TheRPGSite

This is a debate thread, for myself and TonyLB.

The topic is "Do players have any specific respsonsibility to one another?", though I'm going to ask Tony to state his position first, so that he can be nice and clear on position (which might be a little at variance with the topic stated).

So, Tony, does a count of twenty posts, total, sound good for you?

Sounds fine, though I certainly don't think that the first "stage-setting" post should count against your total.

My take on the question:  People have intrinsic obligations to each other, which they carry in from society.  Not shooting each other in the face is an obligation.  Even if we're playing Russian Roulette, the fact that it's a game and we're all volunteers does not make it cool.  We're obligated not to kill each other.  These are obligations that people cannot choose to absolve each other from.

There are other obligations which we carry in, and which people can choose to absolve us from.  You'd probably think "Hey, it's not cool to grab someone, throw them to the ground and then try to choke them into unconsciousness," but once you get into martial arts you realize "Hey, there are circumstances in which people can absolve each other of the obligation to avoid that behavior ... between consenting adults in a well-communicated structure, that kind of violence can be damn cool."  These are obligations which exist by default that people can choose to absolve each other from.

And then there are additional obligations that get created in the course of a game.  We agree to play by the rules, for instance.  If you agree to that then lying about what numbers come up on the dice is not cool ... even though, in the larger context of society, nobody gives a rats ass whether you faithfully and honestly report the value on a die.  These are additional obligations which we take on by choice.

Now what obligations fit in which category?  That area gets hairy and opinionated.


H'okay.  That's a lot of yammering to set the stage.  Here's my experience on competition, player-vs.-player conflict, character-vs-character conflict and all that jazz:  I see a lot of people saying that players are obligated to protect the interests of other players.  I see a lot of people saying that an action which reduces the fun of another player is always wrong.

So, where does that come from?  That's what I wonder about.

Is it consciously added by the rules?  Well, some rules, sure.  But not many.  Sure as hell not all.  Unless D&D has changed a whole big bunch since I last played, there's nothing in there that says that you aren't allowed to have your thief backstab the living hell out of that pushy elf in a dark 10'x10' corridor.

Is it a universal obligation which players cannot absolve me from?  Am I a bad and anti-social person for playing a game where people compete and disagree, even if everyone agrees on that game?  Aw hell no.  I can point to an unlimited number of examples (including almost all sports) that work on this model and everyone's cool with it.

Those two are easy to dismiss.  Maybe I've missed something in the arguments for those, but unless you (Levi) want to take it up and champion it, I'm not going to worry about it.

The point that I will ... well ... pointedly disagree with is the position that people usually retreat to when I start knocking down the extremes.  It goes, roughly, "The obligation to treat each other nicely, and to be supportive, is laid upon us by the nature of our being friends.  It is an obligation which we can, as friends, consciously choose to absolve each other from.  Therefore, if you want to play a competitive game, that's cool ... so long as you get everyone's conscious, clearly-communicated sign-off first.  Until you have that sign-off, the obligation still exists, and you have to live by it."  They are saying, essentially, that competition is acceptable but cooperation is the default.

Okay ... I don't think that's a strawman position.  In fact, it's pretty damn strong.  I mean, Levi, you'll have your own position, which may or may not intersect this one.  I don't want to frame your arguments for you.  This is just where I've been reacting off of in past thinking on the subject.

I disagree with the position above.  I do not think that the spectrum and population of roleplaying is so utterly dominated by non-competitive, cooperative play that it forms a default to which I need to be morally bound one way or the other.

Playing the thief, I am not morally obligated to avoid backstabbing the elf.

Playing the elf, I am not morally obligated to be a good sport about the knife in the back.

Until a new obligation is explicitly encoded into the game, anything is equally legitimate.

We can get pissed off at each other without anyone being in the wrong, or having violated our (vague and incomplete) social contract.  That might be a good sign that we should sit down and figure out what the hell sort of game we want to play, so that in future we'll both be on the same page.



Now this is separate from the question of whether violent disagreement and heavy competition can produce "good stuff" for whatever definition of "good stuff."  Do you want to get into that issue as well?

I'll start here; and sure, we can skip that first post of mine.

Quote from: TonyLBI do not think that the spectrum and population of roleplaying is so utterly dominated by non-competitive, cooperative play that it forms a default to which I need to be morally bound one way or the other.

Playing the thief, I am not morally obligated to avoid backstabbing the elf.

Playing the elf, I am not morally obligated to be a good sport about the knife in the back.

Until a new obligation is explicitly encoded into the game, anything is equally legitimate.

Okay.  Here's my position:

I believe that in any roleplaying exercise, game or otherwise, the default model is cooperative (though I'm almost tempted to say collaborative) and a roleplaying game where this is not the case is responsible for finding ways to make it work otherwise.

Further, I believe that the reason that this is so is that a cooperative atmosphere foster creativity.  Collaborative creativity and cooperation are linked; to unlink them requires effort.

D&D, as an example, does not make the effort to 'unlink' those things.  Therefore, since the game expects a degree of collaboration (with distict roles for player and DM, mind, but still a form of collaboration), the default is one of cooperation.

Amber, as the contrary example, also expects a form of collaborative creativity.  But it is explicitly competitive, and does make an effort (a successful one, to my thinking) to seperate things out so that this is possible, in discussion of "who can say what and how".

Cooperation is not a requirement.  But I argue that it is a default, and a strong one, for those reasons.

QuoteNow this is separate from the question of whether violent disagreement and heavy competition can produce "good stuff" for whatever definition of "good stuff."  Do you want to get into that issue as well?

Sure.  Show me your position.

Well, good that you're willing to get into that second thing, because I pretty much have to now. :)

I think that a competitive atmosphere fosters creativity as well.  "Collaboration" I don't really know about ... probably depends upon how you're going to define it.  Are two opposing sports team "collaborating" when, through their determined efforts against each other, they create a thrilling nail-biter of a game?  Dunno.

Setting aside the "collaboration" thing:  If your goal is to get together and combine the inputs of many people in order to create an end product of an engaging and entertaining game then I believe that competition is just as well suited for that goal as cooperation is.

I guess I don't get what you mean when you say that collaboration and cooperation are "linked."  Do you think that cooperation is inherently better suited for that goal?  Or is there a goal to collaboration that is above and beyond combining your creativity in order to create an engaging and entertaining game?  Or ... something else?

Quote from: TonyLBI guess I don't get what you mean when you say that collaboration and cooperation are "linked."  Do you think that cooperation is inherently better suited for that goal?  Or is there a goal to collaboration that is above and beyond combining your creativity in order to create an engaging and entertaining game?  Or ... something else?

Take a look at a improv theatre, which is certainly a form of roleplaying, where the rule of improv is "yes, and..." - that's enforced cooperation.  And it necessarily leads to creative output; anything you do must be accepted and brought into the whole, somehow.  It is collaborative because of that "And" - people will build off of the ideas that the others throw out there.  

(Note, now, I'm not arguing that this specific rule is a good one for RPGs - improv has the active, powerful control of "If you make up something crappy, the audience will make sure you know it.)

Collaboration in an RPG, to my mind, comes in the form of an amalgam; someone tosses something out there, and people build on it because it is generally agreed that this, usually with a leader thrown in, is the basic method by which a group creates things.

Now, it's certainly possible to invert that, in a competitive game - someone tosses something out there, and you build on it because that's how you work towards winning under the rules.

But for that to work, I think, you need those rules.  

And you need a group willing to step off from that basic point, a group convinced that what you're doing will be fun.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNow, it's certainly possible to invert that, in a competitive game - someone tosses something out there, and you build on it because that's how you work towards winning under the rules.

Just to get my terms straight ... is that "collaboration" as you've been discussing it?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut for that to work, I think, you need those rules.

Sure, I'll buy that.

In order for cooperative roleplaying to work, you need the rules for that, too.  You cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBJust to get my terms straight ... is that "collaboration" as you've been discussing it?

As I mean it, yes.

Quote from: TonyLBIn order for cooperative roleplaying to work, you need the rules for that, too.  You cool with that?

You need a consensus, yes.

But I'm arguing that the consensus needed for coopoerative roleplaying is intuitive; for the most part, it already exists.  

I've sat down with a pack of kids (an average age of seven years old), described characters to them, and we just made shit up, back and forth, with them talking about the actions of those characters and me talking about the world.  

In this case, their acceptance of my basic leadership supplied all the rules needs that existed.

