Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Makkal on 03 Jun 2013, 00:39
-
A discussion in another thread got me thinking...
What does it mean to RP fairly?
What does it mean to RP unfairly?
If you think someone is being unfair in their RP, how do you handle it? Does the concept of fairness require a competitive or a win/lose situation or is it more broadly applicable?
-
Don't force the other party into anything.
Example: /me shoot's Makkal in the face. > Is bad.
/me attempts to shoot Makkal in the face. > Leaves Makkal open to respond with /me dives behind cover to avoid being shot.
Other than that basic intro to godmodding, I think it's unfair to metagame but I can't think of specific examples.
-
Don't force the other party into anything.
It's just avoiding godmodding?
What about blocking?
-
Ooh Blocking...
I only blocked my first person from RP recently. I think it's fine as long as it isn't a physical RP venue. If it is, maybe it's best to let them know you are blocking them.
-
I think for IC interaction godmodding is the thing to avoid for many reasons. Conversational / locational RP is often based on mutually constructed consent of what is happening and going on. You can't run around someone's party stabbing people, etc. (well, unless they ask you to).
For 'the game' we play from ccp it's all good and it's not fair. Blowing up your spaceships and ruining your "game" pixels is all fair and good, it's the only unmitigated 'unconsentual' thing we can do to each other to steer some RP. And we can't forget no matter how much you get wrecked in game you are still immortal and nothing is permanent.
-
S. blocks people all the time, although I usually give them a notice they will be blocked if they don't discontinue x, y, z IC behavior. Those sorts of blocks are generally permanent for IC reasons.
I think Arthas was the last one I blocked. I'm sure he's a nice guy ooc but IC was being annoying to my character and that one will be permanent, for example.
-
Example: /me shoot's Makkal in the face. > Is bad.
/me attempts to shoot Makkal in the face. > Leaves Makkal open to respond with /me dives behind cover to avoid being shot.
Other examples:
'/me kisses Karmilla passionately.'
'/me opens the door and watches as Karmilla walks by.'
'/me grabs Karmilla up and holds her over the pool's edge. "I think someone needs a dunk."'
'/me grabs your Karmilla's fist inches from my face and twists hard enough to snap the wrist.'
Are these all unfair?
-
What about blocking?
Are you talking about blocking, the OOC mechanic? Otherwise known as "muting", "ignoring", or "blacklisting"?
-
Example: /me shoot's Makkal in the face. > Is bad.
/me attempts to shoot Makkal in the face. > Leaves Makkal open to respond with /me dives behind cover to avoid being shot.
Other examples:
'/me kisses Karmilla passionately.'
'/me opens the door and watches as Karmilla walks by.'
'/me grabs Karmilla up and holds her over the pool's edge. "I think someone needs a dunk."'
'/me grabs your Karmilla's fist inches from my face and twists hard enough to snap the wrist.'
Are these all unfair?
IMO yes, I don't do any RP that effects or describes actions by another character that they aren't in control of.
-
Blocking is an improv term; it means squelching another actor instead of going with.
I'll give a fighting example as they're popular.
Kat swings a fist at Makkal, Makkal easily ducks it.
Kat attempts to trip Makkal, Makkal steps away.
Kat tries to catch Makkal in a bear hug, Makkal slips out.
It's the opposite of godmodding. Instead of forcing actions on a character, you render another characters actions against you completely useless.
Fair or unfair?
-
Blocking is an improv term; it means squelching another actor instead of going with.
I'll give a fighting example as they're popular.
Kat swings a fist at Makkal, Makkal easily ducks it.
Kat attempts to trip Makkal, Makkal steps away.
Kat tries to catch Makkal in a bear hug, Makkal slips out.
It's the opposite of godmodding. Instead of forcing actions on a character, you render another characters actions against you completely useless.
Yes. It's fair. However, such things like that should be followed with some form of RP closure... not a continued conflict. By 'blocking', you are signaling your unwillingness to RP that scene and should not attempt to continue it. Time to make your narrow escape!
-
Sufficient detail and realism coupled with a sense of fair play.
Using Karmilla's example:
Example: /me shoot's Makkal in the face. > Is bad.
/me attempts to shoot Makkal in the face. > Leaves Makkal open to respond with /me dives behind cover to avoid being shot.
To me this would be best:
1 > Reaches down to hip begins pulling pistol
2 > Begins a dead sprint toward 1
1 > Has pistol ou of holster, raising it takes aim
2 > Barrels into 1
1 > Pistol goes off near 2's ear
2 > Try's to grab pistol
Obviously that involves the active participation of both players, one and two have a chance every line to 'break' the RP but choose to make it more dramatic, more like a story.
Let the moment linger until the dramatic end is too sweet to just let go.
An example would be our incident in the I-RED lounge, you could have said *Makkal throws Aya out* -no more RP.
Just as easily as I could have *handwave Kameirabeatsup all the guards* The letting it develop, the taking of small steps and allowing your opponent to react is what makes it fair.
It was a fight I was happy to lose because it advanced the plot and the development of both characters.
