Experiences GMs of RPN, what are some things that bug you about running a Group RP?

[Edric Blight]

Yeah the one player who stuck with me was POed. I was just more hurt then angry. I now ask players if I am a decent GM. I am firm when it comes to my rules, and I always try to be flexible to incorporate players' ideas. That same player kept assuring me I was being an awesome GM because it really shook my confidence.

Yea I get it. That stings like hell, that’s hurtful. I’m sure you were doing everything right and being a fair GM. People just suck. 0 social skills and 0 human decency lying to you like that and abandoning you.

 

[Cresion Breezes]

Ever since I got my entire RP basically stolen when a bunch of my players remade my RP with their own group and GM because they didn't want me as a person to GM them I decided nothing can break me anymore

 

[Edric Blight]

Ever since I got my entire RP basically stolen when a bunch of my players remade my RP with their own group and GM because they didn't want me as a person to GM them I decided nothing can break me anymore

Even more proof that people are just assholes. That’s not cool at all, sorry that happened to you. : (

 

[Cresion Breezes]

Even more proof that people are just assholes. That’s not cool at all, sorry that happened to you. : (

It was worse because I was a minor at the time and they started their own adults only group with MY PLOT because they were "uncomfortable being GMed by a minor". It's just appalling hypocrisy when someone says they don't want to RP with minors and turn around to lift an entire plot off of one while excluding the original creator. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And when I confronted one of them about this they tried to gaslight me by saying "if you're mature and articulate enough to write an RP like this I'm sure you're also mature enough to understand why I'm doing this." No, fuck you, I'll gladly have the maturity of a middle school bathroom stall wall if I'm going to be treated like this.

 

[Murdergurl]

I now have a question of my own because last year I had something happen in one of my RPGs and it shocked me as a GM and beforehand nothing of the like happened before. It really shook me up too and I am curious if this has happened to anyone else- A Max Exodus of active players. I have this one RPG that I really love and for awhile it was very active with a core group of active players. Pretty much everyone kept saying how great the RPG was and how much they enjoyed each other's company. Sure things got slow, but that's normal. But then one day OUT of the BLUE 3/4ths of the players came to me saying they were all leaving the RPG. Needless to say I was blindsided. I did give them my blessing, but then I decided to do some digging because this seemed odd to me because I was under the impression these people were enjoying the RPG. WELL, I just happened to look up one player's passed messages in other Threads (and this particular player went as far to say my RPG was his favorite). In this thread, which was an Interest Check (this was on another site btw), he said he hadn't been a part of a great RPG in awhile and said this one had potential. Now that really hurt. So it make me question if these people were lying to me the whole time. As for the RPG, others decided to leave and only ONE other player (who I've been in multiple RPGs with) stuck with me and we decided to do a reboot and were able to get another player. The RPG is now private and we ended up moving the RPG here due to how unreliable the previous site was. But yeah that whole fiasco made me question my skills as a GM because I have been a GM for over 20 years now. Has anyone else have something like this happen to them?

I can't say that I have been victim to an all-at-once leaving of something I hosted. But I can say that it is pretty normal for a domino effect to occur when a player or two leave a group. One (or more) will leave, and that triggers another to follow. Usually pretty quickly. This can then lead to another and another. Until you are suddenly faced with most of the group having left in a very short timeframe. This almost always spells the death of the Roleplay because you can't patch up that many absences at once and still continue the same narrative.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Cresion Breezes What makes it worse is that most people just let you use their idea if you ask. I GM’d several roleplays that were spin-offs of someone else’s original ideas.

All they required was that I linked back to the original.

So it's one thing if they wanted to say do the roleplay on a different site or write a more explicit interpretation (I'm assuming you wouldn't have wanted to do a NSFW version of the plot yourself).

But you can just ask nicely if that's what you want to do. If anything that kind of over-the-top pretentiousness makes them seem way more childish then you.

 

[Malphaestus]

The prevalence of lies, in all aspect of social interaction, are the biggest issue to any relationship: GM or participant both. As a GM, you can never have as good an understanding of your own participants as you would need, as they lie to you about every little thing recurringly, which is the reason for why it is a matter of chance and not something certain.

It is discouraging.

 

[Edric Blight]

The prevalence of lies, in all aspect of social interaction, are the biggest issue to any relationship: GM or participant both. As a GM, you can never have as good an understanding of your own participants as you would need, as they lie to you about every little thing recurringly, which is the reason for why it is a matter of chance and not something certain.

It is discouraging.

Agreed very much on this

 

[Malphaestus]

Malphaestus

Agreed, though the lying isn't malicious. This community is very non-confrontational, so people tell white lies instead of voicing complaints. I find that GMing requires reading between the lines, keeping track of activity both IC and OOC, just to get a solid read of the room. Otherwise people will be overly positive before suddenly dropping. It's not that they're bad people, just too damn nice . That's why I like having a couple savages who tell me when I've made a mistake.

Cresion Breezes

Shit like that is why RP websites should consider plagiarism rules. Though they didn't make money by stealing your idea, they have no right to pirate your setting. That's high level clown behavior. They deserve site bans for taking your IP for themselves. Also the implications of an "Adult Setting" is skeevy, fools probably wanted to ERP and didn't want you around for it.

Otherwise I don't see the problem, everyone is exposed to curses and violence before 18. I was playing CoD, GTA and Fallout at 14, while watching things like The Pacific and Band of Brothers. So my assumption is ERP. Big yikes. Imagine booting your GM so you can freely write smut

—

For my own GM annoyance, dealing with social politics and drama between members. It's tricky because if someone thinks you're biased against them, or not cracking down on the other side as much as you should, they might lump you in with them, causing a schism in the social group. Also some people expect preferential treatment if they're cool with you, but as a GM you have to treat everyone equally when applying rules. I make it very clear that rules exist for everyone, including myself, my closest friends and Co-GMs.