I think that this kind of cooperative creativity, applying to all sorts of stuff,  is almost built-in, whether it's cultural, standard human gear, or whatever it is.

Okay.  I'll buy that too.  Consensus on some level is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.

You know there's a sting, right?

The skills required to turn consensus into something that consistently produces an engaging, entertaining story are not very easy.  They're insanely difficult.  I can go to any place where people discuss their play and find you a dozen instances of folks asking for theory and craft that concentrates on exactly those issues:  "How do I deal with someone who wants to hog the spotlight?"  "How do I get past disagreement about X, Y or Z?"  "Steve says he's enjoying the game, but I get the sense that he's actually feeling crowded and stressed, what can I do?" and so on and so on.

So now, the inevitable comparison:  Competition on some leve is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.  You see kids get together and form a consensus naturally.  That's cool.  I see it too.  I also see kids come together and very naturally get competitive.  Both capabilities are natural.

As you've said, there are skills required to turn competition into something that consistently produces an engaging, entertaining story.  They are not as intuitive as all that.  But I came into this debate not yet convinced that they're any harder than the skills of consensus.  And while I'm open to being convinced, I haven't seen an argument from you yet that compares the two.  So far we've had "Basic consensus is easy, advanced competition is hard," which (while true) doesn't really convince me of much in any apples-to-apples way.

In fact, I'll go beyond that.  Assume people who are completely unfamiliar with roleplaying.  They have no training, as yet, in the skills that support either the cooperative or the competitive model of play.  Here's my claim:  Apples-to-apples, for the same basic level of engagement and entertainment, it is easier to train someone to play competitively than it is to train them to play cooperatively.  It is an easier skill-set.  I don't have a first principles argument for that, but it accords with my experience in training non-gamers.  Take that for what it's worth.


Now, because we're trying to pack a lot into twenty posts, I'm going to take the liberty of predicting a response that seems (to me) pretty likely.  "But Tony!  You're flying in the face of actual experience!  Many people find it hugely easier to play cooperative games than competitive.  Competitive games throw them for an awful loop."

Absolutely.  There's no denying that, you can observe it anywhere.  My argument is that many people have already absorbed the skills of forming consensus in a game to the point where they no longer require conscious attention.  That's great.  But, predictably, it makes them think of games that are cooperative as easy, and games that are competitive as hard.

And y'know what?  There are plenty of people who have internalized the rules of competitive games, and who find it hard to shift to a cooperative paradigm.  I meet them all the time.  You have perhaps heard of the creatures called the "munchkin" and the "power-gamer."  They're not uncommon and they are not inherently wrong (although often people on both sides of the divide have crummy social skills and do stupid things that I find repellant ... they can certainly be wrong and stupid for other related reasons).

Now, obviously, I'm biased (or perhaps merely opinionated) towards a certain way of perceiving these things.  But man, I see these two sides as being more symmetrical than not.  The folks who function easily in a cooperative paradigm would really rather believe that cooperation is the default.  The folks who function easily in a competitive paradigm would really rather believe that competition is the default.  Can you blame either side?

But since both of them are heavily represented in the hobby, both of them comprise a full and robust set of skills, and both of them can lead with equal ease to quality gaming, I don't see what difference there is between them that makes an argument that one should be the moral standard, and one should be an aberration only permitted under special circumstances.  To my mind they're both equally valid until your individual group comes down on one side or the other and sets the terms for your game.

Quote from: TonyLBSo now, the inevitable comparison:  Competition on some leve is very easy for folks.  It's built into the human psyche.  You see kids get together and form a consensus naturally.  That's cool.  I see it too.  I also see kids come together and very naturally get competitive.  Both capabilities are natural.

When they get competitive, are they creating fiction?

Not "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.

RPGs are require the participants to create fiction.  Not necessarily story, 'good' or otherwise.  But fiction.  I don't see groups naturally creating fiction competitively anywhere.  I do see them creating it collaboratively.

Can you point to any form of fairly spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction?

Quote from: TonyLBApples-to-apples, for the same basic level of engagement and entertainment, it is easier to train someone to play competitively than it is to train them to play cooperatively.  It is an easier skill-set.  I don't have a first principles argument for that, but it accords with my experience in training non-gamers.  Take that for what it's worth.

I can accept that it's easier - but I will ask this: In this training, how much actual roleplay is occurring, and how "deep" of a kind are we talking about?

For my puposes, "really, ridiculously deep" roleplay would be like the strange forms of method acting, where you try to 'become' your character, starve yourelf for a role, odd stuff like that.

The other extreme being "shallow", is more like where a kid shouts the 'lines' of the toy that they're holding in-hand on the other.

(Those are crappy terms, but I think they're good enough for this discussion.  If we want to talk more about this later, we might want better ones).

Quotemoral standard

I don't think of this as a moral standard.  Just as a default-in-fact.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCan you point to any form of fairly spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction?

This is where, were we doing this face to face, we'd have a long painful silence while I stared at you like you were from another planet.  We may have come to a fundamental divide in our experience that explains the fundamental divide in our derived philosophies.

Yes, I see spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction all the time.  "I'm a shark, and I'm going to eat you up!"  "Oh yeah, well this couch is a pirate ship, and sharks have to stay in the water!  Now I'm shooting cannon at you!  BOOM!  BOOM!"  "I'm eating a hole in your boat!"  "Oh no!  My boat is sinking!  Daddy, save me!"  "I'm eating you up!  Yum yum yum!"  "You win!  Now I'm gonna be the shark!"  "Eeek!  A shark!"

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI can accept that it's easier - but I will ask this: In this training, how much actual roleplay is occurring, and how "deep" of a kind are we talking about?

Well, I had a mother and daughter ask me to explain roleplaying to them ... they were passing by a convention, and wanted to know what all the hoo-hah was about.  Rather than give them a boring half-hour lecture about generalities I just ran my demo for them.  Within ten minutes (this is not a joke, my ten minute demo is timed and consistent) the mother was cackling with villainous glee over her daughter-hero's failure to stop the necro-bomb that was about to destroy Milennium City, while the daughter was doing the whole Kirby thing, gritting her teeth and hissing "Can't ... fail ... now ... millions in the balance!"

This is pretty much par for the course introducing new gamers to competitive gaming (although the convention context compressed the time-scale and makes a nice story).  So ... yeah.  My answer here is "pretty damn deep."  Let me reiterate:  Competitive play fosters creativity.  I'm not just saying that.  I'm serious about it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't think of this as a moral standard.  Just as a default-in-fact.

I think (for all the reasons I outlined in my first post) that claiming that something is the default is making a claim that it is a moral standard.  If you're not making that claim (not claiming, in short, that there is an obligation to play cooperative unless you've gotten permission to play competitive) then why are we even talking about the default?

Seriously ... I'm halfway through my posts.  I don't want to waste them debating something that you don't think is important to the question at hand.  Give me a hand up here:  What's the important thing that makes you feel that we're obligated to be cooperative?  If "cooperation as default" isn't what gets you excited then let's dump that and talk about the stuff that does.

p.s.  This is a cool talk!  I'm glad we're doing this.

Quote from: TonyLBThis is where, were we doing this face to face, we'd have a long painful silence while I stared at you like you were from another planet.  We may have come to a fundamental divide in our experience that explains the fundamental divide in our derived philosophies.

Yes, I see spontaneous, common, competitive action that creates fiction all the time.  "I'm a shark, and I'm going to eat you up!"  "Oh yeah, well this couch is a pirate ship, and sharks have to stay in the water!  Now I'm shooting cannon at you!  BOOM!  BOOM!"  "I'm eating a hole in your boat!"  "Oh no!  My boat is sinking!  Daddy, save me!"  "I'm eating you up!  Yum yum yum!"  "You win!  Now I'm gonna be the shark!"  "Eeek!  A shark!"

Huh.

Now, I could spend time playing dumb semantic games for the sake of debate.  I think I'll skip those, and just say:

Yeah, that looks competitive, though it's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.  It also looks collaborative, to me, in the sense of "building on what the other person is saying".

Weird.

I'm thinking that it's more complicated than we've been pretending, here, but those complications are of a specific sort that I can't actually explain.  Know what I mean?

Quote from: TonyLBI think (for all the reasons I outlined in my first post) that claiming that something is the default is making a claim that it is a moral standard.

Is 'being polite' a moral standard?  

I mean, I consider it valuable, but not a question of morality.

Quote from: TonyLBp.s.  This is a cool talk!  I'm glad we're doing this.

