as long as everyone comes to the moment after the misunderstanding has been recognized on an equal footing, it's all good.

Quote from: TonyLBNow if you've got some sort of argument for why playing competitive is wrong in that same way ... wrong if people are happy with it, wrong if people are unhappy with it, globally wrong, then let's have it.  Let's hear that argument.

I think it's wrong to intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone in a significant way simply because you find it fun--especially if this involves taking advantage of someone or taking advantage of someone's trust.

This is the case for the date-player guy.

This is the case for the covert-competitive guy in RPG-dom.

These are different magnitueds but they are the same basic kind of wrong.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBSo, all those people who are (say) expecting cooperative play and only adjusting their style when someone explicitly tells them that they want competitive ... are they equally to blame for any misunderstandings that may occur (like some guy stabbing their paladin in the back in order to steal the ring of wishes)?

It depends on how reasonable it is for the stabbing dude to assume that backstabbing is "okay" in the game context. Does he really think that's what the other players came for? If he's deliberately closing his eyes to prevailing cultural assumptions against backstabbing, and he's simply assuming, without anything to support it, that these players probably don't hold to those assumptions, then the bulk of the blame lies with the backstabber. You know, pretty much like the 250 lb. dude who goes into a game of touch football and throws a massive block on his 110 lb. neighbor. When I was in middle school, we used to play like that in gym sometimes, and it was cool. If somebody did that to my wife and later tried to hide behind "Nobody said there were limits on blocking", I'd have a hard time not seeing the guy as a psychopath.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  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?

A hypocrite? Goodness me!

Did I say that?!

I see I didn't... wherever did you get the idea I called you a hypocrite?

A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and acts in some inconsistent way. I think you're just asymmetrical -- you hold yourself to one (easy) standard and the rest of the world to a much stricter one. This isn't hypocrtical, unless you walk around saying you hold everyone to the same standard.

Do you?

I mean, I've read your posts -- like about 99% of the human race, you have unstated expectations and feel upset when they're not met. You post to message boards about them.

Clearly you feel that your fellow players have a responsibility to you, even when it's not explicit... but you've stated *here* that you don't feel the same responsibility to them.

I assure you: Objectivists and Anarchists often feel the same way -- entitled to their own selfish behavior but usually not willing to give other people the same benefits (c.f. go try to rob an anarchist. See if he goes crying to the cops

You're in good company, and if you're honest about your behavior, you're not even a hypocrite.

Cheers,
-E.