Jump to content
supernal

General chat thread

Recommended Posts

"When your character walks up to my character and pushes him off a swing then you are forcing interaction between our characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it means that I might respond in kind. I might force lightning upon you because, hey, it’s all about interaction.

You could write the push as an attempt and not a guarantee but I might write that my swing suddenly got faster in time to swing into your push and send you flying."

Recall, in my given example, that I chose my words with subtle discretion; "when my character goes to try and push @Die Shize's off his swing". The key part of this sentence is "try and push"; when we consider roleplaying etiquette, whenever character B is concerned, character A is forever endeavoring; always attempting and always assaying; that is, until character B's response provides character A with the resolute means to either fulfill this endeavor or not. 

What you seem to be referring to, in your first example, are those who break this necessary formality; and certainly, you are right to tactfully ignore "auto-hitters" what I am referring to, however, are those who act within that etiquette, but because of the perils their characters pose in a setting that is open-world, are nonetheless ignored.

Under this etiquette, your character always has the means to respond to initiatives — to attempts. The problem lies in when we neglect response for our perceived inability to do so unscathed, for our desire for control or desired outcome. 

"So, sure, the conflict mechanics go both ways that allow both parties to acknowledge together whether a PvP is about to take place or not. But if one person doesn’t want to fight and the other person does, and the one who does keeps trying to force a fight onto the other, then this is no longer collaboration. This is one person trying to force their whims and their story on the other."

Let's step away from "PvP", for a moment. Your statement, here, seems to be particularly worshiping of "fights", but I would like to remind both you and @supernal, that fights do not make up the totality of conflicts that take place in narrative. Again, siphoning from my initial post, fighting ( PvP; combative roleplay ) is very much a mutualistic sport; it takes two to fight; it takes two to engage in combat. 

I can’t "force" your character to act in any way that lies beyond the scope of its natural inclination, in the same way that I am helplessly unable to force my shitty Volkswagen to flip into a battle-ready Autobot, no matter how many times I might try to deliver it a swift kick in the fender.

Bella doesn't have the mechanics.
She simply jolts at the force, just as her design would entail.

The undermining flaw we can see in your argument, is the assertion that an aggressor or assailant who seeks out conflict with the impassive, is somehow forcing the roleplayer to fight with their character; but, precisely as aforesaid, "when that seven foot orc slings his weighty steel mallet at your character in some explosive fit of rage, no one is demanding that your glittering fae "fight" back, or that it does anything beyond its natural inclination to do, but be mindful of the fact that just because it can't fight back, doesn't mean that the interaction can't go on, or that it is somehow magically due for annul". 

Your character doesn’t have to fight for the roleplay to continue, and when all is said and done, you were never being asked to.

"Open world does not mean anything goes, at least not on Valucre, and that’s what I was gearing toward. Open world can still include rules and guidelines or else anything does go. So you’re either allowed to force conflict on another player or you’re not. And where do you draw the line? If you can randomly walk up to a PC and swing an axe at them and the roleplayer must ultimately PVP you or run away because you keep on swinging then is there a rule against spontaneously exploding because you also randomly stepped into a trap they were saving for angry orcs with axes? Well that all depends on the site and its rules. Covered above my post.”

I notice that you possess a potent affinity for the use of “anything goes” as being an ideology that is, somehow, co-aligned to my own beliefs when it comes to roleplaying in open-world settings. This term is not an apt paraphrase.

Many of the contentions made in your post are directly addressed in my aforementioned ones -- such, that quoting them are suffice to parallel many of the assertions you've posed, already. 

This leads me to question just how much of my former posts you actually bothered read, if at all. 

But, notwithstanding redundancy, this is where I will, yet again, repeat myself, and where I will stress that "anything goes" is not an “an on-the-nose summation of what I was positing before, at least, not the way it's been misconstrued.” Again, “I believe that there is, and should be, praxis in rolepay. What I'm arguing, however, is what that praxis should be, especially when dealing with adversity in roleplays, themselves."

Of course there are underlying rules and guidelines that provide the foreground for the proverbial roleplaying experience. Never was it my claim that open-world interactions exist outside the necessity for conduct; what we’re trying to demarcate is what this conduct should be, and more acutely, how in-character conflict should be appropriately dealt within precarious open-world settings. 

If you “walk up to a PC and randomly” do anything; swing an axe; throw a drink; fling your excrement; that roleplayer, be their character ‘PC’ or otherwise, can respond how ever it is their written disposition for that character would mandate.

If it is in the ire of some profound indignation that their character decides, therein, to draw upon yours a great streak of lightning from on high; or, in the lust to see the scientific brilliance of their untested contraptions at play, that their character resolves to detonate those subterranean explosives, so be it.

If their character justifiably has this godsend in their arsenal and makes its use viable, if that character truly did prepare that devious entrapment beforehand, so be it.

What our question should be is:

  • How can I turn this into something more?
  • How can this small, and even, perhaps, unseemly conflict be made into the centre of significant plot-creation?
  • How can I try to effectuate this with my character?

An innovative mind will find that there is never a shortage of answers. 

In your hypothetical, you give a funny ultimatum for characters who are pit against the odds of adversity in narrative; that if a character is threatened by some fast-approaching axe, they have no other choice than to 'PvP' or run; and that they "must" do these, in the face of such a conflict.

This rigid fallacy expresses the grand-scale problem that I have sought to highlight thus far.

Why is it that these are my only options; why is it that my character is incapable of pleading or bartering; why is he incapable of taking the hit? 

When threatened with axe-swinging conflict, "the roleplayer must ultimately PVP you or run away", as you say; but take a look at what your ultimatum best ensures -- character survival; character prosperity. This false exclamation, and constraint to in-character decision making, transparently reveals a fallacy of its caster; my character can never be at the roleplay's adverse ends. 

These are my only options, because otherwise my character is at the full mercy of the roleplay, of someone other than myself. 

I am in no longer in control.

But does this yearning to see our characters thrive surmount the necessity that we play them honestly, and veraciously? In roleplaying, does this deep seeded desire to see our characters progress as we envision, surmount the necessity that they ultimately give to a story greater than themselves, and that we use our characters, the shrewdness of their design, and of our writing, to execute these aspirations when we are collaborating? 

Why are we roleplaying, if the grail of pursuit is ultimately our character's prosperity above the narrative's? 