Otherwise you become the nepotistic GM applying rules unevenly, which is a gross misuse of power and responsibility. I'd rather lose my RP, my account and writing ability before applying rules based on relationships.

Validating it accomplishes nothing; intention is not the sole decider of whether an action is good or bad. People lie, white or not, and it detracts from someone else the moment it affects them. A white lie is not supposed to have negative consequence, but it always does in roleplaying. Someone lying seldom leads to them bettering themself, or the roleplay at large: it is a way to validate their own actions, while keeping appearances. It more often than not, decisively, leads to a GM wasting their time.

It is malicious, not because they think it is bad, but because it leads to bad things. Cancer has no moral quality, but none of us consider it good or validate it's existence. People cannot consider something good if it never shows itself, assuming intention is endless and impossible.

The psychology of lying finds it's roots in avoidance. Hard to validate someone lying when initially seeking someone else out, making them spend time on them, and more often than not wasting their time.

Roleplaying is time management, benefit and detriment included in the calculation of cost and positives. Lying and ghosting is a part of roleplaying, but it should not be. At least according to my own ethical principles.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

Validating it accomplishes nothing; intention is not the sole decider of whether an action is good or bad. People lie, white or not, and it detracts from someone else the moment it affects them. A white lie is not supposed to have negative consequence, but it always does in roleplaying. Someone lying seldom leads to them bettering themself, or the roleplay at large: it is a way to validate their own actions, while keeping appearances. It more often than not, decisively, leads to a GM wasting their time.

It is malicious, not because they think it is bad, but because it leads to bad things. Cancer has no moral quality, but none of us consider it good or validate it's existence. People cannot consider something good if it never shows itself, assuming intention is endless and impossible.

The psychology of lying finds it's roots in avoidance. Hard to validate someone lying when initially seeking someone else out, making them spend time on them, and more often than not wasting their time.

Roleplaying is time management, benefit and detriment included in the calculation of cost and positives. Lying and ghosting is a part of roleplaying, but it should not be. At least according to my own ethical principles.

Maybe one way of mitigating the issue would be to set up something that enables anonymous feedback. Not sure if it's a tool you use, but a quick Google search revealed that there is a bot for that. I imagine there are other tools out there, but I don't have any familiarity with them offhand. It gives those who are anxious a medium in which they could give (hopefully constructive) criticism. Individually checking in with each player and providing assurance could maybe also help.

A lot of the challenge is that many pbp hobbyists tend to not be very socially adept, or tend to have anxiety disorders. As someone who probably fits within both categories, I agree with you and believe in self-improvement, but not everyone is about that. Unless the community as a whole can create a positive space where being constructively upfront about issues is accepted, or unless the staff can take a stance on people who do get confrontational about people wanting to drop (maybe they do already - I dunno), the issue of lying and ghosting will continue to be prevalent.

But that's also ghosting in terms of losing interest and not saying anything. Ghosting due to personal or real life issues is a bit different, I feel like, and maybe more complicated.

Shit like that is why RP websites should consider plagiarism rules. Though they didn't make money by stealing your idea, they have no right to pirate your setting. That's high level clown behavior. They deserve site bans for taking your IP for themselves. Also the implications of an "Adult Setting" is skeevy, fools probably wanted to ERP and didn't want you around for it.

Otherwise I don't see the problem, everyone is exposed to curses and violence before 18. I was playing CoD, GTA and Fallout at 14, while watching things like The Pacific and Band of Brothers. So my assumption is ERP. Big yikes. Imagine booting your GM so you can freely write smut

For what it's worth, it sounds like RPN will consider plagiarism disputes: Roleplay Rights

(I think my only complaint is that it sounds as though players can dispute NPCing a character or other things done to their character if they so wished, when continuity is important. I've had a friend on another site who had to deal with this issue recently, and fortunately the staff ruled in favor of her as the GM, as rare as that probably is on these sites. But that's a different discussion. )

 

[Edric Blight]

Validating it accomplishes nothing; intention is not the sole decider of whether an action is good or bad. People lie, white or not, and it detracts from someone else the moment it affects them. A white lie is not supposed to have negative consequence, but it always does in roleplaying. Someone lying seldom leads to them bettering themself, or the roleplay at large: it is a way to validate their own actions, while keeping appearances. It more often than not, decisively, leads to a GM wasting their time.

It is malicious, not because they think it is bad, but because it leads to bad things. Cancer has no moral quality, but none of us consider it good or validate it's existence. People cannot consider something good if it never shows itself, assuming intention is endless and impossible.

The psychology of lying finds it's roots in avoidance. Hard to validate someone lying when initially seeking someone else out, making them spend time on them, and more often than not wasting their time.

Roleplaying is time management, benefit and detriment included in the calculation of cost and positives. Lying and ghosting is a part of roleplaying, but it should not be. At least according to my own ethical principles.

I just have to say this is one of the best takes on this website I have ever heard.

 

[Edric Blight]

By default you cannot have a good heart if you lie. Lying is morally wrong, at least where I come from. I was raised to frown upon lying and always to tell the truth. Something I personally hold myself to today.

Could be a cultural thing tho and that I understand, but at least my ethical standpoint is lying is not right.

