CONSENT: A Clarification for Castle Marrach

[Geist]

We make a lot of noise about, and even tout, the Castle Marrach consent system. It is, for many, a selling point of the game since it creates a zone of comfort around that character. In talking with Christopher Allen of Skotos at GenCon it was reinforced that the perception of consent has moved somewhat from its original intention. Some have come to interpret consent in Castle Marrach in unintended ways..

In the online documentation, consent is addressed in two locations. In Section 11 of the Tutorial, it says –

You've already been briefly introduced to consent. The basic idea is that, in Castle Marrach, things can't happen to you without your agreeing to them. There are three main categories where consent is needed:

• When you move "near" someone
• When you duel someone
• When you trade objects with someone

You've already been introduced to the consensual dueling system. More information on approaching and trading follows.

Contents:
11.1. Approaching and Being Approached
11.2. Trading Items

According to Christopher Allen, and as expressed above, the concept of consent was intended to allow players the opportunity to react to some physical action that would otherwise occur too quickly. “Punch Bob’s face.” is a single action that the character should have the option to react to but the speed of the parser prevents it. Physical consent allows it.

The second place consent is referenced in the online documentation is the source of most of the confusion. It is in the FAQ for the game and reads –

Q: Can you Player Kill (PK) in Marrach?
A: No. In general, Marrach is based upon consent. Nothing bad can happen to a player unless he agrees to it in some form (perhaps by working with a StoryTeller to coordinate a plot, perhaps just by accepting a duel).

Quite frankly, this is bad phrasing. The intention was to answer the question, Can you Player Kill (PK) in Marrach? and that is the only context the answer should be viewed in. The phrase “Nothing bad can happen to a player unless he agrees to it in some form” has produced a broad misconception of consent in Castle Marrach. (And we will be changing that phrasing shortly.)

Consent does not mean that nothing bad can happen to your character, ever. Consent does not give you the player the right to refuse the consequences of an action because you would prefer those consequences not happen to your character. Consent does not protect your character from the social/political ramifications of his or her actions.

Castle Marrach is an interactive story. Characters take actions and there are reactions. Reactions are consequences, and without consequences there is no interactivity. Perhaps the primary driving element of all types of drama, including interactive drama, is conflict. Conflict is required for drama, but it has taken on somewhat of a soiled meaning of late in Marrach where it has become something actively avoided. Conflict, in the dramatic sense, is simply an opposition of goals. Ser Joe and Sera Jane both see the cup of coffee on the table and want it. Conflict and drama ensue, even if it is just quick repartee and the eventual acquiescence to the superior wit of one to the other. Two people. One coffee cup. Conflict. Drama. Story.

Castle Marrach’s game environment is built around mystery, intrigue, and politics. It is a game of social favor and advancement. It is a game of consequences. If there is no risk of negative consequences, if there is no risk of failure, then there is no challenge. No conflict. No drama. No story.

Society in Castle Marrach has three clear tiers- the OB 11th Link “Guests of Her Majesty”, those of “Honored Guest” status or higher who hold positions or jobs on the Great Chain, and the aristocracy, including courtiers and the nobility. In speaking with Christopher Allen at GenCon it became clear that a certain distinction has been lost over time- if you want to be mostly safe from the machinations of Court, stay in the Outer Bailey and keep your head down. Once you figuratively cross the Great Bridge by getting noticed by someone of import, or literally through promotion or advancement you are entering the domain of the Court and all promises of “safety” are null and void.

The bottom line is once your character starts moving into the circle of influence of the Court they could be affected by it, whether they like it or not. It is the risk you agree to take. Choose your allies carefully, and your enemies wiser.

Additionally, you have to accept that an action taken now could have consequences long down the road, including some that it would be impossible to foresee when the action is taken. Disfavor is one of those consequences. Some characters and NPCs have very long memories and could make decisions later in light of that past action.

Consent and Courtesy

Players want the power of consent for socio-political ramifications for two reasons. The first is, obviously, they don’t want to risk losing what they’ve worked so hard to gain for their characters. The possibility of loss, however, should be something kept in mind from the moment the character sets off on any path of advancement. From a story standpoint there has to be a risk of failure otherwise there is no drama. Loss, however, is not the end of a story. In fact, loss is very often the beginning of a good story – a story of redemption, restoration, or even vengeance.

The other reason player’s want consent for plots is that there are some kinds of plots that a player does not want to be involved in. Generally speaking, this is an issue the player should resolve for his or herself. A player that does not wish to be involved in violent plots should not get involved with the Watch, for example. That’s pretty clear-cut, but it is not always so evident. That’s where courtesy comes in.

