Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

It is something we would be concerned about, as it can be the result of coercion, as has already been pointed out. People being peer pressured into foregoing rules or be deemed lesser RPers or put into situations they are uncomfortable with.

After all, every player is here to enjoy the game - not be a casualty in someone else's enjoyment of it.

kleomenes wrote: The other issue is of course that the current rules are quite restrictive to those who can and would be able to handle conflict RP maturely, within server content guidelines and with rewarding and lasting RP impact.

I agree completely. Sadly, there seems to be no way to demonstrate this with any kind of confidence. We have to make sure we can protect those most vulnerable to exploitation in this scenario. If protecting kids from being bullied means I have to give up such a minor thing, then it's not a difficult choice.

ZestyDragon wrote: Are they though? If you communicate there is nothing stopping an OOC agreement. I doubt any DM is going to complain if the players agree. As far as the 72 hour rule and mind wipe are concerned anyway.

Yes. They are. I recently ran afoul of this rule, because all parties involved were having a fine time, and missed the point where the 72 hours came and went. I won't go into details, but it was ugly, feelings were hurt, and over a week of compelling, quality roleplay was tossed out the window with the summary execution of the "prisoner" (Who, by that point, was hanging around on their own free will). It left a nasty taste in everyone's mouth, captors and captive alike, and now none of us really speak to eachother. So, not only did that rule kill the RP for that instance, it severely damaged the player base willing to put in that kind of effort again. The effects are still being felt, months on.

So yes, in my opinion, that rule is restrictive, because the only way to enforce it is to do so universally, and without exception. Bear in mind, I don't have anything against the decision, or the DM'S that had to make the call -- it's a tough thing, because if you make an exception in one case, what's to stop making an exception next time?

DeepFriedMoose wrote:

kleomenes wrote: The other issue is of course that the current rules are quite restrictive to those who can and would be able to handle conflict RP maturely, within server content guidelines and with rewarding and lasting RP impact.

I agree completely. Sadly, there seems to be no way to demonstrate this with any kind of confidence. We have to make sure we can protect those most vulnerable to exploitation in this scenario.

Agreed.

And I'm sorry to hear about the negative experience, DFM. As you say the rules are likely to be blanket enforced by the DM team. Otherwise, you get the whole "If you were a good RPer, you'd agree not to involve the DMs" scenario and the rule is meaningless.

(And I have seen and experienced that scenario myself on this server in the past)

DeepFriedMoose wrote:because if you make an exception in one case, what's to stop making an exception next time?

And how are we indeed sure that everyone is actually comfortable with it? Even if one of them privately tells us they are and we then decide to put a stop to it, it's easy enough for the rest of the players involved to find out who voiced the concern and then lable them for it.

Better then to not subject people to that kind of peer pressure and coercion.

DM Ghost wrote:It is something we would be concerned about, as it can be the result of coercion, as has already been pointed out. People being peer pressured into foregoing rules or be deemed lesser RPers or put into situations they are uncomfortable with.

By that logic even the PvP rule is flawed. As after all the same peer pressure applies for accepting the pvp in the first place.

DM Ghost wrote:After all, every player is here to enjoy the game - not be a casualty in someone else's enjoyment of it.

Mutual enjoyment is very important. I am personally not a very big pvper though i have no objection so long as it fits the story. However i do believe open communication in conflict RP is important. Part of that means trusting what the other person has to say on the matter. Anyone under the disillusion that not being comfortable of a type of RP and abstaining makes them self or someone else a bad RPer is wrong. However if for some reason you still believe that and chose to undergo said RP, that is solely on you. No player should be expected to coddle another for a good odd 30 minutes to find the truth behind their response. And frankly if you say yes when you really mean no, that crap RP will do you some good. It will give you the confidence to say no next time.

Normally i would say something about how we are all adults and should act like it. However given the server rating that's not exactly the case. So instead i will say confidence is something that develops at different times for different people, some things help and others do not. Coddling does not.

DeepFriedMoose wrote:Yes. They are. I recently ran afoul of this rule, because all parties involved were having a fine time, and missed the point where the 72 hours came and went.