We also have to remember this is the internet- telling the truth isn’t gonna hurt anyone. Sometimes I wonder is it really that hard to tell the truth, especially when it’s not a face to face reaction? I mean come on guys, you have a screen to hide behind! But I have found that screen to hide behind helps people feel more cowardice and willing to lie in my days here.

Hence why I always stress open communication and truthfulness in my RPs with my players. Human decency goes a long way. Don’t lie to me so it doesn’t waste my time and yours, is my principle.

 

[Edric Blight]

Nobody thinks lying is right, but the vast majority of people lie or have lied to spare feelings & preserve friendships. Those lies are not malicious by definition. They're done out of fear and/or empathy, and intent matters.

I won't pass negative judgement on someone for saying, "I love your RP but I've been super busy at work." When in reality, they just hate the scene. That's not malicious, just too nice or scared. They'd feel guilty saying my scene sucks, or that their scene partners are bad writers with boring characters.

Imo ignoring intent is always a mistake. Intent is as important as outcome. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder for example.

I see where you’re coming from then.

But that definitely shows me I was raised by I guess a blunt and straight forward family?

Like I’d rather you come and tell me in my DMs “This plot sucks and you suck, good bye I’m done with your ass” rather than a sugar coated lie.

But that’s just me and I understand it’s not everyone. I guess it’s just the way I was raised and the environment I grew up in.

Now would I word it like that? No, but I wouldn’t be in tears if someone came to me and said that. It’s rude yes but if it’s the truth then it’s something I have to suck up.

I wasn’t raised an asshole though, there’s ways of nicely wording the truth without sugar coating and lying. I just used that harsh example to show you a potential truthful response I wouldn’t mind getting. My point there was I prefer the truth, even if it’s blunt.

But I see what you mean there.

 

[Jet]

I see where you’re coming from then.

But that definitely shows me I was raised by I guess a blunt and straight forward family?

Like I’d rather you come and tell me in my DMs “This plot sucks and you suck, good bye I’m done with your ass” rather than a sugar coated lie.

But that’s just me and I understand it’s not everyone. I guess it’s just the way I was raised and the environment I grew up in.

Now would I word it like that? No, but I wouldn’t be in tears if someone came to me and said that. It’s rude yes but if it’s the truth then it’s something I have to suck up.

I wasn’t raised an asshole though, there’s ways of nicely wording the truth without sugar coating and lying. I just used that harsh example to show you a potential truthful response I wouldn’t mind getting. My point there was I prefer the truth, even if it’s blunt.

But I see what you mean there.

Tippable. I am the same, but I try to empathize with less blunt people. If I understand intent then my moral judgements are more accurate. There are people who've lied to me because they're extremely agreeable, overly nice and empathetic, who'd never say "I'm just not having fun in your RP" because it might hurt my feelings.

I can't equate that with my friend from HS who was a pathological liar, who'd lie because he enjoyed manipulating people, including fake suicide threats and creating fake stories about people, making them look bad behind their backs. Whole world of difference between those two camps.

Thanks for seeing my side of it. I don't disagree with you guys for the most part, I wish honesty was the policy too, but I try to judge intent as much as actions/outcome.

 

[Edric Blight]

Tippable. I am the same, but I try to empathize with less blunt people. If I understand intent then my moral judgements are more accurate. There are people who've lied to me because they're extremely agreeable, overly nice and empathetic, who'd never say "I'm just not having fun in your RP" because it might hurt my feelings.

I can't equate that with my friend from HS who was a pathological liar, who'd lie because he enjoyed manipulating people. Whole world of difference between those two camps.

Thanks for seeing my side of it. I don't disagree with you guys for the most part, I wish honesty was the policy too, but I try to judge intent as much as actions/outcome.

Ah so you definitely know how I’m feeling, at least to an extent. But yea I’m not really a fan of the overly nice toxic positivity crowd.

Also the way I see it- I’m never gonna learn if you don’t tell me what I’m doing wrong. Why are you leaving the RP and why did you just ghost us all? If it’s something I’m doing or the RP plot is lame or slow, tell me! I personally learn a lot from my mistakes so I always find I gain a whole lot if you’re gonna tell me what I did wrong.

Never not once has someone told me their reasons for leaving or ghosting. If I was the GM are the reason for leaving, let me know. What am I doing wrong? Tell me so I can learn. That’s how I see it.

But getting back to your message instead of going on a random tangent, yikes, pathological liars are a whole other thing. A lot just do it to- like you said, manipulate people because they like it. I have a feeling there’s actually quite a few on this site. Specially the ones that join 80 different group RPs and leave like it’s a hobby lol.

Of course, I’ll always try to see it from another perspective, although I must say we have similar takes, yours is just more emphatic admittedly. No use in being close minded. Sure you might not change my mind or I might not change yours but no reason to not let those ideas be discussed freely. I can appreciate this honest but respectful discussion, no use in getting pressed or heated like people do on these threads sometimes. It’s nice to see this thread hasn’t devolved into disrespectful name calling.

 

[Malphaestus]

Never validated it, simply explained the reason. Furthermore, there's a large difference between lying to scam, mislead or take advantage of someone, and lying because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings.

Do I like that people do it? No.

Will I paint them with the same brush as say, a MLM owner scamming the elderly? No.

There are levels to lying, and white lies are generally done by either scared, unconfident people, or empathic ones. It's a symptom of low confidence and/or a good heart, usually a neutral or well intentioned one. So by definition the lying isn't malicious, and I don't think it's smart or accurate to pretend that all lies are exactly the same, people are nuanced after all.

