It's probably worth noting that the command to see who from the Watch is currently online is "+rwho acw". To show who is regardless of online status, it is "+rwho/all acw". I would recommend that those on the org who haven't yet use their acw_status attribute to reflect their IC relationship to it, particularly if you are one who can negotiate for it at some level.
IMHO, two of the hardest policies to devise in these games is consent and prop control, and this post brings up interesting questions.
Obviously, you can't impact any prop without consent. But how do you handle an "amorphous" prop like this? If you stage a fight within its sphere of influence, it's either there or not. If you want it there, then there's no doubt you need to find someone to negotiate with. But, if you only want to have a simple "fun" fight, it's much easier to just not involve it. You say that's fine, but to me it is hard to control "follow up" RP where the conversation turns to whether the Watch was there or not. I might not bring it up, but I can't control what some 3rd party would think ICly about the incident and the Watch's "passive absence". I could OOCly tell everyone that the Watch was not contacted, but is that a directive that places such IC conversation off-limits? It seems hardly fair in either direction...
There's a question in my mind as to whether bad mouthing someone (or a prop) requires consent. In one sense, it is a conflict, just a social one. You can't initiate a physical conflict without consent, after all. But on the other hand, this gets into "thought police" territory. In any case, it seems like +gossip in particular need neither be fair, nor truthful, even a little bit. It's not my type of gameplay, but I'm pretty sure it was set up with that in mind.
These kinds of considerations can lead to a kind of "prop paralysis" where you don't feel like creating ad hoc play because it feels like more trouble to get permission and/or play the aftermath than it's worth. Or even if you don't have an issue with trying, it puts a hold on your play while you try to find someone with the authority to approve it and negotiate it.
I've noted recently that there doesn't seem to be an overall prop policy in place for the game. I think this would help overall to have this, so that there is some level of consistency. And I think that it would also help if individual props were to publish their own specific rules, which should include things that one could do with the prop without active consent. For example, I think the Watch should allow players to have it show up, give chase, and then lose the perp. It happens with police in the real world a fair amount. I think that's a better "non-involvement" default than absence. Or, come to think of it, allow the Watch to capture the perp, NPC or PC, and then deal with negotiations later.
"Consent does not allow you to dictate everything that happens. You cannot say, "I don't want anyone to say anything mean to my character". You cannot say, "I don't want any fights to happen in my presence". You can certainly walk out of a room if someone is mean to you IC, or leave a fight that is occurring, but you do not have a right to tell other people what to do."
Yes, but I am not talking just about "acting mean". I am talking about ICly causing events to take place. I can refuse to have someone injure me physically. But what about socially/politically? Lying about my activities to the Crown can result in consequences too, just as dire.
No it can't. If the Crown decides to act on those lies, then there are mechanisms in place to determine whether or not the Crown gets to inflict any consequences on you. Up until that point, it's just playing 'why don't you and him fight'
It still leads to a sticky IC situation if I don't consent to the conflict with the Crown. Remember, this is essentially a conflict with another character that I did not start. Now the Crown is ICly in the middle of an OOC consent disagreement. What is the Crown supposed to do with reports of treason, ignore it? I guess I could OOCly negotiate with the Crown to have a scene that proves my innocence so that I don't take consequences--since I have refused to engage in the conflict.
I just don't see this kind of situation being "clean". The best way to avoid the rigamarole around my refusal of consent would be not to have started it in the first place.
But getting back to the original theme, I have sensed some annoyance, and not just in this post, whenever gossip that tends towards the "not (completely) true" is created. That's human nature, I think.
I guess I could OOCly negotiate with the Crown to have a scene that proves my innocence so that I don't take consequences--since I have refused to engage in the conflict.
Yes. Explain the situation OOCly, negotiate an outcome that satisfies your desire to avoid a conflict you did not initiate, and the person in the middle pays for their tomfoolery.
I don't understand why that wouldn't be the first possible reaction.
Because I'm far more used to the normal reaction to such a line of play being not negotiated like a physical conflict would.