Obviously this takes a level of maturity but even the most immature and unstable characters *cough mine cough* can have sensible people at the wheel.
-
'/me kisses Karmilla passionately.' "Questionable" Done between consenting players in an IC relationship, it rarely causes issue. Done to a non-consenting player, yes it's godmodding.
'/me opens the door and watches as Karmilla walks by.' "Questionable-Safe" It's an observation, and rarely one that causes issue if ever. However, it can misplace the location of a character, and simply be inaccurate if the character wasn't 'walking' anywhere at all.
'/me grabs Karmilla up and holds her over the pool's edge. "I think someone needs a dunk."' "Unsafe" Godmodding. Should be prefaced with an attempt to grapple first in order to avoid the violation.
'/me grabs your Karmilla's fist inches from my face and twists hard enough to snap the wrist.' "Unsafe" Godmodding. Defensive movements should only address your own character. This one is a direct counterattack with no attempt preface.
-
What Kat said. personally I'd go with many of the options there. My general rule of thumb regarding fair physical RP, is "I propose an action, I accept the result that the other player states." with of course the (sometimes unspoken) belief that "I will respond to their actions in a fair way."
It's entirely a trust based mechanic. Sometimes it works out very well, and sometimes if fails horribly.
-
I hope no one finds my questions tedious.
I find fairness is one of those things where everyone has their own definition and this is simply an attempt to see how everyone defines and applies the concept.
IMO yes, I don't do any RP that effects or describes actions by another character that they aren't in control of.
That’s rather absolute; you require explicit IC permission. It also makes sense since you’ve said previously that you try to avoid OOC interactions.
If we were in a scene together and I said OOC, ‘Okay, Makkal has no fight left in her. Do what you want and I’ll roll with it,’ would you then feel comfortable deciding what happened?
Other than godmodding, is there anything else you try to avoid as unfair?
'/me kisses Karmilla passionately.' "Questionable" Done between consenting players in an IC relationship, it rarely causes issue. Done to a non-consenting player, yes it's godmodding.
'/me opens the door and watches as Karmilla walks by.' "Questionable-Safe" It's an observation, and rarely one that causes issue if ever. However, it can misplace the location of a character, and simply be inaccurate if the character wasn't 'walking' anywhere at all.
This is a bit looser than Silas’ reaction.
Would you say that the amount of acceptable godmodding depends on the relationship between the characters, their history, and what you perceive as the OOC desire/habits of the player?
For example, if Makkal has scooped someone up on several occasions (they allowed the action) and the scene was a sort of fun playtime at the pool, would picking them up again and threatening to dunk them be okay?
-
Would you say that the amount of acceptable godmodding depends on the relationship between the characters, their history, and what you perceive as the OOC desire/habits of the player?
For example, if Makkal has scooped someone up on several occasions (they allowed the action) and the scene was a sort of fun playtime at the pool, would picking them up again and threatening to dunk them be okay?
Yes, I would agree with that. Unlike Silas, I prefer a strong OOC understanding with those I RP with frequently. That's just my style of roleplay. Obviously, assumptions of when it's 'okay' can come with a measure of risk. This is where picking your RP partners carefully when doing these sorts of things is important. We've had a similar discussion about this before already.
-
In general, you should pose the attempt, and let the other person pose the result, unless you're absolutely certain that they won't have a problem with it. (And that certainty is probably one born of experience RPing with that person).
Laria swings her fist, aiming for Jude's nose, all her power behind it.
Jude lets it hit him, but seems to barely even notice it.
There's a couple of things that irritate me:
1) Chaingunning poses. Pose-pose-pose-pose... why haven't you responded? (I've deleted what I was writing three times to cope with your effort)
2) Pushing someone beyond what is possible with the tools available. "Oh yeah, but you didn't *actually* give me the datapad". "Your picture doesn't look like you're only five feet tall". That kind of thing - a refusal to allow "best effort" to stand.
-
all my :cube: for laria's post.
-
I do a fair amount of IC sparring with Pieter and in all cases I find it's best to contain within one post one proposition and one result.
For example, my sparring partner might write:
"Desiderya steps in close and attempts to tangle Pieter's legs with her own."
to which I would probably respond with:
"Pieter lets Desiderya get in close and tangle his legs, wrapping one arm around her as she trips him in an attempt to drag her down as he falls."
Note how my reply riffs off my sparring partner's action and presents a new direction that they can riff off of on their next paragraph without predetermining what happens. If Des' action had been more violent, though, I might have decided that the outcome was unacceptable, for example:
"Desiderya steps in and lifts a knee, slamming it into Pieter's groin with eyewatering force."
Not wanting to be neutered, I might reply:
"Pieter twists at the hip, taking the knee to the outside of his hip instead. His eyes narrow at her choice of target and he launches a punch at her eye in retaliation."
I've decisively refused the scenario that was suggested in favour of one of my own WITHOUT forcing anything more than the attempt missing. The situation is left with my sparring partner making a choice and being free to strike out (!) in a direction of their choice.