"Now if we’re purely going the route of rhetoric then I think it’s important to understand that roleplay is not confined to any one system. Like video games, there are different types of roleplay. There are also different types of open world roleplay. Some people roleplay because they want to write with other people and explore a single character for IRL years, making it a mission to avoid putting their PC in situations where another PC might kill them, but enjoying open instead of closed threads in order to spontaneously meet others." 

The "open-world" roleplays I am referring to are very specific. If you read, I define them in my earlier post. 

These are interactions that are not bound or predetermined to have any certain outcome; a pool where characters gather at happenstance, and the story is woven through the spontaneous course of events that unfold. 

Here, deliberation on what Bob's character might do is not forbade, but neither is it mandate; the only thing mandate of Bob is that he roleplays with the kind of etiquette we lightly touched upon earlier -- that he doesn't auto-hit, puppeteer, etc; that he is aligned to these respects. 

Individual motive for wanting to build a story with others is fine, but I am attacking the salience of the roleplayer who throws their character into settings that welcome the grander flourish of precarious feasibility, only to boohoo when the roleplay does not proceed as they envisioned it should have.

If you have a character that you want to tend to for an x amount of "IRL years", a character you want to see live up to any given prophesy, and you've even gone to make it "a mission to avoid putting your PC in situations where another PC might kill them", why are you still stepping foot into open-world settings that you know might not tend to this desired end? 

Setting goals that we want our characters to reach isn’t an innately bad thing; in fact, it’s good. Having visions for our character’s prosperity is fine, and its an attribute that surely many of us have. 

It helps us to better define what our characters are when we can juxtapose them to what we hopefully envision them to be. 

But, if I want Little Bob to step in and one day become the King of Valcure, then I must do so with the care and thought I put into roleplaying him; I must do so with my innovation as a writer in order to effectuate this change, through Little Bob and his actions, against a world that might repel my desire to see him achieve this. 

I must roleplay cleverly to make my dumb, rumble tumble peasant child, Little Bob, one day see the throne. But, I am, ultimately, acting through my character and my ingenuity as a writer, and not outside of them, to see this goal brought to fruition.

Our characters, and our ingenuity in playing them, is the fulcrum upon which this is dependent. 

It is when we act beyond our characters and outside of this ingenuity to exact our desire for outcome in a collaborative setting, that this can become problematic.

“Little Bob must be King! Therefore, he cannot die here! The roleplay is off!”
“Little Bob must see the throne gracefully, therefore he cannot suffer the embarrassment of defeat! The roleplay can no longer go on!”
“Little Bob cannot be arrested here, he is too cunning! I will not respond!”

Much as you ascribe “force” to be the nature of roleplayers those who wield aggressors and axe-swinging Orcs alike, the above mentality, is ironically, the true definition of forcing your way in roleplay. 

If I want something in roleplay, in a shared narrative, I have to earn it. 

“But really nothing is terribly spontaneous. No roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone’s PC no matter how angry their orc is. The decision is made OOC before it is executed IC. And a person who doesn’t want to deal with that and engage in PVP conflict shouldn’t have to, as much as someone who doesn’t want to have their PC play basketball when the ball comes their way shouldn’t have to. They can catch the ball or let it fly past them and pick it up, pass the ball back or leave the ball, accept the players’ invitation or decline, and all is well and good, but if the players try to force basketball onto the other person then that’s a problem." 

Where you've gathered this from, I have no clue; I can only guess, that this is how you've roleplayed for some time, but I can assure you that many things in roleplay can indeed be spontaneous. 

It reflects the nature of your purlieu, and of what you've been exposed to ( or lack thereof ), that these are what you hold as verities to roleplay’s approach; that this confinement to group-forethought, is, somehow, ubiquitous to roleplaying conduct. 

An interaction does not always necessitate that every singular, infinitesimal step of the mile, be first “allowed" by some council; there are, however, roleplays that function, unanimously, in this controlled way. But to say that "nothing is terribly spontaneous", is a blanket statement that disregards the roleplays that are; to say that no "roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone's PC no matter how angry their orc is", disregards the roleplayers that have. 

( Moreover, how can roleplayers go to "open instead of closed threads in order to spontaneously meet others", if nothing is terribly spontaneous? )

The the open-world settings that I am referring to, are ones that welcome spontaneity; ones where I do not need a council's permission to fly in on my cool gravity-defying hoverboard, or to throw that basketball from across the court.

And when Adam throw's that basketball at a roleplayer's character, I am not “forcing” Sally to play the game; in the same way I am not “forcing” your character to battle, if my Orc swings his axe in their direction. 

Remember, likewise, that PvP is mutualistic. Both you and supernal seem to have a difficult time grasping this concept.

As I have said time and time again, no one is asking that your character "engage in PvP", you have the right as an author to play your character as you have written; the question is, should a character's inability to fight back; to return the bruise kissed cheek, equate to a roleplay's end? 

"Also, whether a PC dies or not is endlessly subjective but if we generalize it as a roleplayer not wanting their character to die outside of clearly established death-is-a-go parameters then that’s their choice. Roleplay isn’t about who dies and who lives. It’s about writing stories and enjoying them. With other people, not against them."

What they do beyond the parameters of these open-world settings, in the comforts of their own unique writing habitats, is, of course, their choice. But again, the discussion never had to do with what takes place in those settings, as it did open-world ones — shared realms of roleplaying dominion, without constraint to group-forethought.

You go on to say that "roleplay isn't about who dies and lives", but take a moment to assess your argument, and how it can be self-conflicting.

Why should some make it "a mission to avoid putting their PC in situations where another PC might kill them", if roleplay is not about who lives and dies? 

If roleplaying is not about who lives or dies, why do we still try to engineer character prosperity, outside our characters and outside our writing, in the first place? And more importantly, why do we sometimes do so, even at the expense of the very same stories we are ultimately trying to contribute to? 

You say, "I don’t have time to explore my characters in satisfying ways before they expire. I want to keep hold of them and write with them at my own leisure. And, really, as long as my decision doesn’t bother anyone else then no one else should be bothered by it." 

But if roleplaying isn't about who lives or who dies, then why does your concern culminate in the expiry of your characters, at all? Why does this concern effect the way you roleplay? And who is to say, moreover, that before your character expires, you could never have explored the intimacies of their make? 

Your assertions are essentially,
“Roleplay is not about who lives or dies, but I don’t roleplay like this because my character may die.”

