RP and Assets

[Starstarfish]

To what degree is one able to RP information on assets? As buying things with IC silver arguably makes them tangible and "real" in some sense ICly. So to what degree do assets as a concept exist within the RP sphere? Do you RP them as deeds/pieces of paper with info on them sort of like I imagine the Real Estate office is?

- Like a home being up for sale are someone's assets being up for sale a fair sign to RP that they are possibly dead/left town/changed their name/fled the country.

- To what degree is it within RP that assets reveal the fact that they are against things like Piety/Lawfulness or involve things like illegal drugs/slavery. Because if people go inactive and their assets get posted automatically by code - once that's put out there, doesn't that give them a potential disadvantage to coming back?

[Kinaed]

I'm struggling to understand the question, apologies.

Assets are background, uh, assets. Typically a person doesn't carry around a farm, for example, but they can RP having a deed if they want to. They can also RP that they have nothing of the sort. Whatever makes sense to them, society acknowledges the asset is theirs.

With regards to what degree within RP ... I'm sorry, I just can't comprehend what's being asked. As far as I know, an asset being for sale doesn't list the previous owner, am I incorrect? As for whatever the metric the asset links to, the description is typically wiped and inaccessible when it's purchased, only the title and the metric remain.

[LonelyNeptune]

An asset for sale absolutely does list the previous owner.



I think the question being asked is this: Bob has an asset that is a slave trading company or something like that. He goes inactive, and his asset goes on the market. Now everyone who looks at the asset market knows that Bob had a slave trading company. Is this knowledge that can be taken IC?

My answer to the question is: probably not. Even if this information is revealed to us in the game, it isn't realistic to know about a character's covert business dealings. I would treat it as OOC knowledge and not take that knowledge on IC. I'd even go as far to suggest that the owner names should be removed from the asset market to avoid the situation of inappropriate information being made available OOCly. I can keep my OOC and IC knowledge separate, but I'd rather not know in the first place.

[Rothgar]

I think the question being asked is this: Bob has an asset that is a slave trading company or something like that. He goes inactive, and his asset goes on the market. Now everyone who looks at the asset market knows that Bob had a slave trading company. Is this knowledge that can be taken IC?

I dunno, man. I'd argue that we've been told to treat Assets as though they're IC. A quote, from the helpfile :

Assets represent an IC holding or job, which results in the character's
offscreen income, supplementing any money made in game through RP. They can
be purchased in chargen for xp or from the asset market for silver.

And also :

- Assets purchased in the marketplace can be edited by the purchaser.
All edits must be reasonable for an IC purchase of the asset.
Example: Joe's Meats can become Jane's Meats, but not a furniture shop.

So either the helpfile needs to be changed, the perception of Assets needs to be changed, or these need to be regarded as strictly OOC methods of getting income. But for now, I'd absolutely argue that all assets should be viewed as IC, and that wonky assets should be treated as IC, and should lead to investigations of inactive characters, with warrants and other things possibly being written. It's all IC, as-per the helpfile, and I believe it should be treated as such.

[Temi]

The assets themselves are absolutely 100% IC. Whether them being up for sale provides IC info about the characters is another question that I think we need to discuss as staff. I don't think it is working as we want it to now.

[Kinaed]

Let's add that to staff talking points. Thanks for the head's up!

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

Defgos agree that sneaky metrics shouldn't go up for sale with a person's name attached to them.