Intention is wholly meaningless to the party who is the recipient of negative action. It is the action itself that is important, intention is little more than an unknown variable for the person who commits an action, it does not define the action itself. Even a scammer may have rightful cause. But one should not judge intention if it is never presented, lying does neither present nor define intention. Lying is, in and of itself, an avoidance of honesty which can lead to varying results.

In the roleplaying sphere, in relation to a GM, very few of these are positive. Most of them lead to a continued spiral which in and of itself leads to detachment of varying forms. An act of lying can be seen as a commitment to distance, whether knowingly or unknowingly, from GM and roleplay. Continued lying establishes precedent, and will within the individual, towards further avoidance. Avoidance's ultimate result is absolute avoidance: leaving. Seldom with words denoting their departure, and in the cases where people announce they are unwilling to continue to participate, they present themselves as willing participants merely days prior. There is seldom attempts at betterment, whether of themselves or for the things which do not interest them about the roleplay.

I would assume that many place honesty highly amongst the rung of traits that can be considered as good. Yet lying is a cornerstone of any interaction to the point of which honesty can be seen, ironically, as a vice against a person's character if they are too honest. Paradoxically, this is increasingly pervasive throughout social spheres of all forms, it does not need to be limited to here, or anywhere for that matter.

As for the nature of validation, as it is with the combating of any form of social malice, explaining something away is as good as condoning the behaviour. One does not stop lying by explaining the mechanisms behind it, one stops it through pervasive discourse and through the establishing of understanding between all parties. Something which cannot be accomplished through lies, very little can.

And whilst there are different consequences for varying degrees of lying, this does not invalidate the fact that lying is not right if the consequence of lying is negative. Lying, in and of itself, has no inherent quality; lying often leads, however, towards negative consequences. As such it is typically a negative action, and can be generalized as such; if someone wastes their time on someone who lies, then that is bad. But still, if lying were somehow to better a person, then that is good. But, as it is with lies, seldom does it lead to anything positive.

A white lie is a lie without harm, and thus a white lie which results in harm ceases to be a white lie. We are all people, it is not only the people who lie who have their own circumstances, so do we all. It is not right to be so self-absorbed as to not wish to bridge the gap in understanding between two people.

Whilst I am obviously aware of the prevalence of the anxious across the whole of this hobby, my life not being free from comparable issues, it does not detract from my argument in the least. People should be good, we should all strive for betterment and thus to be better towards ourselves and others. This does not happen by using viceful means.

 

[Edric Blight]

Intention is wholly meaningless to the party who is the recipient of negative action. It is the action itself that is important, intention is little more than an unknown variable for the person who commits an action, it does not define the action itself. Even a scammer may have rightful cause. But one should not judge intention if it is never presented, lying does neither present nor define intention. Lying is, in and of itself, an avoidance of honesty which can lead to varying results.

In the roleplaying sphere, in relation to a GM, very few of these are positive. Most of them lead to a continued spiral which in and of itself leads to detachment of varying forms. An act of lying can be seen as a commitment to distance, whether knowingly or unknowingly, from GM and roleplay. Continued lying establishes precedent, and will within the individual, towards further avoidance. Avoidance's ultimate result is absolute avoidance: leaving. Seldom with words denoting their departure, and in the cases where people announce they are unwilling to continue to participate, they present themselves as willing participants merely days prior. There is seldom attempts at betterment, whether of themselves or for the things which do not interest them about the roleplay.

I would assume that many place honesty highly amongst the rung of traits that can be considered as good. Yet lying is a cornerstone of any interaction to the point of which honesty can be seen, ironically, as a vice against a person's character if they are too honest. Paradoxically, this is increasingly pervasive throughout social spheres of all forms, it does not need to be limited to here, or anywhere for that matter.

As for the nature of validation, as it is with the combating of any form of social malice, explaining something away is as good as condoning the behaviour. One does not stop lying by explaining the mechanisms behind it, one stops it through pervasive discourse and through the establishing of understanding between all parties. Something which cannot be accomplished through lies, very little can.

And whilst there are different consequences for varying degrees of lying, this does not invalidate the fact that lying is not right if the consequence of lying is negative. Lying, in and of itself, has no inherent quality; lying often leads, however, towards negative consequences. As such it is typically a negative action; if someone wastes their time on someone who lies, then that is bad. But still, if lying were somehow to better a person, then that is good. But, as it is with lies, seldom does it lead to anything positive.

A white lie is a lie without harm, and thus a white lie which results in harm ceases to be a white lie. We are all people, it is not only the people who lie who have their own circumstances, so do we all. It is not right to be so self-absorbed as to not wish to bridge the gap in understanding between two people.

Whilst I am obviously aware of the prevalence of the anxious across the whole of this hobby, my life not being free from comparable issues, it does not detract from my argument in the least. People should be good, we should all strive for betterment and thus to be better towards ourselves and others. This does not happen by using viceful means.

This is pretty much my stance but more eloquently worded.

The basic root of what I was trying to get at though is it is the very act of lying that is in of itself, the problematic action.

Lying in any form shouldn’t be excused and should not be considered as kind hearted or with good intent. Lying is morally wrong, at least how I see it.

We should attempt to change the culture here of this website although meaningful change will sadly most likely never happen. The culture of toxic lying is so deeply rooted in this community that it’d take a miracle to change that.

I do my thing by always remaining honest but respectful with everyone I encounter here.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

I'd rather a person say they, "need a couple weeks off" because of life, instead of saying they aren't enjoying a scene because their group mates suck.

I agree if someone is inclined to use that exact phrasing, but, arguably, one could say it's possible to say something to the effect of, "I don't feel any chemistry with the group". It's still true while minimizing the chance of someone feeling slighted.

