Issuing a couple of rulingsevilhatApril 25 2009, 13:04:43 UTC
As a small reminder, our props are not AmberMUSH-style props. With the exception of personal resources (the level 1 personal businesses and whatnot bought with sheet points), props are actually held by the game, and delegated to players for administration. That means that "hard consent" generally does not exist for props.
Props like the Watch are essentially broader general services to the game, and one of the conditions of holding them (or the Hounds, or the Amber Navy or Army and so on) is the willingness to let them get involved in things without significant burden on players.
Good-faith play in this particular case involves making reasonable decisions about what the Watch would do, and keeping the prop owner sufficiently informed about scenes in which they play a significant part. Conversely, the prop owner's duty is to not restrict the contexts in which they can use.
If you are initiating a conflict against the Watch, whether implicitly as your character or on a more abstract basis, then you should be declaring this with a mechanical system. For instance, if you run a scene in which you are trying to make the Watch look bad, it should be backed with a Focus-invested gossip. And even in this case, it's incumbent on you to be reasonable. The Watch not responding to a routine mugging in the Lower City is perfectly reasonable; the Watch not responding to a crime in the Upper City is probably not.
Think of Discworld's Night Watch in its less competent days -- you've got guys like Vimes who like and are really good at police work, but you've also got a bunch of screw-up oddballs like Nobby whose idea of police work is guarding a lamp-post so nobody steals it. The Watch jumps when important people are involved, but petty crime goes on all the time, and there are places in the city that are nasty enough that the Watch doesn't go there (the equivalent of the Shades).
Both the Hounds and the Watch are military forces of considerable mass. (For a historical comparison, consider the size of the Guard at Versailles.)
Re: Issuing a couple of rulingspotato_popeApril 25 2009, 20:56:55 UTC
"Good-faith play in this particular case involves making reasonable decisions about what [Insert Your Prop Here] would do."
I just want to highlight this, because the line is extremely fine. You can say "My prop is fanatically loyal to me" or "I don't feel that a secret group inside my organization undermining it is in theme." On the spectrum of meaning, they are very close, but one falls on the reasonable side, and one on the unreasonable. Ditto for "I will use my prop to make your life a living hell if you do that" versus, "That will result in a negative reaction from the prop."
If you open up your prop negotiations on the unreasonable side, you're going to find that people aren't going to want to negotiate with you, and aren't going to trust you. People who are unreasonable often enough, or are perceived as being unreasonable, are going to gain a reputation for acting in bad faith. People who fall on the reasonable side of the line are going to have the opposite.
Potato_Pope?navarre_rtaApril 26 2009, 22:51:29 UTC
I also like to think playing in good faith reflects on those contacted by a PropCo in a fair and reasonable manner, that they should likewise respond in a fair and reasonable manner in an OOC fashion; IC is a whole other ball game.
I also think that if two people can't 'negotiate' that they should accept that they don't see eye to eye and draw in a mediator if possible to help them nut out what it is the two individuals are hoping to create in regards to RP/Story. Otherwise both individuals should just walk away and leave each other and their various prop (whichever was being discussed) alone.
In regards to trust; it's a 2-way street.
I like to think individuals are mature enough to contact PropCo's on their own and discuss matters with them to learn for themselves whether or not a player can be trusted or is open to negotiation.
I can use myself as an example; I had been told that a certain individual had issues with me - that same individual was hearing something along similiar lines. 2 other players told me to contact said individual and find out firsthand so finally I did. I like to think that particular individual and I accept there is no issue OOC; of course IC is another story but that's what it is, story.
Since then, I've heard negative things about a few different individuals but now I contact them to find out for myself; I don't take someone else's gospel as fact any more. You start doing that, then you start alienating yourself from play within various spheres/props and for what? Relying on information from one source who just may have got it wrong? Ask yourself too, is it really going to hurt me to take five minutes to find out for myself? The answer is no and in most instances, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Also thus far, nobody who has commented here appears to be making any unreasonable suggestions or decisions.
Re: Potato_Pope?faelin_rtaApril 26 2009, 23:01:40 UTC
That's the problem though. I think any and all of us would say "If you are being unreasonable, people won't like you." It's common sense in a way.
Unfortunately differing people have differing ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. In your examples? I very likely didn't see the same strengths or weaknesses you did.
And - let's be honest. All of us are capable of misinterpreting tone in text when we are tired, pissed at work, or whatever. All of us are capable of being snippy or shorter in writing the text sometimes too. What sounds unreasonable may not be 'meant' to be unreasonable, if that makes sense.
Which brings us back to the onus of acting as adult as we can, not blowing the situation up and gossiping about it to others, and falling back on the mechanical resolutions or staff assistance as need be. There are some people we're never going to like or like playing with. That's life.
Re: Reasonablenesskynan_r2aApril 27 2009, 00:14:32 UTC
I was thinking about a while back, and I would agree with Faelin's comment about differing ideas of what is reasonable. Even if you presume one is trying to negotiate in good faith, there is the issue that if you and I don't agree on the basic parameters of the end state, we are unlikely to have a good experience.