Yes, exploring our own characters is, no doubt, part of what makes roleplaying so satisfying, its thrilling; we know this; but is this satisfaction mutually exclusive to embracing the precarious unfold? Is it such an impossible feat to explore our characters while amidst the great uncertainty of that expanse?

Roleplayers can write stories and just easily enjoy them, while just as fluently embracing the precariousness of this unfold. 

Am I, inherently, "against them" because my role in a narrative is that of an enemy or opposition; assailant or aggressor? Am I an impediment to the roleplaying experience for taking on the mantle of the very same conflict we see embedded in all good stories? 

Am I incapable of, perhaps, being with them, of being with the story and its progression?

As an adversary or "villain", can I not be a cog in the machination of this narrative's propulsion? 

If I simply play an aggressor, or an Orc that dares to swing his battle-axe in your character's direction, for his own reasons, does this make a roleplayer lusting for "everyone to die at just about any time"? 

"You say go write a book but that’s not much different than self-defining what everyone’s roleplay should be like. It shouldn’t boil down to writing roleplay or writing a book, and really if someone wants everyone’s character to be able to die at just about any time then that person can also just go write a book."

In all, you missed the points of my last post. 

What are we doing, here, in this discussion, if not but propounding on what roleplay should be and shouldn't be like? 

Your premise is similarly flawed like @The Alexandrian's.

This is an argument of "should's and shouldn'ts". 

How could you have held this position, thus far; how could you've asserted what roleplaying is, make the claim that roleplay is "not about who dies or lives", if you did not define what roleplaying was about, first. 

We are both self-defining roleplay, what it is, and what it should be, otherwise you wouldn't have an argument to make. 

My sarcastic suggestion to "write a book" had a very important underlying message that you didn't seem to catch.

When we write books, our word is undisputed; an author's desire for control, dominion and autonomy over any part of the narrative, is eternally gratified; the story is prostrate to the whim of its author; there is never resistance. In a shared narrative, or in roleplay, however, where we have many authors, there is. 

For those of us that still desire the same amount of control we find in the former pastime; for those who yearn for unchallenged and unadulterated control over the narrative and its direction, a book is the only place that will ever appease them. 

Edited by Valushia
@s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's step away from "PvP", for a moment. Your statement, here, seems to be particularly worshiping of "fights", but I would like to remind both you and @supernal, that fights do not make up the totality of conflicts that take place in narrative. Again, siphoning from my initial post, fighting ( PvP; combative roleplay ) is very much a mutualistic sport; it takes two to fight; it takes two to engage in combat."

From my last post: "You seem to use PvP and Conflict interchangeably, and though you've admitted that conflict is not limited to PvP/combat, this seems to be the kind of conflict you reference the most. Character death, orcs swinging axes, and characters being pushed off swings seem to be the ready examples. Of the types of conflict, combat is often the simplest form, and the manner in which the killer taxonomy type structure their combat conflict tends to be both simplistic (as in linear, not "dumb" but it can be that too) and self-centered. You might still be able to pull of a reasonable level of engagement with this (Dredge has, for example) but that is why its incumbent on your ability to generate buy-in rather than the site endorsing your ability to disrupt on a whim"

I'd like to inquire as to why you felt the need to remind me of a point I already made, and in greater detail?

"This leads me to question just how much of my former posts you actually bothered read, if at all."

Remarkably same

Funny aside, I'd like to narrow in on a specific portion of the above paragraph:

"Again, siphoning from my initial post, fighting ( PvP; combative roleplay ) is very much a mutualistic sport; it takes two to fight; it takes two to engage in combat."

First, what do you mean by mutualistic? Here's what the word actually means and none of these seem to apply: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutualistic

If I were to "siphon" from previous posts I think the word you're going after is collaborative. It's the word I see used most often in previous posts by doing a CTRL + F, and its antipode appears to be "competitive". Until you can provide a more satisfactory / specialized definition or term, this will have to do, because otherwise we're dealing with a tautology - something is of mutual aid only when it is of mutual aid, which is to say it's possible but not a requisite; the fact of combat merely requiring two parties does not inherently make it mutually beneficial

It takes two to fight but that doesn't make it collaborative in anything but the loosest definition of the word. You could make an argument that in some ways a performance and its audience are collaborative, there's an exchange of "energy", or a call-resposne ("When I say X, you say Y!"), but it isn't really, not in the way we mean collaborative in the creative sphere. UFC fights are not collaborative just because it takes two people to have a match. It's fine for you to think and argue otherwise but it's a stark difference of opinion if so

Going back to your axe example, your arguments advance constantly on lines of false binaries, a sort of if it isn't one end of the pole then it must be the other. If your thread isn't "spontaneous" enough to allow my character to come in wielding an axe and for you to have to respond to that, despite whatever it is you were trying to do before hand, then it isn't spontaneous. Just working through the logic of it we can see that isn't the case. I can have "some" spontaneity in some aspects of the thread while not having any in the others.

It isn't about the manifold different responses a creative mind can generate with respect to a swung axe, it's the fact of having to deal with the axe to begin with, and the ability of one person to dictate when this should happen. Some people may like this, and that's fine. They may tag their thread open and declare to the world that they're ready and eager for the kind of no-holds barred spontaneity that you seem to be advocating for. Other people, people with children or multiple jobs or school matched with any of these, may have a different opinion than you do as to how their free time should be spent. They may only want to deal with the infamous orc war as a narrative element to add tension to their romance arc, and someone shelling their estate may interfere with that. Or it may not. Or they may be fine with it at a later point in the thread, one a specific point gets resolved. Or they would rather a platoon storming the front door than a ICBM. All of which are fine responses to have because it's ultimately their story and the person joining, spontaneously, to throw axes has to be able to make the people want to respond, not merely assume that it is now their responsibility to by mere fact of their presence.

"How can this small, and even, perhaps, unseemly conflict be made into the centre of significant plot-creation?"

I disagree that this should be a guiding question because doing so would make my limited availability to roleplay ad-hoc on demand to anyone who wants to throw a conflict my way. I no longer have agency to plan and plot the things that I want to see realized but have to perforce shift the spotlight of my narrative to the randomly introduced conflict at the whims of whoever feels like it at the time, and not everyone will be equally capable of dovetailing what they want with what I want.