Sometimes I wonder is it really that hard to tell the truth, especially when it’s not a face to face reaction? I mean come on guys, you have a screen to hide behind!

I feel like that doesn't necessarily make it easier for empaths. If anything, it might make it more stressful, because tone is harder to interpret over text, and finding the friendly way to word something takes skill, or at least time when the skill isn't developed.

 

[Jet]

I agree if someone is inclined to use that exact phrasing, but, arguably, one could say it's possible to say something to the effect of, "I don't feel any chemistry with the group". It's still true while minimizing the chance of someone feeling slighted.



I feel like that doesn't necessarily make it easier for empaths. If anything, it might make it more stressful, because tone is harder to interpret over text, and finding the friendly way to word something takes skill, or at least time when the skill isn't developed.

I agree, but also to an extent. It's easy to read between the lines when people dress up their opinions. That said, there are times when this is applicable

Also isn't that a lie to an extent? If you think the other writers are ass, and that the GM is incompetent, isn't saying "The chemistry is off" a white lie? I'm not sure one way or the other, but food for thought.

Either way, thankyou for having an open mind.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

I agree, but also to an extent. It's easy to read between the lines when people dress up their opinions. That said, there are times when this is applicable

Also isn't that a lie to an extent? If you think the other writers are ass, and that the GM is incompetent, isn't saying "The chemistry is off" a white lie? I'm not sure one way or the other, but food for thought.

Either way, thankyou for having an open mind.

Eh, if everyone else seems to be getting along and I seem to be the only one who finds them all to be unbearable, it's a me problem, not a them problem. So "chemistry is off" seems like a good objective reality.

 

[Malphaestus]

Your argument hinges on outcome, as it pertains to you, while ignoring the intent. That's an extremely egocentric view that lacks any empathy or understanding, a simple "bad for me so morally bad" view that doesn't even attempt to understand others. I hope you don't take offense, but any time you only focus on how an action effects you, without any room for empathy, it's an egocentric view that I can't agree with.

The reason I cant agree is that assessing someone's morality requires empathy, you need to understand their reason. There are many occasions where lying is neutral, or even positive, because of the intent and context.

Also, we don't judge anything else without looking at intent. If someone bumps into you on the street, causing you to fall over and hit your head, you'd want to know their reason. Was it simply an accident or were they trying to hurt you? Malicious intent is the difference between an accident and an attack, and that holds true with white lies. Their intent was never to harm you or your RP, and frankly it sometimes preserves it. I'd rather a person say they, "need a couple weeks off" because of life, instead of saying they aren't enjoying a scene because their group mates suck.

The former is a white lie, yes, but the latter leads to toxicity and resentment in the group. As a GM, I vastly prefer a white lie over drama between members.

Also you're creating a fictional person who follows your invented pathway, but people aren't robots. You can white lie without it reprogramming your brain, especially if you're lying about a temporary thing i.e a scene where your group mates suck. You can weather the storm, join another group in the following scene, and never white lie again.

Also you took exception with me saying white lies are usually not malicious, but by definition they aren't. You're adding a bunch of steps to the definition to suit your position, but the word literally means, "characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm."

You can use the word harmful if you'd like, but these white lies are, by definition, not malicious.

Your assumptions as to my intentions illustrate the difficulty inherent in the assessment of intention in the first place. My ethical lense is not one which pertains to myself or is in anyway there-of focused upon my own experience of events which involve me, but the consequences of all actions universally which I may or may not witness; I cannot build a perspective upon experiences I have not experienced, but I can expand my own perspective outward and unto a wider array of matters. That is the essence of being an individual, but it is all the basis from which all ethics broaden.

Luckily, I do have struggle with experiencing empathy, but that does not limit my ability to emulate empathy through my own lense of understanding. In praxis, it is no different; it is not that I do not understand why people lie, I simply assumed people having a reason to lie was common knowledge. It is the most general degree of understanding, a core aspect of cause and effect: "lying, in and of itself, has no inherent quality; lying often leads, however, towards negative consequences." I focus on the effect, because it is the effect that has a more pervasive consequence than the root cause; it is more important because it affects more people, and more often than not negatively.

As for your example, someone causing you to fall over is a negative experience. Receiving their explanation breeds understanding, but it does not detract from the negativity of the experience in question, it merely categorizes it into different kinds of negativity. Thus it is the effect that has the most importance, as I have been repetitive about: "if someone wastes their time on someone who lies, then that is bad. But still, if lying were somehow to better a person, then that is good. But, as it is with lies, seldom does it lead to anything positive."

The reason lying is bad, is because it does not breed understanding between people; avoidance. Any kind of repeated behaviour increases likelihood of repeatedly doing it again: habitualization. The two intermixed, as they commonly are in the sphere of roleplaying, one so focused in communication, it becomes a bed from whence incoherence shows itself: individuals who appeared fine previously suddenly leave, and actions seldom cohere with word. You mentioned that the common crowd of roleplayers were individuals with difficulties conversating in the first place, it is no stretch to assume- though, personally, I believe I know- that what was forementioned is the case.

Additionally, in your own example, you present a scenario for why intention matters, forgetting the fact that it is the outcome itself, which affects all people, that is the most important. Intent is also only important in-so-far as it is knowledgeable. Assuming intent is impossible, and a pointless exercise which could lead unto the endless.

But, to that degree, I will in turn myself agree that the utilization of the word "malicious" was incorrect. I should have said "vile", or "wicked". That is because, again, the foremost importance I place upon this whole matter is that of the consequence. It is the consequence that I evaluate, and it is the consequence which I progressively prod along my keyboard for questionable lengths in attempt to convey my own thoughts.

