[Poll] Theme Enforcement - the gentle approach

[Voxumo]

First Example: Yes, in the situation described, it'd only be an issue of the GI knew his buddy was the Rubeus Manus (otherwise, it's hardly against theme for a mage to deceive someone).

Third Example: ICly.

If it's icly, then staff should remind the GI of just what their job is, and if it continues then similar to first one, a helpful rumor to get rp hopefully started on player side.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

For me, the need for Staff to step in and have a heavy-handed fix to theme issues like that reflects scenarios in which the, ah, "checks-and-balances" so to speak of self-policing by players has broken down to a point where the players feel there's nobody who can correct the issues in-game. There's nothing inherently WRONG with a noble "acting like a freeman" or the Grand Inquisitor befriending the leader of the Magus or letting a known mage go ... but when players don't feel like they have any power to self-police those powerful roles without significant risk to their character, that's when I think issues begin to arise. A Grand Inquisitor who is known to be lenient to magery should be pulled down by the rest of the people — just the same, I would say, as a Grand Inquisitor who got Bloodthirsty, a noble who went way overboard with screamin' and hollerin' about station, and others where there's a corporeal duty the role represents that they just aren't doing.

To point out a very recent example that I don't mind sharing, Dawn was very vocal about her opinion of a recent Grand Inquisitor being very involved with the physical hunting and fighting of mages, doing what she felt was a Knight's job (and doing it very poorly). Before his death, Dawn started asking around certain people of influence for ways that he might be removed or chastised for this ... breach of duty, so-to-speak. And while the efforts did lead to the player being vulnerable to a gambit with a hated reputation as a Guild Leader, there wasn't much else I or others felt they could do since our characters certainly weren't suited to running in on that gambit (and really, who would? It seems a bit .. heretical, after all).

What I'd like to see Staff do in situations like this, where it seems like there is a disconnect between the expectation of influential roles of the game and player satisfaction with those roles, is to add in more voices against that player, potentially going IC with temporary characters to say things in more combative ways that people can latch on to. Go IC with a dissatisfied priest and drop hints that someone should 'do something about this'. Run a spur-of-the-moment scene as a bard singing a coarse, lewd song about the Guild Leader or noble. RP what the player's aren't. Staff shouldn't be the ones doing something heavily impactful themselves— they shouldn't make a character to call a gambit, they shouldn't put a bounty out in the system for a player— but they can be the ones calling for that sort of thing when other metrics and player feedback suggests that a change is wanted.

I think the support and gambit system right now works great for Guild Leaders, but that it isn't doing its job with enforcing the public opinion of nobles and gentry. Support/Subvert feels like it has so much weight to it, and carries with it snowball-effects of public opinion (getting someone with a lot of support behind them to hate you and your support can quickly go to the pits) that fits the at-times tumultuous mob mentality that an era like this can succumb to; that doesn't feel right when considering the role of a noble not acting like a noble or a gentry acting like a spineless Charalin (so to speak).

I would love to see a STANDING system added for just nobles (and gentry?) that allows other players the ability to kind of show their more personal feelings for other members of their social class (this could be just for the nobility, especially at the start to try it out). As having a good (or, at worst, neutral) standing amongst one's peers is a central piece of importance for the nobility, I think we can codify this as a more inherently toothless manner for players to police themselves on theme. A noble with low standing amongst their peers might find their sources of automatic income drying up to simulate the trade deals canceled as other domains and gentry houses begin to lose trust in the particular noble's capabilities; a noble with low standing might find their estate easier to break in to from the Brotherhood, or cost more to maintain. Court gossip could, this way, ruin a noble who is acting "too commoner": A particularly low standing might even leave the noble character owing money back to the automatic income system each IRL week as their house begins to lose funds and crumble; when the noble goes broke they lose their noble status entirely, stripped by the Duchal Council.

[Dice]

Re: Renton: I do think your reluctance to burn people has been coming through in your RP. You're a fantastic RPer, though, and I totally understand how hard it is to kill someone off.

Ultimately, I personally am a fan of a sort of "passive" Order - that is to say, one that doesn't strongly investigate minor slip-ups (e.g., an Order that doesn't hear somebody's been sleeping around, say "They must be a mage!" and start investigating them) or otherwise chase any number of tiny peccadillos. My reasoning there is that Lithmore is huge, and there shouldn't be any time for chasing every garbage behavior that looks like it could be a lead - not to mention that we shouldn't even notice all the things we do in scenes!