Without knowing the exact details i can't really comment. However with the way you have worded this it sounds like it was more of an assumption. Then all players sitting down and saying "yes this is fine". To that my response is never make assumptions communication is key, make sure they understand what they are agreeing to.

Mind you in my experience BG does things in a way that generally enforces more rules on the general population, when one to many cases present its self. While i don't agree with collective punishment, given the size of the server there are little options. So my suggestion to anyone wanting more then 72 hours or a lack of amnesia, make a club like the pvp rules and get it DM approved. It works for pvp rules i don't see why it wouldn't here.

ZestyDragon wrote:

DM Ghost wrote:It is something we would be concerned about, as it can be the result of coercion, as has already been pointed out. People being peer pressured into foregoing rules or be deemed lesser RPers or put into situations they are uncomfortable with.

By that logic even the PvP rule is flawed. As after all the same peer pressure applies for accepting the pvp in the first place.

This is what I've been saying since forever. Even the current PvP rules are open to exploitation and there's precedent.

The whole "PvP rules need lessened because 'quality RP'" and "We need permadeath/consequences" cadre of threads simply give more weapons for the coercer to convince a new player or someone who cares a great deal for their public presentation to "give in."

Well, at the same time, I suppose we need some kind of protection against invulnerability and Mary Sues.

I'd be very interested to hear comprehensive alternatives to the current ruleset, if anyone has suggestions. These rules need to ensure that neither side of a conflict can be coerced or peer pressured into situations they are uncomfortable with and ensure they are having fun, at the same time as making sure that no one can use these rules as an OOC shield against retaliation for their IC actions.

I personally can't think of a better system than the current one, even it is admittedly flawed.

I'm going to play devils advocate and say the players that need protection are not the ones that might feel "bullied" in to a situation. What needs protection is the RP players create. This whole concept that players need to be protected from themselves is nonsense. In the situation you described DeepFriedMoose the DM's should not have gotten involved unless a complaint was sent to them.

If a player does not want to take part in a piece of RP (capture or otherwise) they can refuse and should not feel badly doing so for whatever reason. If they feel pressured they can contact a DM. That's it.

To over policing RP between consenting adults for the argument that it may save some unfortunate soul who is feeling bullied but can not speak up for himself, is simply flawed logic. While it might be with good intention, far more damage is done than good.

Why is it that the DMs here feel that it is necessary to "protect the playerbase from itself" (hullo big brother!) here?

I've been on many other RP servers (Dalelands, Tales of Amn, Skullport, Realm of Darkness) during their respective primes, and have OOCly communicated quite a bit. No-one, not the DMs and not the players seemed to feel this was an issue. Everyone was having fun and for the most part, everyone was willing to play along in the story. If someone had an issue with bullying (or rule breakage, of course), they went to the DMs privately and it was resolved.

I've spoken to players here during RP and outside of it. There has been no indication that people are uncomfortable with RP. However, that could be due to the type of people I have spoken to as well. I have -seen- people who OOCly bicker, but that is usually due to an evil character going too close to the FAI gates (this RP makes me uncomfortable!) or when an even doesn't unfold in a manner that favors their character (this RP makes me uncomfortable!).

Quite side-note: Due to my own experiences, please do forgive me if I sound a bit jaded After all, wouldn't want to make me. . .uncomfortable!

If this is indeed part of the DM's agenda, perhaps a more clear-cut definition on it in the context of BGTSCC might help.

What is peer pressure, in the eyes of the DMs? Is it an assumed phenomenon, caused by a player not asking another player repeatedly if they are comfortable? Is there any evidence of its wide-spread presence, as it should be wide-spread enough to warrant the damage the rules "preventing" it cause (stifling RP, causing distrust towards the DM team, etc.).

Why are creating rules necessary, verses say a simple PM informing the DM team they are being bullied or don't feel "good" about a bit of RP?

There is a fair bit of danger in this agenda, as well.