For example, lets take combat consequences. If I think an appropriate one is to be in the hospital for a week, in bed for another, then limping for two more, and you think in terms of days rather than weeks, if I happen to tag you with a consequence then our negotiation is probably going to end up with neither of us satisfied if we even come to agreement. And since each of us sincerely believe our positions, it's not a question of "bad faith".
Thus, I think that in addition to the mechanical systems and consent policies, that it is a good idea to develop a community sense of what "reasonable" means in various contexts.
Props like the Watch are essentially broader general services to the game, and one of the conditions of holding them (or the Hounds, or the Amber Navy or Army and so on) is the willingness to let them get involved in things without significant burden on players.
Good-faith play in this particular case involves making reasonable decisions about what the Watch would do, and keeping the prop owner sufficiently informed about scenes in which they play a significant part. Conversely, the prop owner's duty is to not restrict the contexts in which they can use.
If you are initiating a conflict against the Watch, whether implicitly as your character or on a more abstract basis, then you should be declaring this with a mechanical system. For instance, if you run a scene in which you are trying to make the Watch look bad, it should be backed with a Focus-invested gossip. And even in this case, it's incumbent on you to be reasonable. The Watch not responding to a routine mugging in the Lower City is perfectly reasonable; the Watch not responding to a crime in the Upper City is probably not.
Think of Discworld's Night Watch in its less competent days -- you've got guys like Vimes who like and are really good at police work, but you've also got a bunch of screw-up oddballs like Nobby whose idea of police work is guarding a lamp-post so nobody steals it. The Watch jumps when important people are involved, but petty crime goes on all the time, and there are places in the city that are nasty enough that the Watch doesn't go there (the equivalent of the Shades).
Both the Hounds and the Watch are military forces of considerable mass. (For a historical comparison, consider the size of the Guard at Versailles.)
Reply
I just want to highlight this, because the line is extremely fine. You can say "My prop is fanatically loyal to me" or "I don't feel that a secret group inside my organization undermining it is in theme." On the spectrum of meaning, they are very close, but one falls on the reasonable side, and one on the unreasonable. Ditto for "I will use my prop to make your life a living hell if you do that" versus, "That will result in a negative reaction from the prop."
If you open up your prop negotiations on the unreasonable side, you're going to find that people aren't going to want to negotiate with you, and aren't going to trust you. People who are unreasonable often enough, or are perceived as being unreasonable, are going to gain a reputation for acting in bad faith. People who fall on the reasonable side of the line are going to have the opposite.
Reply
I also think that if two people can't 'negotiate' that they should accept that they don't see eye to eye and draw in a mediator if possible to help them nut out what it is the two individuals are hoping to create in regards to RP/Story. Otherwise both individuals should just walk away and leave each other and their various prop (whichever was being discussed) alone.
In regards to trust; it's a 2-way street.
I like to think individuals are mature enough to contact PropCo's on their own and discuss matters with them to learn for themselves whether or not a player can be trusted or is open to negotiation.
I can use myself as an example; I had been told that a certain individual had issues with me - that same individual was hearing something along similiar lines. 2 other players told me to contact said individual and find out firsthand so finally I did. I like to think that particular individual and I accept there is no issue OOC; of course IC is another story but that's what it is, story.
Since then, I've heard negative things about a few different individuals but now I contact them to find out for myself; I don't take someone else's gospel as fact any more. You start doing that, then you start alienating yourself from play within various spheres/props and for what? Relying on information from one source who just may have got it wrong? Ask yourself too, is it really going to hurt me to take five minutes to find out for myself? The answer is no and in most instances, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Also thus far, nobody who has commented here appears to be making any unreasonable suggestions or decisions.
Reply
Unfortunately differing people have differing ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. In your examples? I very likely didn't see the same strengths or weaknesses you did.
And - let's be honest. All of us are capable of misinterpreting tone in text when we are tired, pissed at work, or whatever. All of us are capable of being snippy or shorter in writing the text sometimes too. What sounds unreasonable may not be 'meant' to be unreasonable, if that makes sense.
Which brings us back to the onus of acting as adult as we can, not blowing the situation up and gossiping about it to others, and falling back on the mechanical resolutions or staff assistance as need be. There are some people we're never going to like or like playing with. That's life.
Reply
For example, lets take combat consequences. If I think an appropriate one is to be in the hospital for a week, in bed for another, then limping for two more, and you think in terms of days rather than weeks, if I happen to tag you with a consequence then our negotiation is probably going to end up with neither of us satisfied if we even come to agreement. And since each of us sincerely believe our positions, it's not a question of "bad faith".
Thus, I think that in addition to the mechanical systems and consent policies, that it is a good idea to develop a community sense of what "reasonable" means in various contexts.
Reply
Leave a comment