What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Implemented Be More Specific About What Is Considered Autoing Another Member's Character

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wes

Wes

Founder & Admin
Staff Member
🌸 FM of Yamatai
🎖️ Game Master
🎨 Media Gallery
This is a proposal to update the rules based on a couple of situations that occurred recently which resulted in the staff receiving complaints and reports for things that aren't explicitly against the site rules, but probably should be.

1. Currently the rules (Player Rights) say you cannot be forced to play a character through someone making an unauthorized copy of your character using technology like ST backups. I propose this is supplemented by a general rule prohibiting other players from playing any kind of copies of your character in general, unless they have permission, to include simulations and holograms of them, unauthorized clones, mirror universe versions of them, and treating this as "autoing" of your character. For example, people should get Cowboy's permission first if they want to make or play a holographic copy of Hoshi Sanda. This is pretty straightforward and I hope it makes sense to everyone.

2. Secondly, I propose that the rules explicitly specify that when a character runs an organization (e.g. corps, factions, groups), and has the decision making power over it, no one can make decisions for the organization that would have required your character's approval, without your permission, as this is also autoing the character. For example, if someone wanted to post that major changes happened in First Fleet, they should run those by me (preferably by talking to her in RP or in communication threads) because I play Taisho Kessaku Irim and that's her decision to make (plus I'm the OOC manager). I shouldn't have to find out what my own character decided after the fact. Communication is key here. If it's unclear for which characters decide what, you can put that on the wiki page.

I respectfully ask that you don't single anyone out in the replies, as this is meant for everyone and not for a particular person.

If these rules make sense to you, upvote this suggestion. If not, downvote it.
 
Upvote 5 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Wes said:
Communication is key here.
Click to expand...
Not just here, but everywhere! Communication is a critically important thing in almost every facet of life.

If you're not sure, look it up! If you're still not sure, provide references and ask! And be sure to explain if you have some sort of end goal ("I wanted to help remove redundant pages", for example) instead of leading people along wondering what you're trying to do.
 
I am more partial to the second point than the first because it seems like a bigger issue. Over the past year for instance, multiple people have referenced SAINT in news articles in ways that do not really make much sense and have done so without coordinating with the SAINT manager.

The first point is a little stickier. Stuff like "mirror universe" missions have always been fun and are definitely not the same characters. Half the point of mirror universe missions is that the characters are different but only really look the same, which provides superficial tension and plays on the sympathies of involved characters. So I'm not going to upvote these two things as a package.

I think both of the points are already protected, however. It's more a matter of enforcement or caring at all. Often it's better to simply not make a big deal about things that do not matter. If someone made a ruckus every time SAINT was mentioned in a news article without prior communication (or even in RP) then so many mentions of SAINT would need to be edited. Just using it as an example because I've got past experience there, but I think it applies to many organizations within the Star Army.

Generally, I don't think any rules changes should be made because certain people want to make a mountain out of a molehill. All of us have dealt with some form roleplay perceptions not lining up with our vision and that's just part of roleplaying that we all deal with.
 
The main idea with Mind Game was simply to use the images of crew members, not to reflect their actual skills. The situation IC is incredibly complicated and I only wanted to reflect that. However I can certainly see where these complaints, at least in regards to number 1, come from.

I apologise for causing anyone distress.
 
I've only ever experienced issued with players and my GM-ing and storytelling when I guest-GM'd another plot and players weren't used to what my GMing was like or my balancing and rock throwing so I don't have too much skin in this game since I am the perfect undisputed GM of this community (Whose andrew?) so i'll play devils advocate here a bit and bear with me cause im sick AF and running a high fever.

But there is an expectation that you consent to participate in a story that a plot/GM are telling and unless it borders on something like forced adult situations on a player I dont see much of an issue. I see that there is an issue but tbh from an outside perspective this whole thing smacks as Sue-encouragement where some players just downright refuse to get mud on their shoes. It feels like it is all glistening 8-packs now and downright Mary/Gary Sue/Stu-ing when I remember there was a 3rd party site I was required to check down the list of when I first started here 14 years ago to make sure that your character isnt in that category and the expectation that they are mortal and will face challenges.

I kill the players characters in my plot or outright maim them. I get them shot in the chest when they decide to run into CqC in the middle of a gunfight. They get cool scars out of it and excuses for cybernetics if they want but they all have the expectation that a plot named Die Screaming or Die Trying wasnt about shagging up with half of a ship crew and siring ten kids in JPs on the side and the only DMs I get from that are them trying to prod at if their idea for an encounter will work out of not (And I always just tell them to try and find out~)

I say all that because it takes only one player with the wrong expectations about the RP and their place in it to stonewall a plot entirely. If they arent comfortable they can speak up but it's unreasonable to walk up to a GM and tell them they cant tell their story because one of their players has put their foot down and must get their way especially when from what I can garner from an outside perspective I see nothing wrong with putting someone in a situation to fight their ST or clone or what not; They don't have to, They can scream or run away, lock themselves in a closet, shut down entirely IC and the GM can just have that ST or clone monologue at them until an NPC comes in and shuts them up.