The rule structure of the site does not support this in the general but you are, of course, free to use your time however you wish. It's really when you want a system that allows you to make unseemly demands of other people's engagement that issues arise. If you're able to reliably generate buy-in every time then you should have no issue getting people to want to do this for your story but if you fail to do so the failure is on you to engage, not on the other user to be engaged. That's why you don't need a council's permission to use your hoverboard and messaging people is only suggested, not required. Because you might end up spending post effort on something that completely fails to engage, and as long as you're willing to eat your mistake and not rankle people because they don't care about what you care about at the moment you care about it, then there shouldn't be a problem.

And, of course, because of the rule of player primacy here on Valucre indicates that you can run your threads however you like, you can lead by example. You can make multiple roleplays or even multiple organizations or structures or settings, and indicate that they're all open for any kind of conflict at any point in time, and even further stipulate that anyone playing in your settings agree to the same, just as Izral has done in Alterion. You don't have to argue that how you want to approach roleplay is superior, you can actually show us!

Moving on:

"what we’re trying to demarcate is what this conduct should be, and more acutely, how in-character conflict should be appropriately dealt within precarious open-world settings."

I agree. How conflict is introduced is not as important as how the conflict is resolved. I see that you have precisely one water cooler thread, which leads to a thread you made in the colosseum. Then you have your introduction and a user lore thread that's about T1 rules. So 75% of your started threads are, specifically, combat oriented with what appears to be a T1 framework. So then, as far as how conflict is resolved, is it fair to assume the proposed system is T1? And if not, what would the system be?

"Remember, likewise, that PvP is mutualistic. Both you and supernal seem to have a difficult time grasping this concept."

@Valushia I think it's as much, or more so, a failure of your ability to use clear and concise language as it is any reading comprehension on our ends. In fact, that multiple people are misinterpreting what you're saying in the same way makes it very likely that the issue is on your side of things. The elements of style may be a boon to you in improving your clarity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style

"the question is, should a character's inability to fight back; to return the bruise kissed cheek, equate to a roleplay's end?"

Is this the question? If so my answer is definitely not. I just also don't think they need to countenance every attempt on a thread, unless they want to / feel like it / structured their play in that way as to say otherwise, such as by marking their thread open or playing in an area accommodates that

"Am I, inherently, "against them" because my role in a narrative is that of an enemy or opposition; assailant or aggressor? Am I an impediment to the roleplaying experience for taking on the mantle of the very same conflict we see embedded in all good stories?  

Am I incapable of, perhaps, being with them, of being with the story and its progression?

As an adversary or "villain", can I not be a cog in the machination of this narrative's propulsion?"

These aren't yes / no binary answers to binary questions. This is "it depends", and it depends on your intent (the way a Socializer does this is different than how a Killer does), your ability to generate buy-in to the type of conflict you want to introduce, and where in the existing story you want to do it. If, as Die said in a previous post, you're doing it in such a way that it adds to rather than detracts from the existing story, then it should be no problem. Why would anyone want to deny something that gracefully and engagingly contributes quality material to their narrative? People should want to incorporate your conflict, but that's different than saying they should have to

Edited by supernal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valushia

There is a reason I enclosed "should and shouldn't" in quotes.

I was referring to the premise of your argument, perhaps a tad too subtly.  Your argument, as I interpret it, hinges on pure RP - that RPers, ideally, shouldn't be allowed certain preferences in open combat RP - of RP in a vacuum with artificial intelligence that doesn't care how you treat it, if you will.  RP in complete isolation.  RP philosophy devoid of human emotion and basic consideration of the feelings of others.

If you read my post, you ought to have noted that my point is that we must treat people with all due respect if we want RP to thrive.  If we want open combat threads, we ought to go into them with the purpose of glorifying all characters involved, of writing an epic fight scene everyone enjoys first and foremost.

If that premise is "flawed," I don't want to be right.  I'd rather be someone people want to rp with, someone who supports stories other people want to tell in tandem with my own, than invade a thread, wreck face, and act like other parties should just kowtow to my whims.  When I want to crush fools with reckless abandon, I play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic I and II.  You can execute NPCs in the streets like Darth Vader to your heart's content with HK-47!

Spoiler

 

If you want to RP with people, real people, it is imperative that you treat them like real people.  If you treat them poorly, they won't want to RP with you and you'll lose the ability to engage in combat RP, assuming combat RP is a "mutualistic sport."  Treating RPers poorly when you want to RP with them is like firing all of the employees who work at your franchise and expecting to run a successful business.  Even if you can't see them, RPers on this forum are people just like you.

We aren't Vulcans.

Spoiler

 

Arguments about RP that ignore people's feelings or claim they're invalid completely miss the mark.

Edited by The Alexandrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Alexandrian said:

@Valushia

There is a reason I enclosed "should and shouldn't" in quotes.

I was referring to the premise of your argument, perhaps a tad too subtly.  Your argument, as I interpret it, hinges on pure RP - that RPers, ideally, shouldn't be allowed certain preferences in open combat RP - of RP in a vacuum with artificial intelligence that doesn't care how you treat it, if you will.  RP in complete isolation.  RP philosophy devoid of human emotion and basic consideration of the feelings of others.

If you read my post, you ought to have noted that my point is that we must treat people with all due respect if we want RP to thrive.  If we want open combat threads, we ought to go into them with the purpose of glorifying all characters involved, of writing an epic fight scene everyone enjoys first and foremost.

If that premise is "flawed," I don't want to be right.  I'd rather be someone people want to rp with, someone who supports stories other people want to tell in tandem with my own, than invade a thread, wreck face, and act like other parties should just kowtow to my whims.  When I want to crush fools with reckless abandon, I play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic I and II.  You can execute NPCs in the streets like Darth Vader to your heart's content with HK-47!

  Hide contents

 

If you want to RP with people, real people, it is imperative that you treat them like real people.  If you treat them poorly, they won't want to RP with you and you'll lose the ability to engage in combat RP, assuming combat RP is a "mutualistic sport."  Treating RPers poorly when you want to RP with them is like firing all of the employees who work at your franchise and expecting to run a successful business.  Even if you can't see them, RPers on this forum are people just like you.

We aren't Vulcans.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Arguments about RP that ignore people's feelings or claim they're invalid completely miss the mark.

 

"Call me crazy, but I'm not sold on the premise that arguments based on "should and shouldn't" are particularly relevant here."

But what are you truly saying here?