So, basically the policy is that any consequence such as arrest, banishment, demotion, etc. is a social conflict and as such any consequence of that order requires consent?
Not only does it require consent, you have a right to demand mechanical enforcement of it.
Let's say, as an entirely neutral example, that Servalle does something to displease Moire (A moment's thought will explain why this is a neutral example) and she responds by revoking his titles and demanding he be exiled from the city of Rebma. Now, Servalle has a few options:
1) He can simply accept it as the result of RP, and go his way. 2) He can demand that Moire back it up mechanically, whether as a direct +compare to represent a defiant stance in front of court, or as a longer term conflict on the flagpole where he attempts to rally support and she brings the crushing weight of her Queendom down on his head.
Note that in this example, Servalle initiated the matter by displeasing Moire. Therefore, if he does not want to play out the conflict, his only way to withdraw is by losing. If Moire decided to proactively go after Servalle, he could simply refuse and she would be bound to not pursue that plot. It is important in this case that Servalle stick by his declaration not to get involved, though.
Kynan this is from Helix regarding banishment when Brand stated he felt he had no other option but to banish Navarre. I was opposed to it and said I did not consent to such.
Her ruling was: While I recognize the distastefulness of the option to all parties involved, I am not convinced at this point that a decree of banishment would necessarily make Navarre unplayable. That decree would still require enforcement, which would be scene-level conflict resolved via +compare between involved PCs, with the results within the normal scope of the consequences system.
Needless to say Brand did not follow through but had he, then it would have had to be played out and the mechanisms in place used. So consent itself is an interesting topic.
Yes, and that's why consent seems never to be clear-cut.
Consent about a sword fight seems simple, and the consequences "easy". You heal, and you maybe get over it, if you don't want to start a severe rivalry.
But social/political conflict is never simple, and the consequences often long-term. And there is less consensus among players about what those in political power have the right to do.
In the interest of accuracy, I said that I did not want to banish you, because I follow a policy of trying not to restrict play, but that I was having trouble thinking of an alternative.
Hmm, in the case I presented, where another character "initiated" the conflict by lying to the Crown without my consent, I guess the onus is on that character to "lose"?
If the OOC negotiation breaks down, talk to the staff. The idea is to avoid the mechanical conflict, after all, and they're there to serve as intermediaries when needed.
Actually you might want to check with Helix on that Servalle. Again I quote Helix:
Third, we encourage mechanical resolution to conflicts. Please note that consequences explicitly cannot take characters out of play; if that's what you need, this is what the structured negotiation of storybuilding is for. The reason we have systems here is to avoid the debate over how much power a given character can bring to bear.
My impression from the mail/chats I've had with Helix is that there are mechanisms in place so people can resolve their conflict. Otherwise why else is there a +compare system in the first place?
My apologies to Helix if I have misunderstood her point regarding mechanical resolution. This is how I have interpreted what she has said to me.
My goal in life is to avoid +compare's as much as possible. I will find no joy there :-P
However, here we are talking consent. You can +compare once you have consented to the conflict in the first place. Yes, there is consent to the consequences afterwards as well.
IMHO, two of the hardest policies to devise in these games is consent and prop control, and this post brings up interesting questions.
Obviously, you can't impact any prop without consent. But how do you handle an "amorphous" prop like this? If you stage a fight within its sphere of influence, it's either there or not. If you want it there, then there's no doubt you need to find someone to negotiate with. But, if you only want to have a simple "fun" fight, it's much easier to just not involve it. You say that's fine, but to me it is hard to control "follow up" RP where the conversation turns to whether the Watch was there or not. I might not bring it up, but I can't control what some 3rd party would think ICly about the incident and the Watch's "passive absence". I could OOCly tell everyone that the Watch was not contacted, but is that a directive that places such IC conversation off-limits? It seems hardly fair in either direction...