But I also do believe that, when solid evidence comes up, we do the theme a disservice by NOT acting on it. By solid, I mean multiple strikes against a character that all point in the same direction, etc. - but that said, there are no perfect standards for what constitutes "real, burnable evidence". TI certainly does not operate on a "reasonable doubt" standard, more a "Does Inquisitor <x> think you're a mage? Okay, you die" standard. So I don't think you should be too hard on yourself, as that is a really hard judgment to make. None of the cases you've had to handle have been open-and-shut, certainly.

So in short, I think there's many a slip between magery and arrest - or many a chance for us to instill leeway into the system. If Inquisitors don't chase small signs aggressively and leave non-heretical behaviors to priests, there's an area for the Order to allow some OOC compassion; if Knights play through arrest scenes fairly without twinking and with allowance for RP factors above and beyond code, there's another. I also recommend stringently surveying our IC evidence for any OOC bias, too, as it can really sneak in there. "Do I KNOW this sighting was this guy? He's got a green cloak that matches the exact string of the note - but wait, that's not IC evidence, that's OOC", for an example.

But once we've done all that... ultimately, the Inquisition has to function, and it can't function without executing mages. Without that threat at the end of the road, the conflict at the heart of the theme loses all of its teeth. OOC compassion can let you, say, allow someone's escape attempt to succeed if they get a knife to your throat - but it shouldn't keep your PC from making the judgment that IC signs point to, even if it does cut someone's RP short.

That said, I think you're a great GI and I really look forward to seeing where you go.

[Pixie]

I want to thank everyone who spoke up after the prodding. I appreciate the comments.

I see there's some stuff about making the backdrop of the game grittier - I'll ask people to focus on that in another thread, which I'll kick off.

Here are some examples that I'd love to get specific opinions on:
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports something like the Grand Inquisitor becoming IC friends with the GL of the Manus?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a noble consistently acting like a freeman?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a GI letting known mages go?

What scenarios did I not mention above, if any, that you think staff really ought to make an exception to get actively involved to step in on?

Example 1: Nothing. Characters need to be able to make mistakes or commit gross errors and not have it OOCly corrected. If this information were known ICly to others they'd handle it, which is how it should be.
Example 2: Talk to the noble about theme; if they're aware they're not acting like a noble, at absolute most Staff could start a rumor about them to encourage players to act.
Example 3: Nothing. Characters need to be able to make mistakes or commit gross errors and not have it OOCly corrected. If this information were known ICly to others they'd handle it, which is how it should be.

[Geras]

I want to thank everyone who spoke up after the prodding. I appreciate the comments.

I see there's some stuff about making the backdrop of the game grittier - I'll ask people to focus on that in another thread, which I'll kick off.

Here are some examples that I'd love to get specific opinions on:
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports something like the Grand Inquisitor becoming IC friends with the GL of the Manus?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a noble consistently acting like a freeman?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a GI letting known mages go?

What scenarios did I not mention above, if any, that you think staff really ought to make an exception to get actively involved to step in on?

On 1, I'm assuming they know each other's roles. otherwise I'd think the GI would be pretty blameless. I wouldn't want to exclude pragmatic and complex relationships, but in terms of the more extreme blatant case, I thought there was a policy against outright traitor GLs ever since the Reeves gutted the Thieves with one? I think it's a place where if there's a way for the Synod to be informed ICly, the Imms can act through them to have the GI removed.

2 - I think this is trickier. It'd be interesting to have an IC way to handle this IMHO. IE nobles/some sort of council vote them out?

3 - I think that ICly the GI would have to answer to the Synod. If this was part of some stratagem, they'd judge it.

[Dice]

I think #2 should be handled just by having a talk with the noble to make sure they understand theme (and requiring thematic noble apps with a section, perhaps, about how they relate to the lower class? HEad that off at the pass!)

#1 and #3 are harder. The issue I have with the "handle it IC!" thing is that probably 75% of PCs are heretics, but like 95% of the -world- is faithful - and 95% of the world HAS to be faithful for the theme to work. I think Geras's comment about traitor GLs is probably the best way to handle it: if a GL is openly revealed as being a blatant heretic or criminal in some obvious and undeniable way (magery, murder, or extreme heresy), staff has to be willing to oust them instantly.