What is your proposal, if not but a posit on what you believe roleplay "should" be? On how you believe roleplay should be tactfully approached? 

What are your examples, like unfairly engaging a Martial Artist with your formidable airship if not but a posit on how you believe it "shouldn't."

"Should and shouldn't" are especially pertinent, here, because our respective positions are firmly placed on the foothold of these verbs; of should and shouldn't. What would your premise become, otherwise? 

If we are, again, delineating a purpose for why it is others roleplay, if we are defining what roleplaying is and how we should, therefore, go about it, then we are intrinsically drawing from principles we believe to be absolute.

"Your argument, as I interpret it, hinges on pure RP - that RPers, ideally, shouldn't be allowed certain preferences in open combat RP - of RP in a vacuum with artificial intelligence that doesn't care how you treat it, if you will.  RP in complete isolation.  RP philosophy devoid of human emotion and basic consideration of the feelings of others." 

Not combat RP. Open-world roleplays. We should always be allowed preference in environments adherent to our dictation for preference, but I'm questioning the logicality of those with a certain "preference" in "Open-world" settings when we apprehend the nature of what these settings are, and what may entail we step foot within them. 

"If I treat others poorly, I'm missing the mark on Element 2 and, most likely, Elements 3 and 4.  If I force combat on people, I'm treating them poorly.  Thus, I fail to meet my goals as a roleplayer."

Piggybacking on many of my last posts, I'll continue to mention that combat is, indeed, a twofold sport. A character's initiation at conflict, only becomes "combat" in the face of retaliation. 

I cannot "force" your character to partake. You have the autonomy over your character as an author, to have them react however you'd like; to duck, to take the hit, to cower, etc. 

If I am simply playing the role of an aggressor in the narrative, does this truly constitute "treating people poorly"?

"For a long time, I played a bunch of villains.  They were part of an evil organization.  The evil organization's base of operations was a giant, insane eldritch entity.  Two good organizations opposed the one evil organization.  One day, they decided to team up and kick in the front door.  They proceeded to beat up the villains and then leave.

This wasn't enough for one guy.  He had his heart set on killing the giant, insane eldritch entity.  The eldritch entity losing wasn't enough; it was perma or else in this guy's mind.  When the player of the eldritch entity denied the perma, this guy was erupted with salt.  He banned anyone from playing characters affiliated with the evil organization in "his" city.  He didn't even play in or manage "his" city, and it was one of two cities on the forum."

I think that there are questions we should always take a moment ask whenever we look upon quandaries like these, they rarely ever tend to be as bleakly black and white when we observe them at depth. 

Why did Insane Eldritch Entity-Man deny the perma; was it for Angry Man's inability to effectually fulfill a permanent death in character, or was it for Insane Eldritch Entity-Man's desire to see his character live, even where it feasibly should not have?

I will stress how the desire for outcomes, against our means to actually solidify them through the shrewdness of our characters and our roleplaying, can be detrimentally undermining. 

Roleplaying can be fun, for both myself and others, but this doesn't mean that everyone must get their way for us to have it; not everyone whose character ends up at the roleplay's adverse end needs the platinum gold star of favorable odds, to have fun. 

I'm certain that some of you would exclaim "well, neither does the axe-swinging roleplayer who vies for the kill need to get his way for him to have fun, either!"

This is where I would extol the importance of earnesty in roleplaying. 

How we delegate who deserves what in roleplay, should ultimately be based on roleplay; how we delegate whether or not Angry Man slays the monster, or whether or not Eldritch Entity-Man endures, shouldn't be based on who we perceive to be bigger sufferer of loss, or what we think would lend to the better outcome, but rather, on who earned these ends through the ingenuity of their roleplaying, of their writing and tended character.

I believe that if the author of an axe-swinging Orc sees his assailed slain, solely through the prowess of his roleplaying and writing, solely through what he was able to effectuate with his character, that in the earnesty of roleplaying, he is just to vie for that deed's actuality. In the same way I believe that if the roleplayer behind that Martial Artist were ever to survive the fiery onslought of your ship's ballistic strafes solely through the ingenuity of his writing, that he would be just to vie for his character's life, and have it.  

Are we to rob them of their character's truly earned feats and fulfillments to placate the sentiments of those whose characters did not succeed as they intended? Is this reward-system healthy? is it fair? Is this considering basic "human emotions"?

Is it ideal, that we constrain the intents of other characters; what it is your ship man might be compelled to try and do unto mine; or what it is my karate-man might be compelled to try do unto yours, in order to tip-toe around the desire for undeserved character prosperity?

I think that maybe we should begin turning our heads, instead, towards these sentiments, and question where they come from, and if appeasing them, unconditionally, is truly a solution?  

Certainly, it is natural that we have the desire to see our characters prosper; it is natural that we have the desire to see them be and to become; but this mere desire is not enough to transcend the need that in this game, if we want to achieve any end, we must ultimately ensure it through the medium, roleplay, and extensively, my character. If my goal, and intent, is to have Handsome Orc-Man find the means to transform into the Insane Eldritch Entity-Man so that he can one day threaten the fate of Valcure, then I must secure this end through the nature of the craft, of my resourcefulness as a roleplayer and writer playing a character who is poised against the defiance of a treacherous world. 

I believe that we should honor roleplaying veracity; that you have to play the game, if you want to win and that if we stay true to the nature of that game, we can have even more fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Valushia said:

"When your character walks up to my character and pushes him off a swing then you are forcing interaction between our characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it means that I might respond in kind. I might force lightning upon you because, hey, it’s all about interaction.

You could write the push as an attempt and not a guarantee but I might write that my swing suddenly got faster in time to swing into your push and send you flying."

Recall, in my given example, that I chose my words with subtle discretion; "when my character goes to try and push @Die Shize's off his swing". The key part of this sentence is "try and push"; when we consider roleplaying etiquette, whenever character B is concerned, character A is forever endeavoring; always attempting and always assaying; that is, until character B's response provides character A with the resolute means to either fulfill this endeavor or not. 

What you seem to be referring to, in your first example, are those who break this necessary formality; and certainly, you are right to tactfully ignore "auto-hitters" what I am referring to, however, are those who act within that etiquette, but because of the perils their characters pose in a setting that is open-world, are nonetheless ignored.

Under this etiquette, your character always has the means to respond to initiatives — to attempts. The problem lies in when we neglect response for our perceived inability to do so unscathed, for our desire for control or desired outcome. 