Also, as someone before me has illustrated succinctly, one can be honest without being offensive. A thing which I think conflict avoiding people would be far more than aware of. But even so, people can be offended by nothing, posing a definitive limit to what we can argue reasonably: you cannot prove nothing.

It is clear to me that you either misconstrue what I've said, or misunderstand my message. That or particularize upon the matter of my utilization of the term "malice", even when I go so far as to illustrate my intention, and how it- to my admitted fault- contradicts my prior utilization of the term. But at the same time I suppose, were that to be the case, it would not be such a difficulty for me to imagine. Since I conversate in a manner oft described as 'obnoxious.' Therefore I wonder: are we actually in a state of agreement, arguing over my misuse of the word "malicious"?

I am 'complicating my position' because the discussion is not an uncomplicated one. Lying is pervasive, all you need to do is interact with a collective of people and acquire knowledge from many of them, and you will find that most of them lie regularly. Lying can be made habitual, if entertained enough. And yes, there are instances when lying is occasional. But at the same time, lying is pervasive through roleplaying, and anywhere else. I do not believe arguing one-off instances matters much in this discussion when we see that people, different and same, repeatedly do it. Often.

When you sit in the seat of GM, you need honesty. Because you cannot operate correctly in a state of unknowing. You cannot make it a better experience if people lie to you, and if they lie to you, they end up leaving because they dislike the direction. If somone lies to another, but tells you the truth, then that does not matter; if you, as the GM, know the truth, then the lie does not matter, hence the importance of the personal perspective of the GM. It is a non-existence if it is not a lie towards the GM. But lying to the GM is incredibly common, wasting both yours and their time in equal fathom. It can result in chain-reactive leaving, and a number of equally avoidable and equally negative experiences. Especially if the GM in question is inexperienced with their task.

 

[Malphaestus]

Malphaestus

I'm going to go through your post point by point.

1. I'm not making assumptions, I'm reading your posts and replying to them. You've taken a hardline stance that lying shows a "wicked" and "vile" personality regardless of the situation, and you claim that intent is impossible to peg. That shows a lack of understanding on your part, tying into your admitted "lack of empathy" because you can most definitely read intent, especially when you know someone. We do it all the time. That's what we do when a friend makes a joke at our expense, vs someone we barely know or don't like. We read their intent because that's what truly matters. George Carlin style.

Also in a previous post you said that lying can be a good thing if the outcome is good, so your judging morals based on outcome, instead of intent or even the action. If we use this logic for other moral questions, its absurdity is apparent. Take for instance the man who saved a young Hitler from drowning. Was he a bad man because he saved a child from dying, because the child grew into a monster? Should he have watched from the sidelines and done nothing?

According to your stance, yes, he should've watched a child die. Problem is we can't tell the future. We can't know our best efforts will lead to negative outcomes, we can only do the right thing in the moment. However, if we use your moral compas, the man who saved Hitler should've been arrested and executed. We can't judge actions based on their long term, unknowable consequences, only the action itself.

2. Lying does have inherent qualities, but they come from the subjective morality of mankind. This is where objectivity splits from the human experience. When debating ethics you can't crutch objectivity, because objectively speaking, there's nothing wrong with committing mass murder. There's no code of ethics built into quantum mechanics. We create out own ethics, which is inherently subjective.

3. The intent is really all that matters, you've stripped intent and only look at the outcome, but outcome is not how we judge morality. I'll refer to point #1 here. We judge people based on their intent, gleaned from talking with them and learning about them over time. We don't ignore intent and only look at outcome. In that case, telling the truth can be viewed as equally bad, if the outcome is negative. You're taking an "ends justify the means" position, which ironically supports lying.

4. I thought lying didn't have innate negatives? Furthermore, you're ascribing habitualization to imaginary people, to support your argument. That's arguing in poor faith. You don't know the percent of people who become pathological liars out of habit. The majority of people sparingly lie from time to time. So please don't keep pushing this imagined person on me.

5. Many lies don't have negative outcomes, many truths do. You simply cannot judge an action for its future consequences, given the unknowable nature of them, and the plethora of random variables that change the future. You can only judge actions on their own merits, which requires looking at intent. If you want to lazily wave away morality by looking at outcome, that's fine, but that's not how the world works. Let me provide another example, based on where I work.

I work at a school, let's say I see a kid with bruises and report it to CPS.

CPS takes the kid from their abusive home and puts them in the foster system, where they're murdered by an abusive foster parent.

According to your outcome-based logic, my actions were morally incorrect because my decision led to the students death. How can we possibly judge people this way? It completely ignores my intent, which was to save a child from abuse, but because of bad luck and a horrible foster parent, you've slapped a murder on my conscious.

Hopefully this helps you understand why outcome-based morality makes no sense.

6. Your main beef with my post was over the word malicious, which you incorrectly used. I was simply saying that lying =/= evil intent, but now the argument has evolved past that point.

7. You have a tendency to obfuscate & muddy the watter with hyper-complex sentences and vague meanings. No offense meant, but there's a reason people think that.

8. Refer to point #4

9. You most definitely can if you have people skills. I've ran RPs for years, longest one lasted 2 years. It requires people skills, reading between the lines, understanding tendencies and personalities. You don't need absolute, 100% honesty, just the ability to read the room. If extremely active members start posting slowly, read that as negative feedback instead of asking them to openly question your decisions. People in this community are non confrontational, often past bully victims or non assertive people. They're not the type to boldly tell you how ass your bar scene is.