Yah, very much.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYeah, that looks competitive, though it's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.  It also looks collaborative, to me, in the sense of "building on what the other person is saying".

Weird.

I'm thinking that it's more complicated than we've been pretending, here, but those complications are of a specific sort that I can't actually explain.  Know what I mean?

Well, I don't know for sure what you mean, but I think I know how you feel, if that means anything.

Yeah, I think it's more complex than "Should you play competitive or play cooperative?"  I'm going to try to dig into that complexity a little.  If I don't return, send girl scouts to the rescue.  At least then I'll have cookies.

Cooperation and competition are polar opposites, like love and hate.  However, also like love and hate, they are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both operating at the same time.

Indeed, competition seems to require at least rudimentary cooperation.  You can't get two baseball teams together to play unless they can agree on the field they're playing on.  And you certainly can't get two teams together to play until they can agree on what sport they're playing.

That's why the "collaboration" word grabbed my interest, earlier in this thread.  It sounded to me like that stuff that any group must do in order to have a game go off (agree on rules, pick a venue, build on the past of the game to create the future).  The question of how/whether that is inherently linked to other "cooperative" traits (working together as a team, not taking advantage of weakness, not benefitting yourself at the expense of others, etc.) seems pretty central.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIs 'being polite' a moral standard?  

I mean, I consider it valuable, but not a question of morality.

I don't know where you're going with this, so I'll just answer.  No, there is no moral obligation to be polite.


Side note:  I am captivated by the things hiding behind this quote:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsenit's not what I normally think of as "competitive" when I use the word.

Can we have a separate little track ... non-debating, purely informative, where you tell me what you normally think of when you use the word?  I don't want to argue about it, I just honestly want to know.

Quote from: TonyLBCooperation and competition are polar opposites, like love and hate.  However, also like love and hate, they are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both operating at the same time.

Agreed.

Quote from: TonyLBIndeed, competition seems to require at least rudimentary cooperation.  You can't get two baseball teams together to play unless they can agree on the field they're playing on.  And you certainly can't get two teams together to play until they can agree on what sport they're playing.

I think I object to the word 'rudimentary' there.  Real, enjoyable competition occurs after cooperative elements have been decided and internalized.  That's some pretty complicated shit, to my way of thinking, even if it does occur pretty naturally in many cases.

But, otherwise, yeah.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's why the "collaboration" word grabbed my interest, earlier in this thread.  It sounded to me like that stuff that any group must do in order to have a game go off (agree on rules, pick a venue, build on the past of the game to create the future).  The question of how/whether that is inherently linked to other "cooperative" traits (working together as a team, not taking advantage of weakness, not benefitting yourself at the expense of others, etc.) seems pretty central.

1. You must cooperate to collaborate.

2. You must collaborate to create things in play.

3. Neither of those first two neccessarily denies competition.

Yes?  No?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know where you're going with this, so I'll just answer.  No, there is no moral obligation to be polite.

Right.  I think of cooperative play the same way.  It's not a moral obligiation, but it is a social lubricant.  If you discard it, you get a significant chunk of responsibility for what happens next.

Quote from: TonyLBSide note:  I am captivated by the things hiding behind this quote:Can we have a separate little track ... non-debating, purely informative, where you tell me what you normally think of when you use the word?  I don't want to argue about it, I just honestly want to know.

To me, normally, when I use competitive, I mean one side wins, one side loses, though there can be reversals along the way, and often where it is accepted that complete victory or loss ends play.  The play that you described doesn't seem to have any significant "loss" involved.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI think I object to the word 'rudimentary' there.  Real, enjoyable competition occurs after cooperative elements have been decided and internalized.  That's some pretty complicated shit, to my way of thinking, even if it does occur pretty naturally in many cases.

No, sorry.  I can't go there with you.  The addition of that little "real, enjoyable" tag poisons the whole paragraph for me, in terms of fostering any sort of agreement or mutual understanding.  If you can say the same paragraph again without trying to slice off some types of competition as "real" and some types of competition as "false," that would make it easier for me.

I don't know what you hear when I say "rudimentary."  It was a crummy choice of words on my part, and I apologize for having snarled the conversation with it.  Anyway, here's what I'm talking about.  In order to make competition happen, people need to be able to:

• Choose a set of rules and play by them
• Manage the logistics of getting together as a group
• ... and that's pretty much it.

That actually does strike me as pretty simple stuff, compared to the much broader panoply of skills that I've seen in the pursuit of cooperation.  I'd be interested to hear the "complicated shit" (hey man, your words, not mine!) that you're talking about, and whether it's more than the above.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen1. You must cooperate to collaborate.

2. You must collaborate to create things in play.

3. Neither of those first two neccessarily denies competition.

In all seriousness, these words are no longer communicating anything meaningful to me.  I don't know what you mean by them, and so I'm confronted with a huge Heisenberg smear of things you might be saying, some of which I'm fine with and some of which I'm not.

In #1, for instance, you might be saying "In order to build upon each other's contributions you need to recognize and validate those contributions (in at least some cases)."  I don't find that objectionable.

But you might also be saying "In order for people to participate in the same activity at all, they must be constantly considerate of each other's feelings, and work together to maximize the enjoyment of everyone, even at the detriment of their own enjoyment."

Those are both legitimate unpackings of "In order to collaborate you must cooperate."  I can't agree with the sentence as it stands.  Nor can I disagree with it.  I don't have enough information.

If you can unpack it ... actually say it in substantially more words ... I might be able to answer your "Yes?  No?" question.

Here's an unpacking of my own:  "A group can act together in a structured way that reliably achieves fun, entertaining, engaging play without anyone ever acting in a way that does not optimally serve their own self-interest."

If I pack that down, I might say it as "Collaboration doesn't require cooperation," but I think the unpacked version does a better job of communicating.  What do you think?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenRight.  I think of cooperative play the same way.  It's not a moral obligiation, but it is a social lubricant.  If you discard it, you get a significant chunk of responsibility for what happens next.

Okay, let's follow this up and see where it leads.  Can I trade in this responsibility for spectacular prizes and a Caribbean get-away?  What are the long-term effects of the chunk of responsibility?  If I am holding this chunk of responsibility then am I obligated to find a solution if what happens next is unpleasant?  For example:  If Joe says "Hey, I don't like that!" am I not allowed to say "Tough noogies!" and move on, because of my responsibility?

Am I afforded less freedom to advocate my own personal agenda in the face of other people who want something different?  For example:  If Joe says "Okay, that was stupid.  Let's say that never happened," and I say "Uh ... no.  We're proceeding with play now," does Joe get his way because I have a responsibility?

Quote from: TonyLBAnyway, here's what I'm talking about.  In order to make competition happen, people need to be able to:

• Choose a set of rules and play by them
• Manage the logistics of getting together as a group
• ... and that's pretty much it.

That actually does strike me as pretty simple stuff, compared to the much broader panoply of skills that I've seen in the pursuit of cooperation.  I'd be interested to hear the "complicated shit" (hey man, your words, not mine!) that you're talking about, and whether it's more than the above.

That first one, in RPG terms, might well be listed as "create a set of rules and play by them".  How many RPGs actually explicity include competitive play?

Amber, Capes...

Quote from: TonyLBIn #1, for instance, you might be saying "In order to build upon each other's contributions you need to recognize and validate those contributions (in at least some cases)."  I don't find that objectionable.

Yep.  That's the stuff.

Quote from: TonyLBHere's an unpacking of my own:  "A group can act together in a structured way that reliably achieves fun, entertaining, engaging play without anyone ever acting in a way that does not optimally serve their own self-interest."

Can.  But they will always achieve a specific variety of play.  One that most people currently go to other kinds of games to get.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, let's follow this up and see where it leads.  Can I trade in this responsibility for spectacular prizes and a Caribbean get-away?  What are the long-term effects of the chunk of responsibility?  If I am holding this chunk of responsibility then am I obligated to find a solution if what happens next is unpleasant?  For example:  If Joe says "Hey, I don't like that!" am I not allowed to say "Tough noogies!" and move on, because of my responsibility?

Am I afforded less freedom to advocate my own personal agenda in the face of other people who want something different?  For example:  If Joe says "Okay, that was stupid.  Let's say that never happened," and I say "Uh ... no.  We're proceeding with play now," does Joe get his way because I have a responsibility?

You do something, and it makes Joe mad.  You and Joe now need to solve the problem.  You and Joe are responsible for the problem, together.  