The other day, we let the player of a character holding a particular political position know that a plot containing some grief was about to come his way. In my mind, we didn’t have to do that since he, given his character’s rank and position, should assume that sometime, somehow, there’s going to be trouble. He in fact is waded hip-deep into an entirely different kind of trouble and knows full well there could be nasty consequences, but he’s accepting that risk for the possible gain. This new plot was coming somewhat out of left field so I thought it safe to warn him that something was coming. We weren’t specific, but we gave him the heads-up. Courtesy. Had he expressed to us the concern that it might be too much right now, for personal real life or even in-character reasons, we would have considered holding off (depending on how much else was affected.) The game is supposed to be fun, and shoveling another heaping of poop on an already steaming pile might not have achieved the goal.

Since the direct courtesy contact itself might telegraph too much of what’s going to occur, the Staff is available to act as a courier of sorts for such. We’ll be more than happy to pass on OOC courtesy notes between players or even do a little legwork to make sure that a particular plot direction isn’t going to be counter-productive.

Playing Fair

An important element of dealing with the consequences of actions is playing fair. Interactive drama like Castle Marrach is cooperative and so inherently relies on fairness. Having a total one-sided advantage that cannot be retaliated against or defended against is unfair. The greater the power that you have the more fair you have to play. This is something that the Game Staff wrestles with for the most powerful NPCs in the game. (And one of the areas where it has failed in the past.) There are many many things powerful NPCs can and should be doing that are simply unfair because of the near-absolute level of authority some of them wield. So we try and strike a balance between what makes sense, what is fair, and most importantly what leaves the story open for future chapters.

[Darren Brimhall]

The concept of 'fairness' would differ from player to player depending on their point of view.

There will be those who accept the risk, and likewise the punishment if it become a failure, because they knew full well of the possibilites of failure should such occur. Thus concidering their situration as being 'fair' because they went into it knowing the possibilities.

And then there will be those who'll cry 'I didn't consent to this!! " when the punishment does come down upon them. And thus concider their situration as 'unfair' because it wasn't what they planned on, concidered, envisioned, whatever.

I've endured a lot of the latter in plots that I have been in. Some of these 'messes' have come to a whimpering end, others have not due to the amount of damage done--and may never. And in this Game of Favor, such has most likely damaged my characters to the point where they will never even be concidered for Couriter Rank and above..So, I stay out of the loop.

Of course, RL doesn't help one bit. And in one case during the First Squire's Challange, Coders working in the background kept resetting the clock on a wound my character had--so he went through the whole affair with a Grave Wound, and had to play such. So instead of turning this post into one huge sob story involving my plight I say this: If you are going to be involved in plots, be very very aware of what all of the possible outcomes that can occur to your character. Because once you are in a Plot, outside of RL, Natural Disasters', Finanical Disasters', or your own Death, there will be no way of you leaveing the Plot at all--you are there to stay until the very end of it.

A simple rule to game by, just so you'll understand what you're getting into for fairness.

Darren

[Geist]

:gentle shove upwardly::

[Geist]

::nudged again just 'cause I'm surprised there hasn't been more commentary::

[Gareth]

If it makes sense, there tends to be little debate. Huzzah!

I suggest putting this under staff policies as a sticky.

I'd also suggest writing up something regarding typical terms related to consent or lack thereof: retcon (retroactive continuity, going back and patching up things that have been undone), whitewashing (ignoring things that have been nixed) and bluebooking (skipping over RPing the minutae, especially in regards to objectionable scenes like violence, e.g., do you need to RP a torture scene?), and so on.

For instance, there have been rape plots, demonic possessions or newly attacks where we have, as individuals or a community, retconned that "it never happened", came up with alternate reasons why so-and-so was acting wierd and whitewashed away plots or even whole characters.

This is often done for player comfort levels, and to make the game sane and pleasant to participate in. There might be times, though, when someone is not allowed off the hook quite so easily, and we might need to see things through.

It would be good to know when someone can unilaterally pull the emergency brake -- "That's it. I'm not going through with this!" -- and when it is recommended to involve an SG or SP, especially if stopping something in mid-stream might have larger ramifications or would just not make sense for the world to ignore.

-Pete.

[Namida]

It would also be nice to know, how to react to SG enforced altering of the past, past relations, shared past lives that suddenly are no longer and so on. What does one tell others is the reason, or does one just say; that past did not happen on SG order?

[Namida]

nudge

[Lance]

Actually, on account of being forced to go through some heavy-handed and inappropriate retcons, whitewashing, and even a little bit of non-consentual bluebooking, I also would like to see some formal guidelines on such things.

