[Poll] Enforcing Theme

[Kinaed]

I don't agree with Dice's post either - there was nothing unthematic about anyone''s play in that recent case, it was more of a question about whether or not people felt that the case should have been allowed to go ahead due to potential impact on the game environment and the risk/reward scenario for criminals.

Theme enforcement talks about things like ensuring people's RP fits the context of the world at large. It's things like 'does the average person think Charali are dirty savages? If yes and too many people RP otherwise, does the worldview align with the theme?" In the case Dice mentioned, it requires inference on the help files to decide that, as there are capital crimes, if something isn't a capital crime, then it's probably not execution-worthy. That's actually not written anywhere as a policy, and it was explicitly and deliberately not written that way by staff agreement. In fact, there's further wording in that help file deliberately giving the Reeves the right to interpret the law. So, they patently didn't do anything against theme. They utilized the loopholes staff deliberately placed there for them to do pretty much exactly what they did.

Whether or not that loophole ought to exist is a different story, but it's not a matter of thematic enforcement. Staff stepping in to tell the Reeves "no" in that case would have been "we disapprove of the Reeves' RP choices, so we're going to interfere", not "the Reeves are acting outside of the game framework, time for Policy to step in".

Clearly this loophole upset some people, and staff have had some lengthy discussions on multiple occasions about whether we ought to change it. The non-unanimous consensus is that we won't and that the current set up remains appropriate.

When it comes to the Reeves and law enforcement, the theme is "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."
They are the law. It's not fair, and it's not intended to be.

[Dice]

What we wanted was asked, and I posted. I believe staff should take steps to define aspects of theme in a way that supports good, healthy gameplay. If theme does not help gameplay, then theme needs to be refined so it does. And, beyond refining/defining theme, staff should be clearly telling players when they are breaking critical aspects - not STOPPING them from doing so, but making it clear that their actions go beyond what is typically ICly acceptable.

[Kinaed]

People aren't always in agreement about what best supports good, healthy gameplay. Staff can't make everyone happy when person A believes the game should be like X whilst person B believes the game should be like Y. Some players like gameplay to feel a certain way, others prefer gameplay feel a different way as a matter of taste.

Mechanically speaking, I'm open to hear out what people want, but I also think it's important that people don't mistake what they want as being what everyone wants. Also, when push comes to shove, I think people need to remember that what they want doesn't make them morally superior or inferior to someone else who wants something different.

I like a dark, nasty, gritty game where struggle is a core tenant. This is why I disagree with things like living wages and staff enforcing lawful rule. That doesn't mean that providing things like living wages or making Reeves enforce law properly as a matter of policy doesn't have merit - it just results in a different game.

Unfortunately, when it comes to deciding what theme should be - my view is that theme by consensus is like a weak tea. I think it's better to have a strong cup of tea that not everyone likes, but some people love and others can at least appreciate, compared to a lukewarm one that makes everyone slightly unhappy.

[Zeita]

The difference of perspective here is a difficult thing, as from the range of things that are coming up as 'unthematic' there is a broad swathe, some diametrically opposed. Direct staff interference is going to risk coming across as biased and heavy-handed.

I think that the best, most immediate approach from staff would be the tightening up of helpfiles around any contentious theme-related topics. Remove any ambiguity and help drive a clear thematic course of play that the staff body wants to see.

[BattleJenkins]

I think the best way to reduce 'unthemely' behavior might be to tie theme into the game mechanics more often wherever possible (like making gentry wealth asset-based), and maybe have more examples of themely behavior on grid (like mobs that react to people based on social class, indecency, etc.)

[Voxumo]

We do have mobs that already react partially in that way, such as the guard at the Vellum and Velvet who is particularly racist against Daravi (Fun times) and then we have mobs at the bluebird and greenhouse place who only let Gentry in freely, though freeman must bribe their way in. Not to mention the southside thugs who only attack Gentry and lawful type characters. I'm not sure if there are any who react to indecency though.