If the problem came about because you did something that the majority of the group would find objectionable, then it becomes even tricker, because what needs to be weighed equates out to "how much do you need this thing to have a good game?" versus "How much does it ruin everyone else's fun?"

If the answer is "You don't really need this, and it pisses off the group a whole lot", then it's time for you to drop it.  If the reverse is true, then the group needs to let it go.  

...Or you can all bury it, pretend it isn't there, and let it fuck up the game for all time.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat first one, in RPG terms, might well be listed as "create a set of rules and play by them".  How many RPGs actually explicity include competitive play?

Amber, Capes...

D&D.

And I'm not even talking about the hugely common intra-party fighting.  I'm talking about the bigger elephant in the room.  I'm talking about the DM.

That's a competitive role, and always has been.  People bring various levels of sportsmanship to it, and that is cooperation alongside the competition, but the mark of a good DM is that he provides adversity.  He doesn't do that by working side by side with the players to make their characters happy in the simplest possible way.  He does it by trying to do things to them that they'd rather not see happen.  He does it by trying to beat them.

Structured competition is explicitly present in all traditional RPGs.

How would you achieve adversity (the sine qua non of an engaging story) without it?  I mean ... you can.  I can give you systems that are 100% non-competitive, and which still provide adversity, but I don't think you'll get there by just blithely trusting your intuition.  Do you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou do something, and it makes Joe mad.  You and Joe now need to solve the problem.  You and Joe are responsible for the problem, together.

Here's another viewpoint:  I do something, within my rights.  Joe gets pissed off.  I haven't "made" him do anything.  He's a big boy, he's got emotions, he gets pissed off and that's his doing.  That's also Joe's problem, and he can deal with it in any manner that pleases him, from accepting responsibility for his own emotions and dealing with them to retaliating in ways that (in turn) piss me off.

I am not obligated to be Joe's rescuer, just because his feelings are hurt.  I don't have to fix his emotions.  I can't fix his emotions.  They're his.  He can get pissed at me because I chose to roll my d20 left-handed rather than right-, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

What I am obligated to do is to be a responsible and mature adult myself, and to live up to the obligations that make our group activity work.  So, honestly, I'm interested in what you conceive my obligations to be a whole hell of a lot more than I am interested in what Joe may or may not get pissed off about.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's a competitive role, and always has been.  People bring various levels of sportsmanship to it, and that is cooperation alongside the competition, but the mark of a good DM is that he provides adversity.  He doesn't do that by working side by side with the players to make their characters happy in the simplest possible way.  He does it by trying to do things to them that they'd rather not see happen.  He does it by trying to beat them.

Structured competition is explicitly present in all traditional RPGs.

Again, I think you're using "competition" differently than I am.  To me, a competitor has a side, and wants their side to win.

A DM very explicitly isn't supposed to be out to beat the players, by the books.  They are out to provide challenge.  

Quote from: TonyLBWhat I am obligated to do is to be a responsible and mature adult myself, and to live up to the obligations that make our group activity work.  So, honestly, I'm interested in what you conceive my obligations to be a whole hell of a lot more than I am interested in what Joe may or may not get pissed off about.

I concieve your obligation to be to take an equal share of responsibility for things you do that bother you at the table, or which bother you.

If Joe gets pissed because you did something, then it's not Joe's problem.  It's yours and his both.  If you think that Joe's a dipshit for getting mad over it, and refuse to meet him halfway and discuss it seriously, then your obligation is to not play with Joe, rather than treating his problem as invalid.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAgain, I think you're using "competition" differently than I am.  To me, a competitor has a side, and wants their side to win.

Okay.  Fair enough.  Not my definition, but I see what you're saying.

Honestly, I think that the words aren't doing us a damn bit of good.  "Competitive," "Cooperative" ... they're just acting as screens upon which we project our own misconceptions of what the other person is trying to say.

I wish I could have convinced you to talk more about what you mean by cooperation ... to unpack it more.  Unfortunately, the discussion didn't go that way, and now we're nearing our denouement.  I'm not, really not, going to launch into a unilateral attempt to clarify the semantics at this point.  I'm just going to say "These terms appear to be conspiring to help us talk past each other, and I'm probably going to avoid them (where possible) in future for that very reason."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf Joe gets pissed because you did something, then it's not Joe's problem.  It's yours and his both.  If you think that Joe's a dipshit for getting mad over it, and refuse to meet him halfway and discuss it seriously, then your obligation is to not play with Joe, rather than treating his problem as invalid.

Wow ... this is a gigantic straw-man.  I don't even think you get that it's a gigantic straw-man, which is really creepin' me out a bit.

You're presenting two extremes here:

• (A) I concern myself intimately with Joe's emotional state, and make myself an equal partner with him in the maintenance of it.  We live, in short, inside each other's heads in some very real ways.
  
• (B) I decide that Joe is a dipshit, and I withdraw all respect and consideration from him.

The reason your statement above is a straw-man is that when I said "No, I don't advocate A," I did not therefore imply "Yes, I do advocate B."  What I advocate is exploring the vast middle ground between these two extremes.

In order to say "I don't feel obliged to fix Joe's concerns," I do not have to say "Joe is a bad person who is no longer my friend."  I can (and routinely do) say "Joe's a good guy, and a friend, but I'm not going to help him out with this."

Acting as if that middle ground doesn't exist is not terribly healthy.  We're talking, I think, about Geek Social Fallacy #3 (http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) here:  Friendship Above All.  And, I think, you're already advancing it to the pathological point of a friendship-test: If I do not act to make Joe happy when he gets mad at me then it proves that I'm not his friend, because Friendship is Above All, so if I were his friend I would do what needed doing in order to make him happy.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Fair enough.  Not my definition, but I see what you're saying.

Honestly, I think that the words aren't doing us a damn bit of good.  "Competitive," "Cooperative" ... they're just acting as screens upon which we project our own misconceptions of what the other person is trying to say.

I wish I could have convinced you to talk more about what you mean by cooperation ... to unpack it more.  Unfortunately, the discussion didn't go that way, and now we're nearing our denouement.  I'm not, really not, going to launch into a unilateral attempt to clarify the semantics at this point.  I'm just going to say "These terms appear to be conspiring to help us talk past each other, and I'm probably going to avoid them (where possible) in future for that very reason."

It is a bit late in the thread to get to that.  But there's no reason we can't follow this up with an open thread where everyone can join us, and just play with it freely.

I'm thinking of this thread, more and more, as a way of digging at the guts of this stuff; after we dig, and see what we find, maybe we can build.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... this is a gigantic straw-man.  I don't even think you get that it's a gigantic straw-man, which is really creepin' me out a bit.

*Snip*

You're pushing what I said a fair bit further than I meant it, and it may be my fault for being unclear, so I'll clarify that a whole lot more.

Let's say that, sitting at the table, Joe expresses that he as a player does not like what you are doing and that it interferes with his ability to enjoy the game.

In order to solve that problem, you must treat his beef as legitimate.  If you don't treat it that way, you can either treat it as non-legit, or refuse to address it at all.

If you chose to treat his beef as not legitimate, you're basically saying "I'm right, and you're wrong" right out the starting gate, which does not lead to any solution unless he buries the problem.

If you refuse to address it at all, there is no solution left for him but to bury the problem.

Buried problems ruin games.  Regularly.

So, when someone present as problem that has to do with your play, your resposibility, your obligation, is to first treat it as a legitimate problem, and then work to solve it.  Their responsibility is to to treat your play as equally legitimate, and work to solve that.

Make more sense to you?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt is a bit late in the thread to get to that.  But there's no reason we can't follow this up with an open thread where everyone can join us, and just play with it freely.

That sounds fun.  I'll do my closing post, and you can do yours, and we can take things to some other mode.

Heh.  I will admit that I predict I will be dog-piled pretty heavily in a popular arena, but that's cool too.  I can take it :)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIn order to solve that problem, you must treat his beef as legitimate.

Sure.  I'll buy that.  But it doesn't follow that I am, in fact, obligated to treat his beef as legitimate.  I have to do it in order to make Joe happy in the game.  But sometimes I'm fine with not making Joe happy in the game.

By the way, I find the whole "solve the problem" thing a wonderful, telling, common way of phrasing this.  "Two guys are passionately disagreeing!  In order to solve that problem we'll have to do X, Y and Z."  It assumes that disagreement is always a problem.  It assumes that people can only be working at cross-purposes if there is something deeply wrong.  It assumes that the healthy state of affairs is for everyone to be working for the same goal, and figuring out what to do by consensus.