[SG Anaya]

*bump*

Please remember that your IC actions have IC consequences. If you chose to have your character behave in a way that encourages other people to dislike them, don't be surprised if they suddenly acquire a lot of enemies.

Similarly, while there have previously been (and no doubt will continue to be) cases of crossover where a player uses an OOC vendetta to punish another character IC, it is unfair to always assume and accuse other players of having OOC motives when their IC actions do not compliment your character.

[Angron]

Amen.

[Darren Brimhall]

Originally posted by Darren Brimhall
The concept of 'fairness' would differ from player to player depending on their point of view.

There will be those who accept the risk, and likewise the punishment if it become a failure, because they knew full well of the possibilites of failure should such occur. Thus concidering their situration as being 'fair' because they went into it knowing the possibilities.

And then there will be those who'll cry 'I didn't consent to this!! " when the punishment does come down upon them. And thus concider their situration as 'unfair' because it wasn't what they planned on, concidered, envisioned, whatever.

I've endured a lot of the latter in plots that I have been in. Some of these 'messes' have come to a whimpering end, others have not due to the amount of damage done--and may never. And in this Game of Favor, such has most likely damaged my characters to the point where they will never even be concidered for Couriter Rank and above..So, I stay out of the loop.

Of course, RL doesn't help one bit. And in one case during the First Squire's Challange, Coders working in the background kept resetting the clock on a wound my character had--so he went through the whole affair with a Grave Wound, and had to play such. So instead of turning this post into one huge sob story involving my plight I say this: If you are going to be involved in plots, be very very aware of what all of the possible outcomes that can occur to your character. Because once you are in a Plot, outside of RL, Natural Disasters', Finanical Disasters', or your own Death, there will be no way of you leaveing the Plot at all--you are there to stay until the very end of it.

A simple rule to game by, just so you'll understand what you're getting into for fairness.

Darren

I still stand by what I wrote, (though a comma between the two 'Very's" would have been better writing), and do remind myself when past experiences here begin to wear on my temper.

The responcibility is yours. You get stuck in a entangement, you gotta ride it out to the bitter end--or, perhaps, better end.

But, the SP's may need to start giving out OOC info to those players who's characters are going to go thru hell just to prevent the resultant 'wailing and whining' from occuring on this board from those who feel they've been, quote-unquote, 'screwed over' .

I sure wish this was done with me concerning Oathbreaker and the Battler's. It would have saved me a lot of grief.

Darren[

[Viceran]

Consent does not mean that nothing bad can happen to your character, ever. Consent does not give you the player the right to refuse the consequences of an action because you would prefer those consequences not happen to your character. Consent does not protect your character from the social/political ramifications of his or her actions.


Worth repeating.

[Xewe]

At the same time Viceran, I would like you to take a look at the example I give in the posting I made about Level of Discomfort

[Viceran]

I've had a look, and if you follow the guidelines above, you'll have no problem. It would seem to me that your problem is an OOC one, rather than an IC one.

The statement that I repeated here is directed at IC actions. If your character does something to mine, expect my character react. If you or your character don't like the reaction, then I suggest they think damn long and hard before they do something that will warrant a reaction in the first place. Of course hind sight is 20/20, or in other words, easier said than done, simply because people often do, then regret.

All I'm saying is, that if your character does something, it's natural for my character to react. If your character gives mine a gift, and he really likes that gift, he's going to react favorably. If your character talks crap about mine and he finds out, expect your character to be uncomfortable at some point in time.

-Expect it-

However, if we are in a role playing situation that is one that is known to make people feel uncomfortable, and you the player steps up and says that you are uncomfortable with "X" type of role play, then expect a "responsible" role player to adjust the situation accordingly. However, please note that this not an escape route for you and your character if they are about to have something bad happen to them due to their previous actions, with the exception of the uncomfortable types of role play that I spoke of in the other thread: rape, suicide, sex, etc.

Consent. Read the first post above. Learn it. Live it. Play fair. Play responsibly.

[SG Anaya]

*bumped again*

Please take responsibility for your actions and role play fairly. To quote Geist directly again:

Players want the power of consent for socio-political ramifications for two reasons. The first is, obviously, they don’t want to risk losing what they’ve worked so hard to gain for their characters. The possibility of loss, however, should be something kept in mind from the moment the character sets off on any path of advancement. From a story standpoint there has to be a risk of failure otherwise there is no drama. Loss, however, is not the end of a story. In fact, loss is very often the beginning of a good story – a story of redemption, restoration, or even vengeance.