Now, if a GI lets a known mage go and only one lone person finds out ICly... it's on that lone person to find a way to get that information 1) openly revealed and 2) supported by evidence. But if they can do so, I think the GI needs to be removed.

That said? Case #1 has never openly happened in my experience/knowledge. Case #3 HAS happened, and it's been handled ICly every time just fine. Case #2 is the one that happens all the time, and the one we most need to think about, imo.

[Gerolf]

I want to thank everyone who spoke up after the prodding. I appreciate the comments.

I see there's some stuff about making the backdrop of the game grittier - I'll ask people to focus on that in another thread, which I'll kick off.

Here are some examples that I'd love to get specific opinions on:
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports something like the Grand Inquisitor becoming IC friends with the GL of the Manus?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a noble consistently acting like a freeman?
- What would players like staff to do when someone reports a GI letting known mages go?

What scenarios did I not mention above, if any, that you think staff really ought to make an exception to get actively involved to step in on?

Example 1: Nothing. Characters need to be able to make mistakes or commit gross errors and not have it OOCly corrected. If this information were known ICly to others they'd handle it, which is how it should be.
Example 2: Talk to the noble about theme; if they're aware they're not acting like a noble, at absolute most Staff could start a rumor about them to encourage players to act.
Example 3: Nothing. Characters need to be able to make mistakes or commit gross errors and not have it OOCly corrected. If this information were known ICly to others they'd handle it, which is how it should be.

I share a lot of the same opinions at Pixie here, but I'd to add a few more thoughts.

First the three situations described above are IC issues not OOC ones. IC actions have IC consequences. I would much rather someone checked in to make sure that the noble in situation 2 knew that they were acting unthemely before just taking away their character (Newer players might not know)

One and three, as everyone has said, is much more difficult. Why? Because I am willing to bet that 90% of the time there is IC reasoning that the complainer has no visibility to. In fact I am going to stick my neck out and say that people -shouldn't- be complaining to staff about these sorts of things. Maybe the GI has a plan? Maybe it is a themely plan? Are they being open about their friend ship? Are you -sure- that the GI knows that the other player is Rubus? Too many variables for me to say If this than do this other thing.

Regarding 75% of the game being heretics it depends on how strict you want to define heresy. If you go by the help file only the act of defiance is heresy. Committing a sin due to lack of understanding isn't heretical in and of itself.

Bottom line in, I am ok with staff giving gentle nudges to steer someone on track but coming in guns blazing doesn't really make sense to me. If the GI is releasing mages because maybe he is sleeping with one. RP IT OUT! Burn that guy!

[Geras]

I think #2 should be handled just by having a talk with the noble to make sure they understand theme (and requiring thematic noble apps with a section, perhaps, about how they relate to the lower class? HEad that off at the pass!)

#1 and #3 are harder. The issue I have with the "handle it IC!" thing is that probably 75% of PCs are heretics, but like 95% of the -world- is faithful - and 95% of the world HAS to be faithful for the theme to work. I think Geras's comment about traitor GLs is probably the best way to handle it: if a GL is openly revealed as being a blatant heretic or criminal in some obvious and undeniable way (magery, murder, or extreme heresy), staff has to be willing to oust them instantly.

Now, if a GI lets a known mage go and only one lone person finds out ICly... it's on that lone person to find a way to get that information 1) openly revealed and 2) supported by evidence. But if they can do so, I think the GI needs to be removed.

That said? Case #1 has never openly happened in my experience/knowledge. Case #3 HAS happened, and it's been handled ICly every time just fine. Case #2 is the one that happens all the time, and the one we most need to think about, imo.

My suggestion would be some sort of sanctions brought down by other nobles. A vote of the court perhaps?

And here's an evil suggestion - make the punishment land on the people associating with said slumming noble.

[Klapman]

Klapman:

My comment on harshness certainly isn't directed at any players and more an overall preference from a theme POV. Honestly, I've barely seen any of your RP as Renton, but I've enjoyed -and have no complaints about-what I have seen!

Just to comment on the last paragraph, Klapman... being GI is a really tough gig and I really admire anyone willing to take a shot at it. In a certain sense, from my experience across several times in the job, I found that I really did have to 'harden my heart' (Very apt terminology there) against it. I think, in a certain sense, anyone playing here needs to accept that they may meet an untimely or unexpected death at the hands of Inquisitors (or others).