When you assume that disagreement must be a problem you are, in fact, assuming your conclusion:  The basis of your argument only makes sense if you assume that cooperation is the only healthy interaction.

Y'know what?  I'm not going to cede that point to you.  Not a big surprise, right?

Now ... have I viewed your beef as legitimate?  No, I have not.  But then again, I haven't ignored you, and I haven't judged you "right out of the starting gate" either.  I've heard you out and I remain unconvinced.

Does that mean that we'll continue to disagree?  Yes, that's what it means.  The fact that we disagree, frankly, doesn't bother me in the least.  It seems part and parcel of a good, healthy environment for discussion.

Does this disagreement mean that we have a problem?  I really don't think so.  But if you were (hypothetically) coming to a point where my unwillingness to agree with you made you not want to talk with me any more ... I would place that firmly in the category of "Levi's problems" and leave you to solve it (or not solve it) on your own.

Is that level of maturity, which we reliably achieve on various fora, beyond what a gaming group can achieve face to face?  >shrug<  It's not beyond my gaming group.  Your mileage may vary.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBuried problems ruin games.  Regularly.

I expect they do.  I would expect, in fact, that even buried disagreements are enough to torpedo a game.  That's a damn fine reason not to bury them.  And that, in turn, is a damn fine reason to get comfortable with disagreement.  Disagreement isn't a problem until you make it one.


This being my tenth post, I feel like I should do some grand summing up thing ... but, honestly, we seem to have come full circle, and I don't know what to say beyond what's above.

Except, of course, to express my gratitude to Levi for a spectacular and fun conversation.  We don't agree, but I sure do get a lot out of our disagreements!  Let's do this again some time real soon.

This is, in many ways, what I think we've dug out:

In an RPG, or any other effort that strives to create something entertaining and valuable, given and very specific values of competition, which we've talked about here, are positive.

The GM's challenge-creation is such a form of competition.  Creative 'one-upmanship' can be, as well.  There are many other potential and actual  forms.

There is always the chance for things to go wrong in an RPG that include overtly competitive elements - but these things can be controlled by many of the same things we use to keep cooperative play from turning into "everybody gets everything they want!" - by clear agreement, rules of play, group effort, strong leadership, in whatever combination.

Most current, traditional RPGs tend to use (or at least, to acknowledge) limited, very specific forms of competition.  Among other things, the idea of an RPG as a game that you can win isn't new, but it is under-explored.

What this makes me consider is that in order to get a better grip on this kind of thing - in order to find new ways to use competition and to understand them - we need to look more at actual play, find out when it drives play and when it doesn't, and condense that down, whether into bits of "common sense" that likely will only be 'common' to some, into potential game rules, whatever.

-------------

As to the basic topic of "Player responsibilities", I don't think we've really covered any new ground.  Basically, we've just thrown more emphasis on groups acting like grown-ups, and shown that there's more than one way to do that (which might be a slight step forward from the mental trap of one-true-ways).

-------------

Many thanks, Tony.  That was fun.  I'll be thinking on this for a bit, but if anyone wants to open up a thread for general participation, I'll be in there, too.

And dear powers-that-is, a thread lock would be appreciated.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd dear powers-that-is, a thread lock would be appreciated.

I will lock it and keep it stickied (for a little while) if that's what you guys would prefer (though obviously it won't stay stickied forever). But I was thinking that instead we could open this same thread up for comments now that you two are done?

It might be easier for people to respond to specific points of yours if they can quote your text directly, etc.

But let me know what you both would prefer, and I'll bow to your choices.

RPGPundit

That totally works for me.  It's a change of mode ("Levi and me" to "Public discussion") either way, and I agree that it's a lot easier for people to continue from where we were.

Yup.

Okay, then - thread open.  Comment away, folks.

There are so many misconceptions in this thread I don't know where to start. So, some random picks.

A "disagreement" is not a "problem." Only a conflict-averse wuss would think so - granted, there are many conflict-averse wusses in the world. A disagreement is a disagreement, a problem is a problem. Each may cause the other, or just sit there by itself.

Quote from: TonyLBThe basis of your argument only makes sense if you assume that cooperation is the only healthy interaction.

Co-operation is the only healthy interaction - co-operation towards a particular end goal. Doesn't mean there'll be co-operation for all the little goals along the way. You can co-operate towards an end, yet still compete with the means.

   First Example
"We are going to co-operate to try to have fun roleplaying."
"I don't want to."
Not really any way to resolve those differences. Different ends.

Second Example
"We are going to co-operate to try to have fun roleplaying, and we're going to do that by having a dungeon crawl."
"I want to have fun roleplaying, but I want to do it by talking to people in the inn near the dungeon."
There's a chance they can find a middle ground there, and co-operate.

You can fight about the exact means, so long as you're co-operating towards the ends. For example, two football teams on a field usually co-operate towards the end of having a fair game. Each follows the rules, tosses the ball to the other guys when there's a turnover, etc. But they're still competing with each-other along the way.

Now, "do players have any specific responsibility to each-other?" Fuck, yes! Players have the responsibility to help one another have fun. That means stuff like: shower in the 24 hours before the game, show up on time, make sure you have with you your character sheet and anything else needed for play, tell people honestly what sort of game you enjoy, encourage the quiet guy to speak up, share your munchies, don't rain on anyone's parade, be a cheerleader for your fellow players and GM, telling them when they've done well, don't let thegame get bogged down in pointless details (.45 cal vs 9mm, etc)... mate, there's all sorts of stuff.

When we engage in a group social activity, we are responsible for one another's fun. If you can't handle that, sit at home alone and play Diablo instead.

Quote from: JimBobOzCo-operation is the only healthy interaction - co-operation towards a particular end goal. Doesn't mean there'll be co-operation for all the little goals along the way. You can co-operate towards an end, yet still compete with the means.

So when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen we engage in a group social activity, we are responsible for one another's fun. If you can't handle that, sit at home alone and play Diablo instead.

No thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?

No, 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.

Consider for example some engineers laying a bridge. There are two work teams. The first team competes with the second to lay their side of the bridge first. Though they are competing in regards to the means, they are co-operating in regards to the ends - both teams want the bridge to be finished and sound.

Quote from: TonyLBNo thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

No, that makes you a silly bugger who has no clue what "co-operation" really is. :p

When you go out to the pub, do you each buy your own drinks individually, or do you buy a round, then they buy a round, etc? If you go up to the bar and buy a round for your mates, then they take turns doing the same for you, it's financially the same as if you'd bought all your own drinks yourself - but buying rounds for one another is the co-operative way to do things.

When you go to the cinema, do you sometimes have one person collect the money and go buy all the tickets while the others buy the snacks? When you go to a game session, do you ever lend out your dice and books? When you game, do you ever get pissed off because someone says, "but my character wouldn't be interested in this adventure!" and has their character wander off, expecting to be chased and dragged back? Do you ever alter an rpg's rules because, even though you're happy with them, someone else dislikes them?

Oh dear sounds like you've co-operated!

If you do nothing but compete, that is unhealthy, and produces stress and misery - and not just in you. If you compete towards a final co-operative goal, then that can be fun.

Much of the co-operation we engage in in our lives we take for granted. We pay taxes, shout drinks, follow the road rules, alter game rules to make other gamers happy, don't interrupt the other player when they're speaking, and so on. It's so easy and obvious we usually aren't even aware we're doing it. By contrast, we notice competition. So when we describe our activities, we see a lot of competition, and forget just how much we co-operate.

Don't forget.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, that makes you a silly bugger who has no clue what "co-operation" really is. :p

If you want to conflate "Doesn't feel morally obligated to do X" with "Has never heard of X, nor done it," that's fine.  But there's no discussion to be had there.  Next!

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you are not cooperating for all the little goals along the way, you're interacting in a way that isn't co-operation, and yet is still healthy.  That indicates that co-operation isn't the only healthy interaction, yes?No thanks.  Instead I'm going to go out, socialize, take responsibility for my own fun, and expect that other people are big, mature, adults and they can be responsible for their own fun too.  I am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.  Does that make me a bad person?

I think the buying rounds of drinks example is a good one.

If you're the guy who accepts people's rounds of drinks but never offers to buy one and then, when told "hey man, it's your turn to buy a round" says "we never had an agreement!" Then, yeah: I usually think that guy is a schmuck.