[Sabrelon]

I hate to necro a thread, but this one hasn't been dead for too long, so I figure it's relatively safe.

The mobs that react to people based on their origin is nice, don't get me wrong, but the onus of adding thematic roleplay to the game is just as much on the players (and staff, to enforce it). While I'm not suggesting that players be told how to play, explicitly, I would really appreciate it if some players took their characters that might be racist (or just bigotted, that's totally fine) against certain characters, and acted on it.

I've only been back for about a day, and was hoping things were a bit different, but so far everyone's been super friendly (which, normally would be great!), and I'd love to see a little bit of racism against Charali/Hillmen, especially.

[Pixie]

I think there are two distinct ways of playing bigoted characters, and that each of the schools of bigotry think the other type isn't doing it properly.

On the one hand is the loud and overt, outwardly insulting bigot who will go out of their way to pick a Charali/Hillman out of a crowd and bully them, or somesuch. "What's that Charali doing sitting in a chair?! Get on the floor arseboat!", etc. This type wants to beat the dog because it has the gall to be a dog.

On the other hand is the bigot who simply knows their superiority and wouldn't trust a Charali or Hillman to do anything that required an adult, intelligent mind. They know they're better than the dog, and there's no point harassing it for being inferior.

The first type gets a lot of In-Character flak, but the bigotry isn't actually the problem with their behavior. The problem is that they're being publicly rude in a society where rudeness is uncivilized.

The second type gets a lot of Out-of-Character flak because their bigotry's impact fails to make a significant stamp on RP.

For me, personally, I play the second type. My character would never in a million years lower herself to be abusive toward an individual of a lesser race, but this in no way means she is unaware of her superiority. Would she trust a Hillman to do delicate work or fill a position that required above average intelligence? Never. But bullying and making needlessly public issues out of their inferiority is both pointless and, one might argue, rather against the spirit of Davism.

With that said, I have enjoyed the characters who tend to lean toward the first type. They provide RP in a way the second type doesn't (though I do wish that it was better understood that the general population tends to rally against them not because of their racism, but their rudeness! There's a bold line between 'em!).

[Dice]

Unsurprisingly, I once again agree with Pixie!

I seem to see bigotry everywhere, and frankly at times to extents I think are a little over-the-top (especially in rumors). The "friendly-enough-but-they-are-lesser" approach feels more realistic and in-theme to me than the open "they're-subhuman" approach.

Especially as I think Lithmorran society would not, for example, mock Charali for acting civilized but actively encourage them to abandon their lesser culture and assimilate to Lithmorran ways - so long as they acknowledge that of course they're still lesser. Moreover, there's the fact that Davism actively calls people to shepherd, protect, and educate the lower ranks - being cruel to savages serves no purpose, though certainly pretending their lifestyles and nature are equally valid as Lithmorrans' also would be failing to serve them properly.

Amusingly, I've played red-haired Lithmorran or Vavardi alts several times, and only recently have I had them start experiencing pushback because people assume they're Charali! It definitely reflects a sea change to me.

[Taunya]

Possibly getting off topic here, but wanted to add my two bits. Playing a half-breed has been pretty fun.

I've encountered a few characters that treat her as sub-human, or that just basically ignore her, which has been great.
But in general, I've seen many characters are just too friendly towards her. It doesn't break immersion for me- she just instantly becomes suspicious of them.
She's basically convinced that most people still don't really like her, but they're just more subtle about it in Lithmore, since there's so many different races living together in the city.
From her backstory, she was often teased and later shunned when she visited Vandago, only having other misfit friends there, and never feeling accepted in her tribe either (Other than the hair, she looks physically more Vandagan than Charali), until her naming day after which they more openly accepted her.

Since coming to Lithmore she hasn't opened up to anyone yet that doesn't have at least some Charali blood in them, and she innerly considers most people of other races children, since they've never faced a trial to become an adult.