"So, sure, the conflict mechanics go both ways that allow both parties to acknowledge together whether a PvP is about to take place or not. But if one person doesn’t want to fight and the other person does, and the one who does keeps trying to force a fight onto the other, then this is no longer collaboration. This is one person trying to force their whims and their story on the other."

Let's step away from "PvP", for a moment. Your statement, here, seems to be particularly worshiping of "fights", but I would like to remind both you and @supernal, that fights do not make up the totality of conflicts that take place in narrative. Again, siphoning from my initial post, fighting ( PvP; combative roleplay ) is very much a mutualistic sport; it takes two to fight; it takes two to engage in combat. 

I can’t "force" your character to act in any way that lies beyond the scope of its natural inclination, in the same way that I am helplessly unable to force my shitty Volkswagen to flip into a battle-ready Autobot, no matter how many times I might try to deliver it a swift kick in the fender.

Bella doesn't have the mechanics.
She simply jolts at the force, just as her design would entail.

The undermining flaw we can see in your argument, is the assertion that an aggressor or assailant who seeks out conflict with the impassive, is somehow forcing the roleplayer to fight with their character; but, precisely as aforesaid, "when that seven foot orc slings his weighty steel mallet at your character in some explosive fit of rage, no one is demanding that your glittering fae "fight" back, or that it does anything beyond its natural inclination to do, but be mindful of the fact that just because it can't fight back, doesn't mean that the interaction can't go on, or that it is somehow magically due for annul". 

Your character doesn’t have to fight for the roleplay to continue, and when all is said and done, you were never being asked to.

"Open world does not mean anything goes, at least not on Valucre, and that’s what I was gearing toward. Open world can still include rules and guidelines or else anything does go. So you’re either allowed to force conflict on another player or you’re not. And where do you draw the line? If you can randomly walk up to a PC and swing an axe at them and the roleplayer must ultimately PVP you or run away because you keep on swinging then is there a rule against spontaneously exploding because you also randomly stepped into a trap they were saving for angry orcs with axes? Well that all depends on the site and its rules. Covered above my post.”

I notice that you possess a potent affinity for the use of “anything goes” as being an ideology that is, somehow, co-aligned to my own beliefs when it comes to roleplaying in open-world settings. This term is not an apt paraphrase.

Many of the contentions made in your post are directly addressed in my aforementioned ones -- such, that quoting them are suffice to parallel many of the assertions you've posed, already. 

This leads me to question just how much of my former posts you actually bothered read, if at all. 

But, notwithstanding redundancy, this is where I will, yet again, repeat myself, and where I will stress that "anything goes" is not an “an on-the-nose summation of what I was positing before, at least, not the way it's been misconstrued.” Again, “I believe that there is, and should be, praxis in rolepay. What I'm arguing, however, is what that praxis should be, especially when dealing with adversity in roleplays, themselves."

Of course there are underlying rules and guidelines that provide the foreground for the proverbial roleplaying experience. Never was it my claim that open-world interactions exist outside the necessity for conduct; what we’re trying to demarcate is what this conduct should be, and more acutely, how in-character conflict should be appropriately dealt within precarious open-world settings. 

If you “walk up to a PC and randomly” do anything; swing an axe; throw a drink; fling your excrement; that roleplayer, be their character ‘PC’ or otherwise, can respond how ever it is their written disposition for that character would mandate.

If it is in the ire of some profound indignation that their character decides, therein, to draw upon yours a great streak of lightning from on high; or, in the lust to see the scientific brilliance of their untested contraptions at play, that their character resolves to detonate those subterranean explosives, so be it.

If their character justifiably has this godsend in their arsenal and makes its use viable, if that character truly did prepare that devious entrapment beforehand, so be it.

What our question should be is:

  • how can I turn this into something more?
  • How can this small, and even, perhaps, unseemly conflict be made into the centre of significant plot-creation?
  • How can I try to effectuate this with my character?

An innovative mind will find that there is never a shortage of answers. 

In your hypothetical, you give a funny ultimatum for characters who are pit against the odds of adversity in narrative; that if a character is threatened by some fast-approaching axe, they have no other choice than to 'PvP' or run; and that they "must" do these, in the face of such a conflict.

This rigid fallacy expresses the grand-scale problem that I have sought to highlight thus far.

Why is it that these are my only options; why is it that my character is incapable of pleading or bartering; why is he incapable of taking the hit? 

When threatened with axe-swinging conflict, "the roleplayer must ultimately PVP you or run away", as you say; but take a look at what your ultimatum best ensures -- character survival; character prosperity. This false exclamation, and constraint to in-character decision making, transparently reveals a fallacy of its caster; my character can never be at the roleplay's adverse ends. 

These are my only options, because otherwise my character is at the full mercy of the roleplay, of someone other than myself. 

I am in no longer in control.

But does this yearning to see our characters thrive surmount the necessity that we play them honestly, and veraciously? In roleplaying, does this deep seeded desire to see our characters progress as we envision, surmount the necessity that they ultimately give to a story greater than themselves, and that we use our characters, the shrewdness of their design, and of our writing, to execute these aspirations when we are collaborating? 

Why are we roleplaying, if the grail of pursuit is ultimately our character's prosperity above the narrative's? 

"Now if we’re purely going the route of rhetoric then I think it’s important to understand that roleplay is not confined to any one system. Like video games, there are different types of roleplay. There are also different types of open world roleplay. Some people roleplay because they want to write with other people and explore a single character for IRL years, making it a mission to avoid putting their PC in situations where another PC might kill them, but enjoying open instead of closed threads in order to spontaneously meet others." 

The "open-world" roleplays I am referring to are very specific. If you read, I define them in my earlier post. 

These are interactions that are not bound or predetermined to have any certain outcome; a pool where characters gather at happenstance, and the story is woven through the spontaneous course of events that unfold. 

Here, deliberation on what Bob's character might do is not forbade, but neither is it mandate; the only thing mandate of Bob is that he roleplays with the kind of etiquette we lightly touched upon earlier -- that he doesn't auto-hit, puppeteer, etc; that he is aligned to these respects. 

Individual motive for wanting to build a story with others is fine, but I am attacking the salience of the roleplayer who throws their character into settings that welcome the grander flourish of precarious feasibility, only to boohoo when the roleplay does not proceed as they envisioned it should have.