What is uncomfortable? Can a player call a DM in, and will the DM just abide by their claims of the RP being uncomfortable? Could it be used as a "cop-out" for when RP isn't fitting a player's OOC narrative and want the RP to go a certain way for them ICly? If the DMs investigate claims of the RP being uncomfortable, what methodology do they use? If a player feels like a certain bit of RP just isn't fun at the time, is that enough? If they are indeed being peer pressured, and they choose to PM the DM after the RP is concluded, how is it dealt with?

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

Regarding DM Ghost's offer for suggestions, I have one:

The sever's rating is an important one imo. It is less important for the person's OOC age, more it sets an expectation of a level of maturity. We could do this:

Make the server an 18+ server. This sets an expectation that the players are legal adults, and are expected to act like adults.

Ban ERP, and make any sort of "heavy" torture RP (gore, etc.) banned as well.

This will be completely identical to the server as it is now, save in one key area: The expected maturity level of the player base.

Most players on this server (all, if I am not correct! The ones I knew were below 18 back in the day are now 18!) are already adults, and now players will be expected to deal with issues like adults. Either talk it out amongst ourselves, or PM DMs and ask for assistance with specific situations.

Honestly, rules are not needed for this agenda. Even with the rules in place, a PM is all it amounts to anyway. Unless DMs are hovering around, assuming people are being peer pressured into situations.

Mac wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate and say the players that need protection are not the ones that might feel "bullied" in to a situation. What needs protection is the RP players create. This whole concept that players need to be protected from themselves is nonsense. In the situation you described DeepFriedMoose the DM's should not have gotten involved unless a complaint was sent to them.

You don't know enough about that situation to comment and being a former DM you should know you don't know enough about that situation. What if there was a complaint? DFM might not even know if there was. What if there was other rulebreaking RP? We just don't know. If DFM is of the view it was the right call, even if it had fall out, I trust his view.

Its not about protecting players from themselves, its about protecting the vulnerable from the forceful.

Mac wrote:If a player does not want to take part in a piece of RP (capture or otherwise) they can refuse and should not feel badly doing so for whatever reason. If they feel pressured they can contact a DM. That's it.

But people don't. They suffer silently and acquiesce to what is forced on them. Alternatively, they run scared from the OOC rumour monger train and high school politics that dominate the server on some of these issues - a form of soft pressure that it is impossible for the staff here to police and that has very real victims and very real effects on distorting RP.

Its very difficult to get people to report any abuse at all, historically, because of the OOC fallout. Again, you should know this, given your former role, if you did any offenders registry duty.

Mac wrote:To over policing RP between consenting adults for the argument that it may save some unfortunate soul who is feeling bullied but can not speak up for himself, is simply flawed logic. While it might be with good intention, far more damage is done than good.

Bullying over conflict and consequences happens. "It shouldn't happen if everyone is mature" isn't a counter to the fact it happens. You are being Utopian in your view if you think everyone who engages in conflict RP approaches it maturely (I know you do, but many don't).

Talk about consenting adults is misguided given the scope in age of the players we have on the server.

metaquad4 wrote:I've been on many other RP servers (Dalelands, Tales of Amn, Skullport, Realm of Darkness) during their respective primes, and have OOCly communicated quite a bit. No-one, not the DMs and not the players seemed to feel this was an issue. Everyone was having fun and for the most part, everyone was willing to play along in the story. If someone had an issue with bullying (or rule breakage, of course), they went to the DMs privately and it was resolved.

*Checks the population of those servers that were mentioned.*

*Checks the population of BGTSCC.*

Apples and oranges. It's probably easy to keep up with this kind of stuff when your playerbase is less than 15-25 regular players (and in the case of ToA specifically you evidently dislike your playerbase anyway!). I don't mind the suggestion or debate but just to be clear, for BGTSCC we won't be making the server 18+ or changing our policy on capture RP any time soon.

I'd also like to point out that this policy is something that has developed from real-world problems that we've had to deal with from players and their capture RP over the years. Our policy as it exists now is a direct RESPONSE to those problems, and the problems themselves a direct result from being lenient and expecting our players to be mature adults and not need policies. This isn't just some line of carebear reasoning we made up to "theoretically" protect players from themselves because we're afraid someone will complain--it's to prevent issues that were cropping up in practice and everyday gameplay on a pretty regular basis.