Also this argument is becoming too long form, and I'm busy at the moment, so this will be my last reply for a while.

1. "It is malicious, not because they think it is bad, but because it leads to bad things." Therefore, lying is a wicked and vile thing, not necessarily because lying it is in and of itself occupying an inherent moral quality, but because the action leads to bad outcomes more often than not: "Cancer has no moral quality, but none of us consider it good or validate it's existence."

It is not indicative of a person having a necessarily bad personality, how you arrive at this conclusion is beyond me, as I never implied anything of the sort aside from my saying that lying, itself, is wicked because it results is negative outcomes more often than not. I did incorrectly state that it was a malicious action, perhaps the experience of reading that clouded your judgement, though I cannot know for certain. Regardless, going beyond such, never did I assume, of anyone, their reason or personality were bad because they decided to lie. I am saying that lying in and of itself is a negative action. The person, in this scenario, is never touched. Good people lie all the time, that does not hinder it from being a negative thing to do.

Illustrated by: "And whilst there are different consequences for varying degrees of lying, this does not invalidate the fact that lying is not right if the consequence of lying is negative. Lying, in and of itself, has no inherent quality; lying often leads, however, towards negative consequences. As such it is typically a negative action, and can be generalized as such; if someone wastes their time on someone who lies, then that is bad. But still, if lying were somehow to better a person, then that is good. But, as it is with lies, seldom does it lead to anything positive."

As for your example, my answer depends on the circumstances that the action finds itself. If we knew of the ultimate outcome, then yes, they should have done nothing. But, we can never know the future, and such it is the morally correct action to save them from dying. As such, you simplify and assume my ethics beyond the reasonable; people can only act within the confines of the environment, and should be held accountable solely to the extent that their own action immediately affects to reasonable degree; saving someone from drowning does not make them a component to the holocaust, but if someone lies, and that lie in itself results in a negative outcome, then that is a whole other matter. I find this example forced, and whilst I can understand finding issue with consequence ethics, butterfly effects are not a component of a person's knowing action. People should not be held accountable for things they didn't personally cause, whether intentionally or unintentionally. As such, Hitler is the cause of the holocaust, not the one who saved him from drowning, and the liar is the cause for the consequences of the lying. To calculate beyond such is unreasonable.

2. You are arguing subjectivity, subjectively, while disparaging my subjective opinion as for the lack of moral quality within actions. I am well aware of my own subjectivity, I am very aware of myself, and never did I say I was the creator of morality. I am, as all people should be, more than aware that morality depends on people, culture, religion, and experience: that is obvious. The inherent qualities of actions and behavours are attributed by morality, morality depends on a vast swathe of factors all of which can, or do define it as one thing, or another; if something is amorphous, does it have inherent form? At this point we approach philosophy, philosophies of which are yet-more subjectivity. I am one who enjoys philosophy, but that is beyond the bounds of this discussion: ultimately, no human can know all things. Objectivity, as defined, is an attempt, made from subjectivity, at emulating absolute truth; it is impossible, but it does not hinder the attempt. Ultimately, however, the only one who spoke of objectivity was yourself. I speak within the bounds of myself.

3. Your belief that intention is the only important aspect in this is either fallacious or your own opinion; consequence ethics being an existing thing, I can do little more than to disagree in the case that it is a personal belief. Were it to be your opinion, then I cannot convince you otherwise, nor do I need to. But, when it comes to ethics at large, weight is placed on seperate aspects of the experiences of people, and how they choose to relate to the world and others. Morality is amorphous, bound by subjective experiences of different congregations of people, and the experiences that in turn mold them. It can be anything, but typically follows common roots: evolutionary ethics. Whether true or not, commonality of ethics is factual. In regards to the typical person, they fall into situational circumstance, lacking definitive doctrine to hold themselves onto, acting intuitively based on how they need to handle different dilemma. Very few are educated on ethics, the matter not being particularly important to delve deeper into for many, satisfying themselves with the vague understanding of what they were taught by their environment to believe to be the case. Needless to say, I have my own values, and follow my own discipline.

No one needs to follow me, but it does not hinder me from believing, as anyone does, that what I believe to be true is the truth, and then voicing it. Thought you likely find it hard to believe, I am not against changing my mind, but it is far harder to do so because of a discussion when it comes to the matter of ethics than in a discussion of something different where definitive proof can be provided. Which moral theory people choose to ascribe themselves to falls into a different category.

As for my own beliefs, I have definitively described them. I will repeat, you are either misconstruing or misunderstanding my ethical belief. I am not an absolutist 'ends justify the mean', nor is 'ends justify the means' somehow distinctly tied to supporting lying, lying is merely a means to approach an outcome: it is not supported in the case that it is not needed, or is somehow detrimental to the outcome in question. Regardless, I believe that an action is good, if it causes good things. An action is bad, if it causes bad things. I do not believe that you can unreasonably extrapolate one action into a future consequence which was uncalculable, but if the person's action resulted in a bad consequence as a result of their action within the reasonable progression of events, then that is a bad action. I ascribe these qualities upon these types of actions, weighing in the subjectivity of people to the extend that I am able, hence why I do not unreasonably ascribe unto people negative actions based on unreasonable extrapolations.

Now, outward from this: lying has no inherent quality. I do not think it is bad or positive by default. Lying, however, has bad connotations because I have personally experienced negative consequences resulted from lying within the bounds of the topic of this conversation. In a fitting comparative, I do not think hugging has an inherent quality, but it is related to positive connotations because hugging is generalized as a positive action, even though it is wholly possible to result in a negative consequence regardless of how obscure such a one may be. Intent is important, it is a factor that is accounted for, as I said, that should be obvious. But foremost importance is placed on consequence. That does not dismiss anything's importance, it means I focus on consequence, not because I do not care for anything else, but because that is where I weigh most importance.