If you have a character that you want to tend to for an x amount of "IRL years", a character you want to see live up to any given prophesy, and you've even gone to make it "a mission to avoid putting your PC in situations where another PC might kill them", why are you still stepping foot into open-world settings that you know might not tend to this desired end? 

Setting goals that we want our characters to reach isn’t an innately bad thing; in fact, it’s good. Having visions for our character’s prosperity is fine, and its an attribute that surely many of us have. 

It helps us to better define what our characters are when we can juxtapose them to what we hopefully envision them to be. 

But, if I want Little Bob to step in and one day become the King of Valcure, then I must do so with the care and thought I put into roleplaying him; I must do so with my innovation as a writer in order to effectuate this change, through Little Bob and his actions, against a world that might repel my desire to see him achieve this. 

I must roleplay cleverly to make my dumb, rumble tumble peasant child, Little Bob, one day see the throne. But, I am, ultimately, acting through my character and my ingenuity as a writer, and not outside of them, to see this goal brought to fruition.

Our characters, and our ingenuity in playing them, is the fulcrum upon which this is dependent. 

It is when we act beyond our characters and outside of this ingenuity to exact our desire for outcome in a collaborative setting, that this can become problematic.

“Little Bob must be King! Therefore, he cannot die here! The roleplay is off!”
“Little Bob must see the throne gracefully, therefore he cannot suffer the embarrassment of defeat! The roleplay can no longer go on!”
“Little Bob cannot be arrested here, he is too cunning! I will not respond!”

Much as you ascribe “force” to be the nature of roleplayers those who wield aggressors and axe-swinging Orcs alike, the above mentality, is ironically, the true definition of forcing your way in roleplay. 

If I want something in roleplay, in a shared narrative, I have to earn it. 

“But really nothing is terribly spontaneous. No roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone’s PC no matter how angry their orc is. The decision is made OOC before it is executed IC. And a person who doesn’t want to deal with that and engage in PVP conflict shouldn’t have to, as much as someone who doesn’t want to have their PC play basketball when the ball comes their way shouldn’t have to. They can catch the ball or let it fly past them and pick it up, pass the ball back or leave the ball, accept the players’ invitation or decline, and all is well and good, but if the players try to force basketball onto the other person then that’s a problem." 

Where you've gathered this from, I have no clue; I can only guess, that this is how you've roleplayed for some time, but I can assure you that many things in roleplay can indeed be spontaneous. 

It reflects the nature of your purlieu, and of what you've been exposed to ( or lack thereof ), that these are what you hold as verities to roleplay’s approach; that this confinement to group-forethought, is, somehow, ubiquitous to roleplaying conduct. 

An interaction does not always necessitate that every singular, infinitesimal step of the mile, be first “allowed" by some council; there are, however, roleplays that function, unanimously, in this controlled way. But to say that "nothing is terribly spontaneous", is a blanket statement that disregards the roleplays that are; to say that no "roleplayer randomly swings an axe at someone's PC no matter how angry their orc is", disregards the roleplayers that have. 

( Moreover, how can roleplayers go to "open instead of closed threads in order to spontaneously meet others", if nothing is terribly spontaneous? )

The the open-world settings that I am referring to, are ones that welcome spontaneity; ones where I do not need a council's permission to fly in on my cool gravity-defying hoverboard, or to throw that basketball from across the court.

And when Adam throw's that basketball at a roleplayer's character, I am not “forcing” Sally to play the game; in the same way I am not “forcing” your character to battle, if my Orc swings his axe in their direction. 

Remember, likewise, that PvP is mutualistic. Both you and supernal seem to have a difficult time grasping this concept.

As I have said time and time again, no one is asking that your character "engage in PvP", you have the right as an author to play your character as you have written; the question is, should a character's inability to fight back; to return the bruise kissed cheek, equate to a roleplay's end? 

"Also, whether a PC dies or not is endlessly subjective but if we generalize it as a roleplayer not wanting their character to die outside of clearly established death-is-a-go parameters then that’s their choice. Roleplay isn’t about who dies and who lives. It’s about writing stories and enjoying them. With other people, not against them."

What they do beyond the parameters of these open-world settings, in the comforts of their own unique writing habitats, is, of course, their choice. But again, the discussion never had to do with what takes place in those settings, as it did open-world ones — shared realms of roleplaying dominion, without constraint to group-forethought.

You go on to say that "roleplay isn't about who dies and lives", but take a moment to assess your argument, and how it can be self-conflicting.

Why should some make it "a mission to avoid putting their PC in situations where another PC might kill them", if roleplay is not about who lives and dies? 

If roleplaying is not about who lives or dies, why do we still try to engineer character prosperity, outside our characters and outside our writing, in the first place? And more importantly, why do we sometimes do so, even at the expense of the very same stories we are ultimately trying to contribute to? 

You say, "I don’t have time to explore my characters in satisfying ways before they expire. I want to keep hold of them and write with them at my own leisure. And, really, as long as my decision doesn’t bother anyone else then no one else should be bothered by it." 

But if roleplaying isn't about who lives or who dies, then why does your concern culminate in the expiry of your characters, at all? Why does this concern effect the way you roleplay? And who is to say, moreover, that before your character expires, you could never have explored the intimacies of their make? 

Your assertions are essentially,
“Roleplay is not about who lives or dies, but I don’t roleplay like this because my character may die.”

Yes, exploring our own characters is, no doubt, part of what makes roleplaying so satisfying, its thrilling; we know this; but is this satisfaction mutually exclusive to embracing the precarious unfold? Is it such an impossible feat to explore our characters while amidst the great uncertainty of that expanse?

Roleplayers can write stories and just easily enjoy them, while just as fluently embracing the precariousness of this unfold. 

Am I, inherently, "against them" because my role in a narrative is that of an enemy or opposition; assailant or aggressor? Am I an impediment to the roleplaying experience for taking on the mantle of the very same conflict we see embedded in all good stories? 

Am I incapable of, perhaps, being with them, of being with the story and its progression?

As an adversary or "villain", can I not be a cog in the machination of this narrative's propulsion? 

If I simply play an aggressor, or an Orc that dares to swing his battle-axe in your character's direction, for his own reasons, does this make a roleplayer lusting for "everyone to die at just about any time"? 