Re: Renton: I do think your reluctance to burn people has been coming through in your RP. You're a fantastic RPer, though, and I totally understand how hard it is to kill someone off.

Ultimately, I personally am a fan of a sort of "passive" Order - that is to say, one that doesn't strongly investigate minor slip-ups (e.g., an Order that doesn't hear somebody's been sleeping around, say "They must be a mage!" and start investigating them) or otherwise chase any number of tiny peccadillos. My reasoning there is that Lithmore is huge, and there shouldn't be any time for chasing every garbage behavior that looks like it could be a lead - not to mention that we shouldn't even notice all the things we do in scenes!

But I also do believe that, when solid evidence comes up, we do the theme a disservice by NOT acting on it. By solid, I mean multiple strikes against a character that all point in the same direction, etc. - but that said, there are no perfect standards for what constitutes "real, burnable evidence". TI certainly does not operate on a "reasonable doubt" standard, more a "Does Inquisitor <x> think you're a mage? Okay, you die" standard. So I don't think you should be too hard on yourself, as that is a really hard judgment to make. None of the cases you've had to handle have been open-and-shut, certainly.

So in short, I think there's many a slip between magery and arrest - or many a chance for us to instill leeway into the system. If Inquisitors don't chase small signs aggressively and leave non-heretical behaviors to priests, there's an area for the Order to allow some OOC compassion; if Knights play through arrest scenes fairly without twinking and with allowance for RP factors above and beyond code, there's another. I also recommend stringently surveying our IC evidence for any OOC bias, too, as it can really sneak in there. "Do I KNOW this sighting was this guy? He's got a green cloak that matches the exact string of the note - but wait, that's not IC evidence, that's OOC", for an example.

But once we've done all that... ultimately, the Inquisition has to function, and it can't function without executing mages. Without that threat at the end of the road, the conflict at the heart of the theme loses all of its teeth. OOC compassion can let you, say, allow someone's escape attempt to succeed if they get a knife to your throat - but it shouldn't keep your PC from making the judgment that IC signs point to, even if it does cut someone's RP short.

That said, I think you're a great GI and I really look forward to seeing where you go.

Aww, thanks a lot guys, that helps a lot. It's a really tough role to go into without much feedback, so I really appreciate the time you guys took to assuage some of my worries. Sometimes the pressure can go from IC to OOC real quick when it's this level of intensity, but now I feel properly refreshed and ready to give it a solid go. Thanks again!

[Kinaed]

After today's OOC Chat and a Request Board post with concerns around this topic, I thought I'd play necromancer and raise this thread from the dead.

To quote the original post:

Hi Players,

Lately, I've gotten a bit of pressure from various parties to take a stronger stance on enforcing theme, and we took a poll where players generally indicated they want more theme-enforcement from staff.

A lot of you have played on other RP muds. I don't want to enforce things to the extent that staff are running the game, constantly judging people's RP and meddling a lot shouting 'unthematic!' whenever we don't agree with any player's action, but equally I acknowledge that we probably need to do more than sit on our laurels and bite our nails when we see certain people ignoring fundamental built-in theme conflicts and subverting the purpose of, say, an entire guild.

So, let's say that we want a dark, gritty medieval theme for TI. Looking at situations you've encountered, what would you like to see staff doing? What do you want to see staff avoid doing like the plague?

Should we create any systems to support theme? Get creative, we can code almost anything.

Thanks in advance for your assistance with this query, you're helping us form policy, and that is important.

Mind, we play an RPI, and sometimes I get the feeling that people feel like whenever someone disagrees with them, it's anti-thematic, but hey! Why not revisit the question again? Have things shifted? What should be happening?

NOTE: Staff are hands off for reasons (which probably came out in this thread), so if we need to make changes, please be realistic instead of 'Staff are the answer, and staff should fix everything for everyone everywhere!" - remember, this problem exists entirely at the player level in all regards, from detect-ability through to aftermath. No matter what solution comes into play, the pbase plays a big part. Also, please read this week's OOC Chat for more context of why this was revived:http://www.ti-legacy.com/forums/viewtop ... =30&t=1663

Warm regards,
Kinaed