There's a question in my mind as to whether bad mouthing someone (or a prop) requires consent. In one sense, it is a conflict, just a social one. You can't initiate a physical conflict without consent, after all. But on the other hand, this gets into "thought police" territory. In any case, it seems like +gossip in particular need neither be fair, nor truthful, even a little bit. It's not my type of gameplay, but I'm pretty sure it was set up with that in mind.
These kinds of considerations can lead to a kind of "prop paralysis" where you don't feel like creating ad hoc play because it feels like more trouble to get permission and/or play the aftermath than it's worth. Or even if you don't have an issue with trying, it puts a hold on your play while you try to find someone with the authority to approve it and negotiate it.
I've noted recently that there doesn't seem to be an overall prop policy in place for the game. I think this would help overall to have this, so that there is some level of consistency. And I think that it would also help if individual props were to publish their own specific rules, which should include things that one could do with the prop without active consent. For example, I think the Watch should allow players to have it show up, give chase, and then lose the perp. It happens with police in the real world a fair amount. I think that's a better "non-involvement" default than absence. Or, come to think of it, allow the Watch to capture the perp, NPC or PC, and then deal with negotiations later.
Reply
From http://wiki.roadtoamber.com/consent
Reply
Reply
Reply
I just don't see this kind of situation being "clean". The best way to avoid the rigamarole around my refusal of consent would be not to have started it in the first place.
But getting back to the original theme, I have sensed some annoyance, and not just in this post, whenever gossip that tends towards the "not (completely) true" is created. That's human nature, I think.
Reply
Yes. Explain the situation OOCly, negotiate an outcome that satisfies your desire to avoid a conflict you did not initiate, and the person in the middle pays for their tomfoolery.
I don't understand why that wouldn't be the first possible reaction.
Reply
So, basically the policy is that any consequence such as arrest, banishment, demotion, etc. is a social conflict and as such any consequence of that order requires consent?
Reply
Let's say, as an entirely neutral example, that Servalle does something to displease Moire (A moment's thought will explain why this is a neutral example) and she responds by revoking his titles and demanding he be exiled from the city of Rebma. Now, Servalle has a few options:
1) He can simply accept it as the result of RP, and go his way.
2) He can demand that Moire back it up mechanically, whether as a direct +compare to represent a defiant stance in front of court, or as a longer term conflict on the flagpole where he attempts to rally support and she brings the crushing weight of her Queendom down on his head.
Note that in this example, Servalle initiated the matter by displeasing Moire. Therefore, if he does not want to play out the conflict, his only way to withdraw is by losing. If Moire decided to proactively go after Servalle, he could simply refuse and she would be bound to not pursue that plot. It is important in this case that Servalle stick by his declaration not to get involved, though.
Reply
Her ruling was: While I recognize the distastefulness of the option to all parties involved, I am not convinced at this point that a decree of banishment would necessarily make Navarre unplayable. That decree would still require enforcement, which would be scene-level conflict resolved via +compare between involved PCs, with the results within the normal scope of the consequences system.
Needless to say Brand did not follow through but had he, then it would have had to be played out and the mechanisms in place used. So consent itself is an interesting topic.
Reply
Consent about a sword fight seems simple, and the consequences "easy". You heal, and you maybe get over it, if you don't want to start a severe rivalry.
But social/political conflict is never simple, and the consequences often long-term. And there is less consensus among players about what those in political power have the right to do.
Reply
Reply
Do you then have to rely on the mechanisms in place to resolve the conflict?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Third, we encourage mechanical resolution to conflicts. Please note that consequences explicitly cannot take characters out of play; if that's what you need, this is what the structured negotiation of storybuilding is for. The reason we have systems here is to avoid the debate over how much power a given character can bring to bear.
My impression from the mail/chats I've had with Helix is that there are mechanisms in place so people can resolve their conflict. Otherwise why else is there a +compare system in the first place?
My apologies to Helix if I have misunderstood her point regarding mechanical resolution. This is how I have interpreted what she has said to me.
Reply
However, here we are talking consent. You can +compare once you have consented to the conflict in the first place. Yes, there is consent to the consequences afterwards as well.
Reply
Leave a comment