On the other hand if you practice a philosophy of egoism philosophically (like, on message-boards) but pick up your round of drinks in practice then, no--not so bad, IME. IIRC you've been on the record as wanting people to tell you you're "a bad person" so I think it's going to be very unclear from your discussion here which the case actually is.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf you're the guy who accepts people's rounds of drinks but never offers to buy one and then, when told "hey man, it's your turn to buy a round" says "we never had an agreement!" Then, yeah: I usually think that guy is a schmuck.

Okay.  Why?

Genuinely:  I walk into a bar for the first time with a group of friends.  I'm a bit strapped for cash, but I can afford a beer, and I figure that's as much as I can really handle anyway.  Joe says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Well damn!  Joe's a great guy!"  I take a drink, and toast his health.  Being a featherweight, I'm already feeling a bit woozy after one.  Bob says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Wow, these guys are the best ... I'm not really up for another drink, but I guess I'll join in."  I take a drink and toast everyone's health.  At this point the room is spinning.  Suddenly people are looking at me.  "Your turn, Tony!"  "My turn to what ... puke?" I think to myself.

I'm morally obligated to buy everyone drinks now?  I am, in short, morally obligated to buy way more alcohol than I intended, because people around me are spending and drinking heavily?  Uh...  Fuck no.

I recognize that the trading drinks is a social system that works when everyone buys into it.  That doesn't, however, mean that everyone has to buy into it, especially if nobody ever talks about what the rules are.

That's what this basically comes down to, to me:  Some people have an idea for a social system that works, and they just start acting as if everyone has agreed to that ... and then, somehow, it's supposed to be incumbent upon the people who have never been consulted and never agreed to anything to:

• (a) Figure out what system is being used, and
  
• (b) Either live with that system or actively refuse its benefits from the word "Go."

It's a trap, plain and simple.  Whether you intended it that way when you started, in the moment that you say "Okay, now you're obligated to do this thing you never agreed to," you are springing a trap.

One social system that works just fine is that a guy takes a girl out, spends a lot of money and attention on her, and then they have sex.  It's classic, and if everyone's on the same page it works.  But I hope we can all see that it's not cool for a guy who has spent money and attention on a girl to say "Now you have to have sex with me, because you didn't insist on paying your half of dinner when the check came."

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Why?

Genuinely:  I walk into a bar for the first time with a group of friends.  I'm a bit strapped for cash, but I can afford a beer, and I figure that's as much as I can really handle anyway.  Joe says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Well damn!  Joe's a great guy!"  I take a drink, and toast his health.  Being a featherweight, I'm already feeling a bit woozy after one.  Bob says "I'ma gonna buy everyone a round of drinks!"  I think to myself "Wow, these guys are the best ... I'm not really up for another drink, but I guess I'll join in."  I take a drink and toast everyone's health.  At this point the room is spinning.  Suddenly people are looking at me.  "Your turn, Tony!"  "My turn to what ... puke?" I think to myself.

In the case you cite it's an accident. Right? A for-real misunderstanding. There's a guy who buys drinks but it's not each of the buds buying a round. And when it turns out there's a problem, your quotes aren't "Sorry, chumps--I mean ... chums, there was no agreement!"

No, in your case it's a misunderstanding. In your case, you're even a light-weight so you're intoxicated. Like the mentally deranged guy who the courts exhonerate, you can't be responsible for your actions in this hypothetical.

On the other hand, if you're the guy who:
(a) Never buys a round unless it's negotiated before hand --and--
(b) The second time in, when you are again, strapped for cash, don't tell someone that you were light

Then I think the person's a schmuck.

In the philosophical case against cooperation--where you explicitly have no interest in upholding anyone else's idea of a good time at any cost to you it's not a misunderstadning. You're the (a) and (b) guy.

That's this guy:

QuoteI am going to consciously not live up to any responsibility for their fun.

QuoteOne social system that works just fine is that a guy takes a girl out, spends a lot of money and attention on her, and then they have sex.  It's classic, and if everyone's on the same page it works.  But I hope we can all see that it's not cool for a guy who has spent money and attention on a girl to say "Now you have to have sex with me, because you didn't insist on paying your half of dinner when the check came."

Aren't you on the record as saying that you think non-consensual hurting of another person is cool so long as it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules of engagement?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoOn the other hand, if you're the guy who:
(a) Never buys a round unless it's negotiated before hand --and--
(b) The second time in, when you are again, strapped for cash, don't tell someone that you were light

Then I think the person's a schmuck.

Are you saying that you believe misunderstandings can happen once, but you don't believe it is possible for someone to misunderstand consistently?  My experience is that a misunderstanding, if not corrected, will tend to persist.

If you're presuming a world in which someone tells this guy "Hey, we usually order drinks in rounds, and expect that you'll chip in" then that would, of course, be different.  Then there's been some explicit communication, and that changes things.

But if you've got a guy who just does not get what's going on?  Who thinks his friends are rich and generous, while he is poor and grateful?  Where's the profit in labelling that poor guy a schmuck?

Quote from: MarcoAren't you on the record as saying that you think non-consensual hurting of another person is cool so long as it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules of engagement?

Absolutely.  I struggle to see the relevance of this to the quote you juxtaposed it with, unless you are saying that I condone rape.  Are you saying that I condone rape, Marco?

Things sure are feisty tonight.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you saying that you believe misunderstandings can happen once, but you don't believe it is possible for someone to misunderstand consistently?  My experience is that a misunderstanding, if not corrected, will tend to persist.

If you're presuming a world in which someone tells this guy "Hey, we usually order drinks in rounds, and expect that you'll chip in" then that would, of course, be different.  Then there's been some explicit communication, and that changes things.

But if you've got a guy who just does not get what's going on?  Who thinks his friends are rich and generous, while he is poor and grateful?  Where's the profit in labelling that poor guy a schmuck?

I think the guy who goes out with the conscious intent of pursuing his own fun at the expense of other people is not likely misunderstanding anything. That's a pretty solid position right there: "I'll take advantage of you if I find it fun and you don't protect yourself."

In the case of a real legitimate misunderstanding, there are degrees of willful ignorance and inexperience, acting in good faith, and so on. But I doubt the poor, grateful guy goes out with his friends going "I will consciously not hold myself responsible for your fun."

I also don't think that guy will non-consensually hurt the buddies he's so fond of. Doesn't sound very grateful. And, yes, I'd find the guy a schmuck.

QuoteAbsolutely.  I struggle to see the relevance of this to the quote you juxtaposed it with, unless you are saying that I condone rape.  Are you saying that I condone rape, Marco?

Keep in mind you brought the sexual aspect into this.

If I go on a date with the predatory intent of getting the other person very, very drunk so as to have sex with her (say, ordering doubles but not telling her unless she asks) in a state (or at a time) when this is legal does that count as rape? What if I know my date would never go out with me if I told her this?

If the only way it'll work is if she mistakenly places her trust in me?

I dunno. Legal non-consensual hurting: yes. Rape? You can decide.

-Marco

Outside of From Dusk Till Dawn, i don't think i've ever seen the "I may be a bastard, but i'm not a fucking bastard" defence before. Well played sir, have a point.

Quote from: MarcoI think the guy who goes out with the conscious intent of pursuing his own fun at the expense of other people is not likely misunderstanding anything.

Doesn't this just come back to the same "Cooperation is the default" argument that we've had before?

You think that a person who comes into (say) a roleplaying game thinking that it is a venue for competition (EDIT: when other people believe it to be a cooperate venue) is "not likely misunderstanding anything"?  Beg to differ, buddy.  That happens all the time from pure miscommunication, with no malice on either side.  Getting all het up about it doesn't do anyone any good.  The solution is not to cast blame, it is to communicate.

Quote from: MarcoIf I go on a date with the predatory intent of getting the other person very, very drunk so as to have sex with her (say, ordering doubles but not telling her unless she asks) in a state (or at a time) when this is legal does that count as rape? What if I know my date would never go out with me if I told her this?

Ohhhhh ... you are trying to imply that I condone rape.  That's funny.

Quote from: TonyLBDoesn't this just come back to the same "Cooperation is the default" argument that we've had before?

You think that a person who comes into (say) a roleplaying game thinking that it is a venue for competition (EDIT: when other people believe it to be a cooperate venue) is "not likely misunderstanding anything"? Beg to differ, buddy. That happens all the time from pure miscommunication, with no malice on either side. Getting all het up about it doesn't do anyone any good. The solution is not to cast blame, it is to communicate.

