|
|
|
Prodigal
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:04 PM
Posts: 789,
Visits: 8,498
|
|
My interpretation (IANAR):
If another player OOC tells you a piece of information that they have gained IC then you may consider that they have told you the information IC
You may consider: i.e. it is at your discretion.
They have told you the information: i.e. not some random bloke in a pub, they, A.N. Other Player (or rather, their character).
That they have gained IC: i.e. "he-said-she-said" does not apply.
If you feel you cannot consider that they have told you this information IC (not that you've heard a rumour about it; not that people were talking about it in a bar in downtime; that's not what the rule says) - for example, the character who might have told you is dead; or you feel it makes no sense from an IC point of view for their character to tell you that information; then I suggest you exercise your discretion to assume you do not have that information IC.
Yeah, then you have some information to ignore. This can be awkward. This is exactly the same issue as people with dead or retired characters have; and with two information-heavy dead primaries to ignore, tucked away in the back of my head yammering about Gods, metaphysics, and who-knows-what-else that is occasionally blindingly relevant to my current character, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for anyone who can't cope with the occasional nugget from post-event FOIPspew.
Yes, it sucks that people talk about IC information in an OC context; it makes everyone's lives awkward and they shouldn't do it. But the rules seem incredibly clear to me about what you can and can't do when presented with that sort of information. I really don't see what ambiguity there is.
ETA: Since the rule in question mentions discussions in an OC context, it seems clear to me that it also applies to information gained in this way from discussions outside events. However, if in doubt, why not email a ref?
--
Maelstrom: Then: Several excitable dead dudes. Now: Lydiena "Kass" Kasadyenka, regimental mascot & martyr-in-training.
Odyssey: Pink Hat (Story Crew)
Death Unto Darkness: Then: Verispex-Corporal Salvatia Karam. Now: Crew, pending some NVGs and a long las...
Home Turf: Oxford RPGSoc
Occasionally Crewing & Monstering for DUTT, CUTT, Tempus Fugitive, others.
"I recall with a pouch-warming pleasure the Experimental Theologists of yester-year and their approach to the deity game of "smack it with a spanner and see if we can live through the consequences."" - Andy Raff
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Saturday, August 28, 2010 4:21 PM
Posts: 116,
Visits: 452
|
|
jetso (1/12/2010)
Well, putting it into a formal letter has the advantage of everyone in the conversation being absolutely sure that what's said is IC, therefore if they choose to feed you lies (or half truths) it doesn't have the extra layer of OC expectation of honesty. That is, "I'm OC telling you an IC thing or explaining a bit of the techtree, therefore I can't possibly be lying or trying to misdirect you."
This is an eminently sensible way of doing it.
However, this rule is shortly being changed in order to make this kind of issue clearer. Keep an eye on the errata section.
PD- Head Ref
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:10 PM
Posts: 3,416,
Visits: 14,037
|
|
stereynolds (1/12/2010)
I asked a couple of members of my group to whichI recived the response '...if you want to know write soemone a letter...'. Now considering IC I spend most of my time with them and are stood about 3 foot from them it seems a little silly to send them a letter. Am I breaking FOIP by just asking OOC or are they being a little too FOIP Nazi?
I second that letters are good for clarifying what you're being told IC and what you're being told OOC. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking group members you are in downtime contact with whether there's anything relevant they would have said to your character - but they've made it clear how they want to communicate, either you want to enough to write a letter or you don't. Have you considered proposing someone host a group forum?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:10 PM
Posts: 3,416,
Visits: 14,037
|
|
metalgirl2045 (1/12/2010)
I try to avoid OOC sources of IC information, but the only way to guarantee it is to never talk to anyone who goes to Maelstrom except IC at events, which is a totally unreasonable extreme.
Maelstrom is a group based game - I think one of the main advantages of having a group is having people with whom you can happily froth in the understanding that everything you say is being shared both IC and OOC. If you think about it, it's not just *you* that wants to be able to relax and let their guard down around someone - this is probably the most natural IC motive for joining an IC group.