We should try to reinforce that this is a place to tell stories and all that entails and not a place where you are the center of every plot.

But that's just my POV as a GM whose players never complain about him or his storytelling that im aware of.

This was not directed at any single person or group of people and I do not know the players involved.
 
Last edited:
raz said:
Over the past year for instance, multiple people have referenced SAINT in news articles in ways that do not really make much sense and have done so without coordinating with the SAINT manager.
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to my news article, @raz (I’m guessing it’s mine, as a search for ‘SAINT’ and a search for ‘Intelligence’ in the News Stories subforum returns a combined total of three relevant results that weren’t written by you: mine, one by Andrew, and one by HarperMadi), then I sincerely apologize, as my intent wasn’t to embarrass SAINT, portray it in a way that didn’t make sense, or paint it as being incompetent or anything like that - the onlu reason I didn’t bring it up with you is because I didn’t think its inclusion was very major or important (in my opinion, of course). I’ll happily remove its mention from the article if you want (please let me know in forum PMs), and I’ll be sure to check in with you before including SAINT in any other news articles (or the Panopteles plot, for that matter).

Also note that this post is not meant to cause drama or anything - just to apologize for a failure of communication on my behalf. >v<
 
Wes asked us not to single out any situation explicitly so I am not going to comment on that. Also, Ame is the SAINT OOC manager so direct questions to her if you want.

My point was that this stuff happens all the time and none of the current or former SAINT people have ever sought out a rules change. Sometimes it's better to simply let stuff slide than bark "YOU GOTTA COMMUNICATE BETTER" at people who refuse to. As much as I like Wes' change for the 2nd proposal, I honestly don't think any change will make people start deferring to managerial characters when they aren't already doing so.
 
Wes asked us not to single any situation out explicitly
Click to expand...

And yet that's exactly what you did? If we want to use it as an example, let's dig into it and discuss where we think boundaries lay. If not, we should probably edit these posts.

I think I agree with Raz that this is mostly a clarification of the rules as they exist. I think that there is a lot of stuff that is informally agreed on, such as a multiverse arc in a game. Communication is key, and when communication breaks down mistakes are made. Players don't just have a say in what a character does, they also have a say in what happens to them. For example, if someone had something that killed off Sacre, Sacre might not have any control over that situation. However, I as a player do have a say in it (and the answer is no BTW, lol). If the player and GM disagree, there needs to be a negotiation about how they can both get what they want. That's not always possible. Another point is that sometimes the player and GM will agree on the broad strokes of what happens, but the problem arises in how it's characterized. For example, when a player leaves a ship they might want it to be a routine transfer rather than them getting kicked of the ship by a pissed captain. There is often truth in both sides of that. In general, we should probably let the more neutral opinion prevail.

There is a balance to be struck between 'stifling rigidity' and 'running over other people's characters'. Especially when it comes to characters who lead setting wide elements. I'll use Seventh Fleet as an example. It is entirely possible that a RP could happen that say uses a seventh fleet ship in a way that makes Fletcher look like an idiot. I don't really want him to look like an Idiot. (Unless it's me making him look like an idiot.) I might not know about it for a while because I often don't read RP I'm not directly involved in. But when I do find it, I might not exactly be happy about it. However, there can be a range of 'things that make him look like an idiot.' It's a sliding scale, not a binary. For example, say the ship is poorly equipped or something. That is mediated through several layers of bureaucracy and distance so it's probably on the far end of the scale. On the close end of the Scale they could say have the fleet do something and say something like "and everyone in the whole empire thought that was a stupid action that only an idiot would command." I feel like that's a pretty direct impingement on Fletcher's character. It's something I should have some sort of a say in. On the other hand, a individual character saying "I think that's a stupid action that only an idiot would command." is very different as it's the opinion of that specific character. In general, I think wide sweeping statements of general opinion in narration about some action/character tread on dangerous ground that more narrow statements by individuals don't.

I think we need to have this conversation to remind people where we feel like the lines and points of demarcation are. For me, I think one thing that moves something that's in the grey zone deeper into the dark side is the respect with which you treat what other people have worked to establish about shared setting elements. We see this disrespect in Hollywood movies/sequels all the time and it causes audiences to react more negatively to the movie than they otherwise would have.
 
FrostJaeger said:
If you’re referring to my news article, @raz (I’m guessing it’s mine, as a search for ‘SAINT’ and a search for ‘Intelligence’ in the News Stories subforum returns a combined total of three relevant results that weren’t written by you: mine, one by Andrew, and one by HarperMadi), then I sincerely apologize, as my intent wasn’t to embarrass SAINT, portray it in a way that didn’t make sense, or paint it as being incompetent or anything like that - the onlu reason I didn’t bring it up with you is because I didn’t think its inclusion was very major or important (in my opinion, of course). I’ll happily remove its mention from the article if you want (please let me know in forum PMs), and I’ll be sure to check in with you before including SAINT in any other news articles (or the Panopteles plot, for that matter).