"You say go write a book but that’s not much different than self-defining what everyone’s roleplay should be like. It shouldn’t boil down to writing roleplay or writing a book, and really if someone wants everyone’s character to be able to die at just about any time then that person can also just go write a book."

In all, you missed the points of my last post. 

What are we doing, here, in this discussion, if not but propounding on what roleplay should be and shouldn't be like? 

Your premise is similarly flawed like @The Alexandrian's.

This is an argument of "should's and shouldn'ts". 

How could you have held this position, thus far; how could you've asserted what roleplaying is, make the claim that roleplay is "not about who dies or lives", if you did not define what roleplaying was about, first. 

We are both self-defining roleplay, what it is, and what it should be, otherwise you wouldn't have an argument to make. 

My sarcastic suggestion to "write a book" had a very important underlying message that you didn't seem to catch.

When we write books, our word is undisputed; an author's desire for control, dominion and autonomy over any part of the narrative, is eternally gratified; the story is prostrate to the whim of its author; there is never resistance. In a shared narrative, or in roleplay, however, where we have many authors, there is. 

For those of us that still desire the same amount of control we find in the former pastime; for those who yearn for unchallenged and unadulterated control over the narrative and its direction, a book is the only place that will ever appease them. 

Let’s please not try to play the game of ‘I wonder how much you bothered to read of my post’. 

Things get forgotten or overlooked or misinterpreted in text as much as they do in vocals. Does not mean anyone is deliberately ignoring said text.

I mean, I was not saying that a character must PVP or run in general. I was saying that if the opponent keeps on attacking and doesn’t stop (safely assuming they keep attacking after any pleas or barters) then fight or flight do seem to be the only options short of just ignoring the belligerent roleplayer. So if you are arguing a perceived point wherein I am stating that conflict is only PVP and responses are limited to fight or flight then you may not have read my post...or you simply misunderstood what I wrote. 

And, again, as far as not reading or misreading or missing points go, I was not saying that roleplay in general is not or should not be spontaneous. I am saying that any spontaneous IC action is first decided upon OOC, from beginning of typing to end of typing to clicking ‘post’. So if it is an action that perhaps should not happen then the roleplayer has plenty of time to decide.

We can just keep going in circles from here but I really don’t want to. I appreciate your sentiments and your notions but we perhaps view things differently and that is not a bad thing. I mean, you seem to take issue with how people can view roleplay as not being about whether your character lives or dies, and I see no issue with it. I watch many TV programs that don’t revolve around who lives and who dies. Heck, even Game of Thrones was for me not about what character dies next on a show with hundreds of deaths. This is not how I achieve my enjoyment in roleplay.

I do agree that conflict does not revolve around PVP. Perhaps I kept bringing it up in part because, well, if the conflict will not directly or immediately lead to PVP then indeed what is the issue? If a PC is just saying something mean or unpleasant or slinging a shoelace then, sure, probably not conflicting enough to warrant an ignore. I wager that most in this debate would agree. So I’m not sure why it’s worth even bringing up. I don’t think anyone is taking issue with conflict in general, but rather being locked into it because of another roleplayer’s whims.

Open world does not mean pick and choose who you roleplay with as much as it does in a closed thread. That’s why it’s an open thread. Yet, it also does not mean that you must be forced into a particular level of conflict with another PC, namely if it’s PVP, if the roleplayer is bordering on harassing you, and what have you. Otherwise, by all means, conflict keeps things exciting. But it sounds like we may not be truly setting the parameters here as far as what conflict is and is not when it comes to where any issue lies. Because I don’t take issue with conflict in general. I take issue with being forced into it which, in a sense, could be every single post in every open thread. That just isn’t very exciting for me.

I enjoy roleplay. I like closed settings and open settings. I like writing with other people and I usually have no issue. I like reading books too. But I have no need or desire to trade one for the other. So I am appeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Die Shize said:

I enjoy roleplay. I like closed settings and open settings. I like writing with other people and I usually have no issue. I like reading books too. But I have no need or desire to trade one for the other. So I am appeased.

Welcome to Valucre 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

Dean Martin once sang a song that is particularly relevant to this argument.  Since I'm not really accomplishing anything with the direct approach, lemme try something a little different, and please read the interpretation I provide afterward because the lyrics, without context, kind of read like a diss track, now that I'm reviewing them, and they really shouldn't.

You're nobody 'til somebody loves you.  You're nobody 'til somebody cares.  You may be king, you may possess the word and its gold, but gold won't bring you happiness when you're growing old.  The world still is the same: you never change it.  As sure as the stars shine above, you're nobody 'til somebody loves you, so find yourself somebody to love.

Spoiler

 

If you choose to disregard people's feelings and preferences, you'll quickly find your opportunities limited by your decision (and rightly so).  No one will care about your characters or what they're trying to do, even if you write that they're all-important and do your best to involve them in stuff, because you're already demonstrated that you don't care about their characters or what they're trying to do.  You won't be happy, they won't be happy, and your characters and their actions won't make a difference to them.

I can't say I understand why you're seeking universal acceptance of what appears to be the murderhobo archetype.  As you've no doubt noticed, you're the only one championing the cause of the murderhobo, and I'd think that would have changed your opinion somewhat.  I find it kinda humorous that you continue to laud inventiveness and innovation while, ironically, devoting your time to defending the "merits" of the murderhobo, but to each his/her/its own, I suppose.

What I don't jive with is your seeming unwillingness to concede an inch.  Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I've read, you seem to just kind of ignore the gist of what people are saying and attack small portions of their arguments.  I'm beginning to think that no argument could sway your opinion.  Please state the conditions that would cause you to acknowledge that someone else is right or we'll never have any progress.  As a gesture of goodwill, I'll start with conditions I think are extremely reasonable.

Show that people will still want to RP with you if you plunge into open scenes with intent to derail whatever they were trying to accomplish before you arrived and, moreover, kill off their characters without advancing the stories they want to tell.

I will, however, underscore one point before I very likely wash my hands of this due to what I'm guessing I'll interpret as unreasonable "victory" conditions.

If people think you're treating them poorly, you're probably treating them poorly.  If you don't care about treating people poorly, you probably won't be happy with collaborative RP and worldbuilding.

For awhile, I RPed with someone whose native language wasn't English.  Should I have taken advantage of the language barrier in open scenes or otherwise to have my character beat his up?  No, and if you think I would have been justified in doing so for any reason, I offer this in response.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by The Alexandrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...