If you're talking to people outside your group, then you need to make sure your social contracts are aligned. If they give you any sign that the conversation is moving towards FOIP material, make it clear that you don't want to hear it. If people stumble right onto it without warning, make it clear that you didn't want to hear it and that you'd rather they don't do it again. If they don't comply, get up and walk away.
The rule prevents people Blurting important IC information and then saying "Oh, but we were OOC when I said that" - obviously, that doesn't work so well if the IC information isn't important to the Blurter. It should dissuade murderers from Blurting OOC that you'll never catch them IC, it won't directly dissuade *victims* from Blurting about who murdered them. But it does clarify the intent of the organisers is to "actively discourage players from spoiling the game by telling other players IC information while OOC".
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:43 PM
Posts: 52,
Visits: 293
|
|
theoxfordgirl (1/14/2010)
or you feel it makes no sense from an IC point of view for their character to tell you that information; then I suggest you exercise your discretion to assume you do not have that information IC.
It all depends on the information. I'd say it makes no sense for your friend's killer to tell you IC that they were the one who did it, but this is exactly the example used by PD. If someone tells me OC that their character killed my character's friend or that they intend on killing my character's friend it makes no sense for them to have told me IC but the rule allows me to take it that they have. This stops the worst type of meta-gaming where you tell someone you plan on killing them so that they have to stonewall that you are a threat, making them go through a dilemma when they start to suspect your character as to whether it is for IC or OC reasons, thus putting you further away from suspicion IC than you might have otherwise been.
Marios made me post.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:45 PM
Posts: 160,
Visits: 1,323
|
|
I can't help but feel that a lot of this falls under Rule 7 - on the one hand, if someone is OOC boasting about how eeevil their character is and how you will never catch them, they are taking the piss if they expect you to keep that out of your play. On the other hand, if you've just overheard such-and-such important info in the pub (OC or IC), and you're talking to someone else OC, keep your mouth shut. It's really not that hard/time consuming to write an IC letter (and has vast rewards outside of random gossip), or to ring someone or get them privately (MSN, pub, etc.) and ask them if you could have a quick IC/ish chat. It's also not that hard to shut up the rabidly frothing (yes, I've been there too) with a quick "eep, I might be involved in that IC, shall we talk about the weather/kittens/cake?"
Or if it is then you might reconsider your drinking partners.
_________
Lizy,
Organiser of The Brass Hand of Dr. Martell
Crew/Mook#9 and ref of Serenity LRP
Jeanne Tuillé, Free Merchant, Maelstrom
Ismene, 3rd Countess Pangbourne, Winter in the Willows
Aemilia Licinia, Vestal Virgin, Odyssey
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:10 PM
Posts: 3,416,
Visits: 14,037
|
|
DwarfMatt (1/14/2010)
I'd say it makes no sense for your friend's killer to tell you IC that they were the one who did it, but this is exactly the example used by PD. If someone tells me OC that their character killed my character's friend or that they intend on killing my character's friend it makes no sense for them to have told me IC but the rule allows me to take it that they have.
I could well be wrong, but I think this is "sense" as in 'physical' sense. If, come time out, the player whose character murdered boasts about it, then I don't think 'sense' is an issue here - their character obviously got drunk and stupidly ran their mouth off - it's not unheard of and there's someone you can point at IC as the source of the information. Maybe someone who wasn't the murderer OOC claimed vociferously that someone had done - again, come time-in there's someone you can point at and say "that guy said his mate did it last night when he was drunk".
However, come time-out, someone wanders into your camp and complains about someone killing their character - who do you finger IC as the source? "You froth about IC stuff after time-out" = "Your character stupidly mouths off about it while drunk and careless of who is listening" is a dissuader only when you *don't* want the information spread IC. Also, who do you point at IC as the source of the information?
DwarfMatt (1/14/2010)
This stops the worst type of meta-gaming where you tell someone you plan on killing them so that they have to stonewall that you are a threat, making them go through a dilemma when they start to suspect your character as to whether it is for IC or OC reasons, thus putting you further away from suspicion IC than you might have otherwise been.