Also note that this post is not meant to cause drama or anything - just to apologize for a failure of communication on my behalf. >v<
Click to expand...
Yeah one day raz said to me, "Frost wrote for SAINT in his news post." I had read it and said, "Yeah but the laison could just be explaining SAINT is involved and maybe they are, maybe they handed some pertinent information on to those investigating. If he writes them doing anything more I'll bring it up." So it was pretty nothing burger. It's been worse before where I was like, "Why are they writing the intelligence branch like a fumbling idiot or doing things other facets of the Star Army would be doing?" And those things needed to be changed. You're good, Frost.

Soban said:
And yet that's exactly what you did? If we want to use it as an example, let's dig into it and discuss where we think boundaries lay. If not, we should probably edit these posts.
Click to expand...
raz didn't, Frost did that. raz was speaking generally because, if you read what I said above, it's happened a few times.

I think it's also happened a few times where Director Shida was written for and so was SAINT- by Fred. The two of us have communicated and he was like *puts on a Canadian French accent* "Okay Ame, I will not write for Shida like that, but I do need this for my plot!" Then he wrote eighteen paragraphs and I gave him a peace sign.

My point is Frost's post, open a dialogue with me if you want to be like: "SAINT did blah blah blah". Open a dialogue with me if I overstepped your player character boundaries, too! Or your OOC management duties! Tiptoeing around each other like we're all walking on eggshells is so 2020. It's such a creative bummer to be told something you did was bad. Better to spitball before you do it.
 
You know, I am really back-and-forth on this.
One of the Players Rights is that they can also be abused. Imagine you’re playing a game of D&D and your game master determines that your character needs to make a particular roll, or failed a roll, or in someway had a negative experience or failure. The player cannot simply tell the game master “no, I don’t accept that”. Or if PvP occurs the players cannot simply refuse incoming damage.

The reason I mention this is because some of Star Army’s rules create an environment where players can perform an action and generally not fear any consequences or ramifications. In some ways this can be used for good storytelling, but in other ways it can be exploited. Honestly, I am against expanding the Players Rights, but rather reducing them slightly. Players operating in good faith will occasionally make a mistake and it can be fixed cordially. If we make the rules more granular I foresee the potential for someone acting in bad faith to use “Rules as Written” arguments to avoid all consequences of failed actions or pushback on ideas that affect the story and other players.
 
Here's a thing: how does someone who isn't a gamemaster doing it for a plot's sake even get control of a simulacrum of someone else's character in the first place? Just about any way it could feasibly be done would be illegal in Yamatai and probably a lot of other places from an in-character perspective.
 
Rizzo said:
Imagine you’re playing a game of D&D and your game master determines that your character needs to make a particular roll, or failed a roll, or in someway had a negative experience or failure. The player cannot simply tell the game master “no, I don’t accept that”.
Click to expand...
This is one of the places that is the softest on In Character Actions = In Character Consequences that I have ever participated in, and it's more of a bug than a feature (although SARP's longevity and resiliency may speak to the fact this is not necessarily a flaw of critical severity, and that longevity and resiliency always needs to be kept in mind when discussing what is "wrong" with SARP)
 
Rizzo said:
You know, I am really back-and-forth on this.
One of the Players Rights is that they can also be abused. Imagine you’re playing a game of D&D and your game master determines that your character needs to make a particular roll, or failed a roll, or in someway had a negative experience or failure. The player cannot simply tell the game master “no, I don’t accept that”. Or if PvP occurs the players cannot simply refuse incoming damage.

The reason I mention this is because some of Star Army’s rules create an environment where players can perform an action and generally not fear any consequences or ramifications. In some ways this can be used for good storytelling, but in other ways it can be exploited. Honestly, I am against expanding the Players Rights, but rather reducing them slightly. Players operating in good faith will occasionally make a mistake and it can be fixed cordially. If we make the rules more granular I foresee the potential for someone acting in bad faith to use “Rules as Written” arguments to avoid all consequences of failed actions or pushback on ideas that affect the story and other players.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the balance of In-Character Action and In-Character Consequence is something that this community has struggled with for a long time. In the end, the policies in place were put there were done to try and ensure a safe and happy player base. I understand where you are coming from on this entirely. I've been frustrated many times when there have been situations where things have been done in character that in any other setting my character would have killed the other player character for it. Over the years I have concluded that sometimes concessions have to be made in the name of keeping people happy. They may not make sense to someone like me who has experience in other communities where action and consequence are less regulated.

I think this topic you've brought up would make a great stand-alone discussion. Sadly it doesn't apply to the issue of the actual post because simply putting it; Autoing and Puppeting someone else's character unless you a GM doing something to keep things flowing should be not on the table at all.
 
I think a lot of people are looking at the first concept and thinking: does this mean a GM can't create consequences? Which isn't what it was built around. Maybe the wording can more clearly state this is to relegate what players can do to player characters, not to do with Game Masters.
 
When a faction manager or member of Staff makes edits it is not your place to edit them. I'm not going to argue with you though. You have a wonderful day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top