Your example had a lot of hoops to jump through to exonerate the guy: He's poor, inexperienced, and drunk. If we have a situation like this happening commonly in RPGs, you know--where the player is the sainted, grateful, poor guy--I think I can count on even a thimbleful of good faith between the participants to iron things out.

In terms of blaming anyone, I think it *is* legitimate to blame someone who knows they are going to do you damage, knows you would not consent to it, and are not expecting it, and does it anyway because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the rules of interaction and they enjoy it.

Quote from: TonyLBOhhhhh ... you are trying to imply that I condone rape.  That's funny.

I am pretty damn sure you do not condone rape.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIn terms of blaming anyone, I think it *is* legitimate to blame someone who knows they are going to do you damage, knows you would not consent to it, and are not expecting it, and does it anyway because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the rules of interaction and they enjoy it.

That's every competitive game, ever.  You blame someone who blind-sides you with an unexpected move in chess?

Quote from: TonyLBThat's every competitive game, ever.  You blame someone who blind-sides you with an unexpected move in chess?

There are spectrums of "games" from chess to global politics to RPGs. If someone considers dating a game and sex the victory conditions do you blame do you condone their blind-siding unexpected move of ordering doubles when their date isn't aware of it?

I would think not.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf someone considers dating a game and sex the victory conditions do you blame do you condone their blind-siding unexpected move of ordering doubles when their date isn't aware of it?

Personally, I'd consider them, not to be too blunt, to be emotionally retarded for looking at dating in that way.

There's one rule around my table that is relevant to this thread, irrespective of all the attempted fucking of door-knobs going on elsewhere. That is that the players have a responsibility not to be complete ass-hats to each other. I think that's called being an average human being in most circles. Play to the tone of the game and the company you keep or there will be sparks.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPersonally, I'd consider them, not to be too blunt, to be emotionally retarded for looking at dating in that way.

Well sure, the guy's a complete idiot--but there *are* a lot of guys out there like that. It's not like this is a new or unheard of thing. The idea that just because we consider something a "game" that it's okay to take advantage of people playing is highly questionable.

The idea that the unexpected move in chess is identical like the subterranean competition in an RPG is also questionable. EDITED: Traditional RPGs and games like chess are very, very much different. Same as chess and "dating." Fortunately unexpected competition in an RPG is not as despicable as taking advantage of someone on a date--but the difference is only in terms of the damage done, not the nature of the deception or the kind of mistake--and guys like Chris Chinn liken the damage done from unhappy roleplaying to the damage done in abusive relationships so it may not be that different than we think.*

-Marco
* I don't believe that's as true as he says. But I could be wrong about how bad it is for some people.

Is that really what your argument boils down to?  That competitive play in RPGs is more like date-rape than it is like chess?

Quote from: TonyLBIs that really what your argument boils down to?  That competitive play in RPGs is more like date-rape than it is like chess?

No: that RPG-play is often more like dating than it is like chess.

-Marco

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

-Marco

LOL! Nice observation, Marco! :D

-clash

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."

:D

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

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. :D

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

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27988&postcount=58)?  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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27988&postcount=58)?  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.

Quote from: MarcoI 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.

Okay.  How much of your concern there is vested in the idea that it is the hurting, itself, which is fun?

How about if I find it fun to win, and winning will hurt someone's feelings, but it's not the hurting that I find fun.  Is it still wrong?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf 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.

Do you think that there is such a "prevailing cultural assumption"?  Is a competitive player obligated to check his asusmptions at the door, while a cooperative player is allowed to assume away?

Quote from: TonyLBDo you think that there is such a "prevailing cultural assumption"?

Actually, I think there is, but I don't feel very certain about that.

However, I don't know what your actual experiences have been, but if I found that I was often at odds with the assumptions of my fellow players, I'd take that as a sign that I should make a greater effort to communicate about those things when getting together with a group of people I don't know (and who don't know me). In other words, if a lot of people think you're a dick after you play with them, you probably are a dick. :)

(BTW, don't take any of this to mean that I, personally, prefer to assume cooperation. I like multiplayer boardgames like a maniac, and there's nothing finer than sticking it to the other guy. I'd like to be freer to do that in an RPG context; however, most RPG systems I've seen aren't very good at handling interplayer conflict. I think they're particularly bad at handling actual in-game betrayal. Whereas I can think of a few boardgames where calling someone a dick and cursing them would be a compliment.)

QuoteIs a competitive player obligated to check his asusmptions at the door, while a cooperative player is allowed to assume away?

I think I answered this above: it depends. Usually, if things go wrong, more than one party is at fault. (Though not necessarily to the same degree--and I can certainly see the possibility of the cooperative player being more in the wrong. For example if I was playing a game with you after being involved in this discussion, I think it'd be wrong for me to be upset if I willingly got in a game with you, didn't clarify expectations, didn't protect myself, and got screwed over. Of course protection might mean preempting at the first opportunity...)

But let me add: two wrongs don't make a right. While it might seem like they cancel each other out if you're trying to assign blame after the fact, I believe it's wrong to take someone else's failure of responsibility as carte blanche to do them wrong.

Edit: If we don't have a good idea of what we can assume, it's our responsibility to communicate.

Quote from: TonyLBHow about if I find it fun to win, and winning will hurt someone's feelings, but it's not the hurting that I find fun.  Is it still wrong?

If it's taking advantage of people: Yes, still wrong, IMO. The dating-guy isn't primarily interested in inflicting pain either--he's just after his own pleasure.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf it's taking advantage of people: Yes, still wrong, IMO.

I don't know quite what you mean by "taking advantage of people."  Certainly I know the phrase, but you could mean many things by it.

Suppose I want my character to ascend the throne, and Jenny wants her character to ascend the throne.  I create a whispering campaign that undermines several of her key allies.  Therefore, my guy ascends the throne.  Jenny didn't get what she wanted, and she's upset about that.  I knew that she would be upset if I succeeded in what I was trying, and I did it anyway.

Bang!  I've just intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone.  I have gained advantage thereby.  Is that taking advantage of Jenny?  Is doing that wrong?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know quite what you mean by "taking advantage of people."  Certainly I know the phrase, but you could mean many things by it.

Suppose I want my character to ascend the throne, and Jenny wants her character to ascend the throne.  I create a whispering campaign that undermines several of her key allies.  Therefore, my guy ascends the throne.  Jenny didn't get what she wanted, and she's upset about that.  I knew that she would be upset if I succeeded in what I was trying, and I did it anyway.

Bang!  I've just intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone.  I have gained advantage thereby.  Is that taking advantage of Jenny?  Is doing that wrong?

Maybe. In hypotheticals there's all kinds of stuff we don't/can't know. If Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her, if you knew that (and of course you could claim you didn't or that there was some lack of clarity--but absent any rhetorical games) and you took advantage of that trust, then yes: Wrong.

In most RPGs I have *ever* played--with many, many people--that trust has been there.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her,

If Jenny is part of this team of mutal trust with him, shouldn't she be the one supporting his claim the throne then?

QuoteIn most RPGs I have *ever* played--with many, many people--that trust has been there.

If two players have mutally exclusive goals (like in the example above) for their characters how is it resolved in your games then?

Is it simply a case of "first dibbs"?

See in the games I've played the only trust is that events that happen in character at the table, are resolved in character and players are adult enough not to let in character disagreements spill over in real life fights or grudges.

So in the case above if both players wanted the throne then everything up to and including assassination plots are fair game, it just depends on how far they want to take it. In D&D that sort of thing can be controlled my the DM to some level by insisting on all GOOD alignments, but in other game systems and with wider alignment restrictions, then Player on Player is more likely to happen, if such mutally exclusive goals can't be resolved by peaceful in character negociation.

Quote from: MarcoMaybe. In hypotheticals there's all kinds of stuff we don't/can't know. If Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her, if you knew that (and of course you could claim you didn't or that there was some lack of clarity--but absent any rhetorical games) and you took advantage of that trust, then yes: Wrong.

Yes, in hypotheticals there are lots of unknowns.  We don't know, for instance, what Jenny's hair color is.  We also don't care, because it's not relevant to the moral issue involved.  You can decide whether I've acted morally, without reference to whether she's blond or brunette.

But maybe you can't decide whether I've acted morally without reference to whether I deliberately abused her trust.  That makes me think that maybe the question of abuse of trust is tied up in this moral issue a bit more tightly than the "it's especially immoral if it's an abuse of trust" rider that you had originally.