As far as roleplay between two consenting adults, there's nothing preventing that. Much like other "adult-themed" RP you can pursue that avenue of RP on any venue you'd like that isn't on the BGTSCC game server without any fear of consequence. You cannot do it on the game server--and that rule will remain in effect for ANY capture RP extending beyond 72 hours.

metaquad4 wrote: Regarding DM Ghost's offer for suggestions, I have one:

The sever's rating is an important one imo. It is less important for the person's OOC age, more it sets an expectation of a level of maturity. We could do this:

Make the server an 18+ server. This sets an expectation that the players are legal adults, and are expected to act like adults.

Ban ERP, and make any sort of "heavy" torture RP (gore, etc.) banned as well.

This will be completely identical to the server as it is now, save in one key area: The expected maturity level of the player base.

Most players on this server (all, if I am not correct! The ones I knew were below 18 back in the day are now 18!) are already adults, and now players will be expected to deal with issues like adults. Either talk it out amongst ourselves, or PM DMs and ask for assistance with specific situations.

Honestly, rules are not needed for this agenda. Even with the rules in place, a PM is all it amounts to anyway. Unless DMs are hovering around, assuming people are being peer pressured into situations.

I don't think it's immature to give in to peer pressure or coercion. As such, I don't know if having expectancy of people being adults will change anything in this regard.

metaquad4 wrote: I've been on many other RP servers (Dalelands, Tales of Amn, Skullport, Realm of Darkness) during their respective primes, and have OOCly communicated quite a bit. No-one, not the DMs and not the players seemed to feel this was an issue. Everyone was having fun and for the most part, everyone was willing to play along in the story. If someone had an issue with bullying (or rule breakage, of course), they went to the DMs privately and it was resolved.

Having played on three of the four servers listed here, to imply these servers were bastions of mature roleplay and a standard to which this server should be held is... misguided at best. I think the very brief histories of three of them should illustrate that better than anything else.

The simple truth is that any server with a sizeable population will encounter the exact same problem, regardless of server rating. Because the more people you have, the greater the range of ideas you have on what constitutes enjoyable, engaging RP. And invariably, those ideas will clash, with all sides insistent that "their way is the best way". It's far easier to maintain a "looser" rule set when you're talking about a lower number of individuals- but, and this goes with any society, the more people you have gathering together the greater the need for more defined rules. That is the unfortunate trade off in any social contract. You can do more of what you want and find enjoyable on a smaller server, but you're going to have a lot less people to do it with.

It would be absolutely fabulous if the only rule we needed was Wheaton's Law. Unfortunately, it's not. That's not to say that I don't find the rules regarding player interaction becoming unwieldy and cumbersome and likely in need of re-evaluation, because I actually do. I just understand that those rules are never going to please everybody entirely. The purpose of those rules is to provide a framework which offers protection for those who don't want certain types of RP while offering the opportunity for those who do. Which means the server population- all of us- have to be willing to compromise.

The fact that a defined rule set needs to be in place is undeniable. Just saying "It's an 18+ server is not a fix, and would do absolutely nothing to the overall mentality of the server- mostly because, surprise surprise, one does not magically become sensible upon reaching a certain age. Prepare yourselves- peer pressure, "high school behavior", rumor trains, public shaming, all of these things? Do not go away. Ever. They are the ugly underbelly of human nature and social interaction, and the only thing that keep these behaviors in check in any gathering- be it workplace, or extracurricular, happens to be laws, rules, and codes of conduct. Honestly, in my experience, tacking 18+ or mature onto a server just meant I encountered more mouth frothing maniacs who believed I was "precious" because I didn't want to roll with their rape and torture RP. The PG13 rating is not about catering to children. It actually means "act like a civilized adult".

Fury_US wrote:

metaquad4 wrote: I've been on many other RP servers (Dalelands, Tales of Amn, Skullport, Realm of Darkness) during their respective primes, and have OOCly communicated quite a bit. No-one, not the DMs and not the players seemed to feel this was an issue. Everyone was having fun and for the most part, everyone was willing to play along in the story. If someone had an issue with bullying (or rule breakage, of course), they went to the DMs privately and it was resolved.