The rule seems fairly straight-forward - it even has a clear "this is the intent of this rule" to guide when to appply (i.e. when it's application would dissuade someone from splurging IC information). I don't think people are *compelled* to apply it when it would interfere with their own games - it's just necessary to clarify what the social contract is for Maelstrom.
I.e. There are games where people splurge IC information all the time, the contract is that players are supposed to scrupulously avoid using that IC, regardless of how little they wanted to have the information forced upon them - it's the person who uses splurged IC information who is the violator. In Maelstrom, the social contract is that it's the splurger who is the violator (Don't Splurge!). Unfortunately, I think it's hard for people to adjust - a lot of people seem to feel that it's very difficult not to splurge but very easy not to let it affect your game. It's like smokers in a no-smoking restaurant - it's not that smoking is 'wrong' or that no one can eat and smoke, it's just that you're in a specifically no-smoking restaurant - unlike smoking there really *are* games where FOIP is not an issue.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:43 PM
Posts: 52,
Visits: 293
|
|
Marios (1/14/2010)
I could well be wrong, but I think this is "sense" as in 'physical' sense.
Well Oxford would really have to clarify if I'm wrong but in the examples she posted
for example, the character who might have told you is dead; or you feel it makes no sense from an IC point of view for their character to tell you that information
she talks about 'physical' sense i.e. character being dead or character being kidnapped and telling you OC who has got him/her/it [and I would agree you could not then take the information they have splurged at you as IC] and "sense" from an IC point of view, and this was what my post was then about.
Marios made me post.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, August 02, 2010 4:04 PM
Posts: 357,
Visits: 572
|
|
tillymint (1/14/2010)
It's also not that hard to shut up the rabidly frothing with..."and then I rolled a six and a two."
__________________________
1) Boys hit each other with sticks for the fun of it
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 12:10 PM
Posts: 3,416,
Visits: 14,037
|
|
DwarfMatt (1/15/2010)
for example, the character who might have told you is dead; or you feel it makes no sense from an IC point of view for their character to tell you that information
My mistake! I read that and then promptly forgot about it - I'm not sure what the latter part of that means (you're not compelled by the rule to do things which would be grossly jarring/you shouldn't do things which can't 'easily' be explained?).
The intent of the rule is to discourage people from Blurting stuff OOC that they *wouldn't* want to have Blurted IC - if it only applies to things it 'makes sense' (in terms of their IC point of view) to have told you then it wouldn't apply to anything.
The rule seems fairly clear, but I think people still have a problem with "no, that's aggressive", even though it's made abundantly clear that, in Maelstrom, the aggressive act is Blurting IC information. I think the problem is trying to get people to understand that it's like IC Wrestling - something you only do with people you *know* to be happy with it, if they have a problem with it, it's *your* fault, not *their* fault.
I think it's maybe a bit like killing PCs - even in a system that advocates PvP, a lot of people will happily say "It's great being in a PvP system, I'd just rather not kill anyone" - which is tantamount to saying "I love that this is a no-smoking restaurant, I just wouldn't feel comfortable being the person who had to tell someone not to smoke." - which is lovely mixed signal to receive if you're sitting there wondering whether you should say anything about the smoker ruining your meal "it's a rule, but not one *I* would be comfortable using - but it's okay for *you* do it, you're less sensitive than me, you don't mind upsetting people".
The whole point of rules is that they are supposed to embody a social agreement that it's *okay* to do something. It doesn't matter if some people never use certain rules - it *does* matter if they publicly announce that they personally wouldn't feel comfortable using some of them, since that's effectively the same as proposing a second set of rules (what is a rules set other than a set of actions that a group of people all agree are acceptable?).
Ideally, it should be up to the refs to deal with player ill-will that comes from following the rules but it just seems too diffuse. That said ... PD could make it known that OOC crew/refs who hear anything IC discussed outside of time-in will take it back and dump it in a Gossip box which may be dished out to NPCs/player pack gossip briefs.
Marios
|
|
|
|