So:  Do you believe that intentionally, non-consensually hurting someone is always wrong, without reference to whether there's been an abuse of trust?

Do you believe that abusing someone's trust is always wrong, without reference to whether it hurts them?

Are you sure that you draw your moral lines in practice where you've claimed they are in theory?

Quote from: BagpussIf Jenny is part of this team of mutal trust with him, shouldn't she be the one supporting his claim the throne then?

It's a hypothetical. Given all kinds of possible conditions it can go all kinds of possible ways.

QuoteIf two players have mutally exclusive goals (like in the example above) for their characters how is it resolved in your games then?

Is it simply a case of "first dibbs"?

The agreement to compete is made OOC first and then IC so everyone is on the same page--not via ambush. If Jenny starts setting things up and I want the same thing, I don't sabotage her after a lengthy period of cooperative play, I say: "My character (and I) want the same position--we're having an election--maybe even a dirty one!"

If we can't resolve things after that, cool--we shouldn't play together. But as soon as I move from a cooperative condition to a competitive one, I'll announce it (instead of, for example, passing notes to the GM--or simply ambushing Jenny in the middle of a scene with sabotage).

-Marco

Quote from: BagpussSee in the games I've played the only trust is that events that happen in character at the table, are resolved in character and players are adult enough not to let in character disagreements spill over in real life fights or grudges.

I also wanted to comment on this: I don't know you or your group--but I expect there are levels this agreement cannot and will not reach. If you were ever emotionally attached to an NPC and a player decided to have his character torture, rape, and kill the NPC in a graphic fashion, knowing full well (perhaps counting on?) that attachment to hurt you, I doubt you would consider it 'just a game.' Not if it were ugly and pointed enough.

I think there's an illusion in this thread that the position I'm taking is Competition==bad. Cooperation==good. That's not the case. The case is that competiton, when the other person does not expect it is a violation of trust that is, essentially, OOC.

The game rules may *not* prohibit the act--but, like the girl on the date who trusts in a certain standard of human decency *in addition* to the rules--violating that trust is, IMO, a wrong.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBYes, in hypotheticals there are lots of unknowns.  We don't know, for instance, what Jenny's hair color is.  We also don't care, because it's not relevant to the moral issue involved.  You can decide whether I've acted morally, without reference to whether she's blond or brunette.

But maybe you can't decide whether I've acted morally without reference to whether I deliberately abused her trust.  That makes me think that maybe the question of abuse of trust is tied up in this moral issue a bit more tightly than the "it's especially immoral if it's an abuse of trust" rider that you had originally.

I think intentional sadism with a non-conesensual partner is wrong.

QuoteSo:  Do you believe that intentionally, non-consensually hurting someone is always wrong, without reference to whether there's been an abuse of trust?

No. But I think the concept covers a pretty broad spectrum of interactions that are carried out with even a moderate amount of human decency.

QuoteDo you believe that abusing someone's trust is always wrong, without reference to whether it hurts them?

No. But I think the concept covers a pretty broad spectrum of interactions that are carried out with even a moderate amount of human decency.

QuoteAre you sure that you draw your moral lines in practice where you've claimed they are in theory?

I'm not 100% sure my position is 100% consistent across all possibilities, no. However I'm not basing my morality on some set of rules in a book. I'm basing them on the idea that I don't like having my trust violated and I don't like being hurt/ambushed.

I'm not trying to justify behavior of mine that involves having fun at the expense of others.

Btw: complaining about this thread on story games isn't, IMO, especially classy.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think there's an illusion in this thread that the position I'm taking is Competition==bad. Cooperation==good. That's not the case. The case is that competiton, when the other person does not expect it is a violation of trust that is, essentially, OOC.

My point would be that it being a game and that disagreements occur in character that competition should be expected, and is the norm so it should never be unexpect or need to be announced.

Announcing you are plotting against a fellow player, relies on them not acting on that OOC information, something many players find tricky. If you hand your plots over to the DM then he can leak what he wants to the other player IC, and so it can keep the game play in character.

QuoteThe game rules may *not* prohibit the act--but, like the girl on the date who trusts in a certain standard of human decency *in addition* to the rules--violating that trust is, IMO, a wrong.

It's not fair comparison, after all that situation is real life and your talking about real harm to a real person.

In a game I'm talking about harm to a character, it is just a game after all, there are plenty of things that can harm or kill your character, you don't get is a fit if an NPC plots against you why should you get upset is a PC does?

Quote from: BagpussMy point would be that it being a game and that disagreements occur in character that competition should be expected, and is the norm so it should never be unexpect or need to be announced.

Announcing you are plotting against a fellow player, relies on them not acting on that OOC information, something many players find tricky. If you hand your plots over to the DM then he can leak what he wants to the other player IC, and so it can keep the game play in character.

I don't think that's an honest assessment. in fact I'm pretty sure that's not true. Many books suggest that PCs are a team in ways not codified by actual rules. Games 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.

QuoteIt's not fair comparison, after all that situation is real life and your talking about real harm to a real person.

In a game I'm talking about harm to a character, it is just a game after all, there are plenty of things that can harm or kill your character, you don't get is a fit if an NPC plots against you why should you get upset is a PC does?

In the dating example:
(a) The forum is a game (the dating-game is, as I've said, a cliche).
(b) There's no violence. There is deception (doubling drinks) but no force.
(c) The amount of harm is indeterminate. The victim might regret it a few days later--she might just be pissed off. She might be traumatized. If this behavior is wrong, it's wrong regardless of the harm.

I'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.

The amount of harm done is not the relevant factor.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI'm not 100% sure my position is 100% consistent across all possibilities, no. However I'm not basing my morality on some set of rules in a book. I'm basing them on the idea that I don't like having my trust violated and I don't like being hurt/ambushed.

Well, I don't grant you that a morality based on what you like and don't like is either consistent or sensible.

The fact that you don't like traffic does not mean that other people are immoral for using the roads.  The fact that you want money does not mean that people are morally obliged to give it to you.

So, you're saying that you don't like it when people play RPGs in a way that puts their fun above yours?  That makes sense.  I can see why you wouldn't like that.  But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

There may well be a solid, cogent argument for why it is, in fact, wrong ... but "I don't like it" isn't that argument.

Quote from: TonyLBThere may well be a solid, cogent argument for why it is, in fact, wrong ... but "I don't like it" isn't that argument.

Sorry--I should clarify that I also believe it is wrong. I don't like people taking advantage of other's trusts in a predatory fashion and I also believe it is wrong. Since we are, in fact, drawing that distinction, I'll be clear about it.

-Marco

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?

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, (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28311&postcount=108) 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, (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28311&postcount=108) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24115&postcount=2) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24115&postcount=2) 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

Well, I would just emphasize something I said earlier, which is pretty similar to JimBob's interjection: if you find yourself getting into these arguments frequently in the course of actual play, then there's a good chance you're a jerk.

Another thing to consider is that playing cooperatively when a group really wouldn't mind you playing competitively isn't all that harmful. I think the reverse is. Now, playing cooperatively and then hurting the other folks' fun by being a "bad sport" is harmful. But unless the game starts off with full-on competition, you're not likely to run into that without fair warning.

In other words--and I think this could practically be proven mathematically--since forming a group is a cooperative endeavor to begin with, then absent explicit rules, full-blown competition is unlikely to manifest itself early on. Instead it's likely to follow a pattern of escalation. (Proof: if PC A immediately slits PC B's throat, the rest of the party will see he's a psycho and off him. So PC A can't afford to do anything too extreme early on, and the group will establish norms of competition that nobody will push too far in one step lest they suffer retribution.)

Full-on competition can stay hidden throughout a game, though, leading in the end to the "cold-blooded double-cross". But if you don't see any minor competition early on, yet you seriously see no justification for believing that everyone expects to play cooperatively, then you should probably be pretty suspicious if any player amasses a disproportionate ability to carry out a first strike. If the other players are allowing same without a peep, then it's quite likely that your assumption is incorrect--they should be protecting themselves and seeking a balance of power if they think competition is an acceptable possibility.

Ergo, if the guy who's amassing disproportionate power is you, you can either keep quiet (but you're probably a jerk) or say something. If the guy who's amassing disproportionate power is someone else, you can either keep quiet (but you're disadvantaging yourself), surreptitiously try to gain power for yourself (but you're probably a jerk), or draw attention to the fact (in which case you've signalled to everyone else that you're playing competitively).