Now, beyond this, I believe, as should be obvious, that people should be good towards one another. Everything I've said, in regards to attempting to obviously present my beliefs towards you again, is additive. The reason I subscribe to a moderately modified variety of consequence ethics is because someone else's intent is inherently unknowable unless telepathy is involved. If that happens, and I do wish for it, I will subscribe towards such an ethical discipline.

This is due to my belief that one cannot attribute unknown factors unto the evaluation of anyone's actions, intentions, or general behaviour. As this would result in guesswork, guesswork of which is endless, and without definites.

4. Lying does not have innate qualities, that does not stop them from having negative connotations. My perspective is based on my experiences, you do not need to believe me, I do not have any desire to convince you if you are not open to my own perspective. We can disagree, that is fine, but finding fault with my ideas, when I have more often than not elaborated on them, is another matter. I do not have a perfect understanding of the absolute truth, nor could it be expected of me, but I argue out of my perspective: to ascribe me a lable such as arguing in bad faith is fruitless, as we are arguing subjectivity to begin with. Instead, it merely makes me believe that you hold a poor opinion of me. Were that to be true, it is of no issue or consequence to me. I am not writing this for anyone in particular, I do so more for myself, as I write most things I comment on throughout the discussion boards.

My experiences aren't particularly special, I interact with people over discord in plentitudes, where I witness my aforementioned examples repeatedly. You can follow me around, I suppose, and perhaps you will witness it yourself. Lying is not unique, and it happens recurringly, I do assure you.

5. Refer to prior elaborations.

6. I hold no beef with you, I mostly respond because you respond to myself. You are reasonable, and do not insult me as far as I know, so I keep responding. I did indeed misuse the term malicious.

7. I am aware that people think that, I have no issue with their belief. I write like this because I want to, it is natural to me.

8. Defunct.

9. I disagree, and uphold my own perspective, from which I argue from and represent my opinion. It does not need to be everyone's truth, but I believe that it applies for most. Having such qualities is beneficial, but it does not extend far. All roleplays are a mixture of ghosting, lying, and life; one cannot fault someone for becoming entangled in life, but actions that are in their control can be faulted if it results in bad things for others. I cannot know what another thinks, and so I need them to tell me; assuming things is guesswork, merely a component of chance. Especially since letters are poor conveyors of intent to begin with. And whilst I speak with these words, as I said before, it is majority-based generalization: as I did with lying and it's consequence.

 

[Chroma Doll]

HOO BOY, this is gonna be a loooooooooooong rant. And I apologize in advance.

I have ran a couple of groups myself, and helped run my husband's groups a couple of times too. And the same things just seem to happen over and over again...

1. People don't read.

Spoiler

Even when the information is right in front of them, members just seem to not be bothered to ever read or do research themselves. Instead they annoyingly ask every question possible, almost as if they expect to get information served to them on a silver plate. This makes me strongly question their motivation to even participate.
I have recently decided to stop humoring this kind of behavior, whether it's genuine or not. I never want to be mean to people, but this is one of the many things that annoys the shit outta me and I end up responding in a very rude and blunt way. So instead of answering every question, I've just decided to respond like: you can find your answer in XYZ.

2. People don't cooperate.

Spoiler

This is both with moderators in groups and members alike. I have seen moderators gloating over their mod-role, but barely sticking out a finger to help the actual GM to run the rp. And then making excuses like "I will get more active soon" but then never actually doing so, but refusing to step down from their moderator position if they're too busy to even do their job.
Members can be just as bad when it comes to cooperating. Again, members either expecting everything to be served to them on a silver plate and not actually contributing to the community by voicing their opinions, or helping to think of plot ideas. — And even when the GM arranges an event, which gets a huge positive response from the members with "I'll join!" but then only 2 people end up participating. It's disappointing to say the least.

3. Characters!!!!!!

Spoiler

Every RP probably has its set of rules for characters, but there's always those individuals who turn a blind eye to them. And you could probably just tell me "they're just trolls", but sometimes I genuinely believe that there are people who straight out refuse to work with rules and want to do their own thing.
Even when receiving constructive criticism about their characters, to maybe correct some things that don't align with the lore and all that. I've had people throw temper tantrums at me because according to them I'm "trying to change their entire character".

4. I'm not gonna hold your hand

Spoiler

I've seen multiple people mention it, but the responsibility to keep everyone engaged is just kind of ridiculous at this point. Nobody will do anything, until the GM starts something, or suggests something. In the groups I have run, people have always had the freedom to start a session on their own, as long as the moderators have access to see it. But nobody ever does. Even when told over and over that people can just start roleplaying if they wanted to, they just don't and continue to complain that nobody is doing anything.
Look, it's very simple. If your GM says it's okay to start something on your own, just do it. Be proactive. The GM needs sleep too.

These are the only things I can think of right now, they have always bugged the hell out of me. I'm sorry if I came off too strong in some of these points, but I've been holding in these frustrations for so long

 

[Edric Blight]

No don’t worry about coming off too strong. This thread is meant for frustrated GMs to rant about the stupidity of players and irritable nature of trying to organize a roleplay game. : )

 

[Chroma Doll]

No don’t worry about coming off too strong. This thread is meant for frustrated GMs to rant about the stupidity of players and irritable nature of trying to organize a roleplay game. : )

Bless you. I'm offending some people somewhere no matter what I'll say anyway, so might as well just say whatever LOL