Prepare yourselves- peer pressure, "high school behavior", rumor trains, public shaming, all of these things? Do not go away. Ever. They are the ugly underbelly of human nature and social interaction, and the only thing that keep these behaviors in check in any gathering- be it workplace, or extracurricular, happens to be laws, rules, and codes of conduct. Honestly, in my experience, tacking 18+ or mature onto a server just meant I encountered more mouth frothing maniacs who believed I was "precious" because I didn't want to roll with their rape and torture RP. The PG13 rating is not about catering to children. It actually means "act like a civilized adult".

Fun fact. Some of the brightest people on Earth - folks doing science - can have some very, very vile "high school behavior". Some new student publishes research that contradicts your own from 30 years ago and is peer approved? Well, time to (do-me) their life up and spread rumors around the lab. Your graduate lab-slave has to attend to family matters and cannot come in to do weekend over time in your lab so you actually have to work? Guilt trip them into missing important family event when they shouldn't be working by saying how they're not a real researcher etc.

Even more fun fact, you'll get "high school culture'd" in academia for trying to get treatment for mental illness either related to the stress or unrelated.

And here's the kicker - without naming anyone, BGTSCC had DMs who specifically fall into the category that I am doing my utmost in preaching against. Said DMs have left lasting scars that havn't healed years since.

You get the same in retail as well - coworkers and managers trying to guilt trip you into taking on unpaid overtime "for the team" with an unspoken threat of less likely to receive good shifts.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/04/cu ... hange.html
https://www.alternet.org/story/140202/e ... the_price/
http://www.jhunewsletter.com/2009/11/19 ... ure-19649/
https://www.allisonharbin.com/post-phd/ ... o-my-story

kleomenes:

You don't know enough about that situation to comment and being a former DM you should know you don't know enough about that situation. What if there was a complaint? DFM might not even know if there was. What if there was other rulebreaking RP? We just don't know. If DFM is of the view it was the right call, even if it had fall out, I trust his view.

When you are right you are right and I don't know enough about the situation to make any judgment. So I take back my comment against the DM team.

However, that does not change how I feel. Having been a DM I have an incite as to how situations like this are generally handled. Many times I have seen the trigger pulled to early on a situation that could of and should of been resolved by the players on their own. The reason for doing this is always the same, because of what might happen and has happened in the past. As stated below.

Endelyon:

I'd also like to point out that this policy is something that has developed from real-world problems that we've had to deal with from players and their capture RP over the years. Our policy as it exists now is a direct RESPONSE to those problems, and the problems themselves a direct result from being lenient and expecting our players to be mature adults and not need policies. This isn't just some line of carebear reasoning we made up to "theoretically" protect players from themselves because we're afraid someone will complain--it's to prevent issues that were cropping up in practice and everyday gameplay on a pretty regular basis.

Call me naive if you like, but I think much of what happened in the past was growing pains. The community now is smaller and more mature than it was 5 years ago. To reference bad situations from years ago, that were caused by players who for the most part do not even play here anymore, is to live eternally in the past and to live in the past is to give up on the future. The player base has changed and matured over the years and the rules should also.

That said, I have been bullied in to a RP situation that I found very distasteful and wanted no part of. Without going in to detail I will just say that it was very disturbing and went on to break probably the most important core rule of the server. Yet I went along with it because I wanted to be seen as a "Good Roleplayer". Not someone that will ignore another's RP or back out when things are not going my way. So I understand the desire to protect people from having something like that happen to them and feeling like they have to go along with it.

Simply said though, it does not work. Like grasping at sand, the harder you ball your fist the more grains slip out.

If bullying is so far spread that it happens in the office place and research laboratories as well as school yards, then what possible chance is there to eradicate it on BGTSCC. Education is better than enforcement. Educating players that they can leave a situation they don't approve of without feeling bad about it. While also educating other players that it is not appropriate to bully or name call players that don't go along with their RP.