This might be considered 'blocking' but I try to mitigate that by having the blow land and cause some damage, rather than simply refusing to acknowledge it. At the end of the day, if someone makes an IC demand of you that you aren't willing to fulfil, you don't have to go along with it!
-
1) Chaingunning poses. Pose-pose-pose-pose... why haven't you responded? (I've deleted what I was writing three times to cope with your effort)
I'm not sure what this mean. Can you clarify?
2) Pushing someone beyond what is possible with the tools available. "Oh yeah, but you didn't *actually* give me the datapad". "Your picture doesn't look like you're only five feet tall". That kind of thing - a refusal to allow "best effort" to stand.
Okay, we've moved beyond godmodding, which is good.
Would you say that if someone presents something that is credible given what we know of the setting and their character, and that doesn't conflict with available data, it's 'unfair' to shoot that down?
For example, some people roll EVE toons as dust character. 'David Calamari' is an EVE PC while 'David Kalamari' is the DUST PC, but they're the same person who is a dust soldier. The player just likes to use the EVE avatar/interface when chatting.
If Makkal told David C that he wasn't really a dust solder and that he was obviously a capsuleer, would that be unfair in your eyes?
-
i have to say watching the pieter/ava wrastle... I thought it was a very fair and even handed RP.
I'd RP wrastle Pieter anyday.
-
I am pretty easy going when it comes to RP and will flow with the events, keeping in mind what I think my character is capable of doing.
That said, there are some circumstances where I would appreciate an OOC head's up (psst, there's chloroform on the cloth, you ok with this?). I rather be given, and would like to give, the opportunity to say "You know what, let's just walk away from this now."
And I have to agree with Laria...chaingun posts frustrate me. Give me a chance to reply :)
If I have to wait for a reply, I'll wait. I understand that we don't exist in a vacuum...you might be dealing with PMs or something in another channel or even something in game. I'm fine with that.
I love a good story so like I said, I'll pretty much roll with anything...just so long as both parties have the option to just walk away. I'd rather keep friends than force a scene.
-
I do a fair amount of IC sparring with Pieter and in all cases I find it's best to contain within one post one proposition and one result.
For example, my sparring partner might write:
"Desiderya steps in close and attempts to tangle Pieter's legs with her own."
to which I would probably respond with:
"Pieter lets Desiderya get in close and tangle his legs, wrapping one arm around her as she trips him in an attempt to drag her down as he falls."
Note how my reply riffs off my sparring partner's action and presents a new direction that they can riff off of on their next paragraph without predetermining what happens. If Des' action had been more violent, though, I might have decided that the outcome was unacceptable, for example:
"Desiderya steps in and lifts a knee, slamming it into Pieter's groin with eyewatering force."
Not wanting to be neutered, I might reply:
"Pieter twists at the hip, taking the knee to the outside of his hip instead. His eyes narrow at her choice of target and he launches a punch at her eye in retaliation."
I've decisively refused the scenario that was suggested in favour of one of my own WITHOUT forcing anything more than the attempt missing. The situation is left with my sparring partner making a choice and being free to strike out (!) in a direction of their choice.
This might be considered 'blocking' but I try to mitigate that by having the blow land and cause some damage, rather than simply refusing to acknowledge it. At the end of the day, if someone makes an IC demand of you that you aren't willing to fulfil, you don't have to go along with it!
We still have to spar mate. Whenever you get ~alive~
-
What I view chaingun posting to be would be something like:
Me: I grab Makkal and lift her off the ground
(now, instead of waiting for you to even reply, I do the following)
Me: I carry her over to the pool
Me: I drop her into the water
etc.
Basically, rattling off a series of actions or even statements without waiting or allowing the other person a chance to reply.
-
I think that would be bad form at the very least because it forces the target to do something.
-
i have to say watching the pieter/ava wrastle... I thought it was a very fair and even handed RP.
I'd RP wrastle Pieter anyday.
It was indeed. No godmodding at all. Let's be fair, Pieter probably COULD simply grab Ava up and she couldnt do a hell of a lot about it. This sort of RP does suck beyond the telling of it for the person it happens too, however; an RP fight with someone a way back reeeeally put me off "in-person" RP for a long time. I'm happy it doesnt seem to happen to me much anymore. Being godmodded at sucks.
-
i have to say watching the pieter/ava wrastle... I thought it was a very fair and even handed RP.
I'd RP wrastle Pieter anyday.
Until someone accidentally their lives.
-
Don't force the other party into anything.
Example: /me shoot's Makkal in the face. > Is bad.
/me attempts to shoot Makkal in the face. > Leaves Makkal open to respond with /me dives behind cover to avoid being shot.
Other than that basic intro to godmodding, I think it's unfair to metagame but I can't think of specific examples.
This. On the old BG2 forums we RP'd like this all the time. To underline Karmilla's example, it was okay and encouraged to emote the actions in the manner that left yourself or others open to counter or intervention, as exemplified above. What was not okay with to deal in absolutes - you never said that you did anything *definitively*.
-
Everyone wants to touch Pieter in places.
And when any confrontation occurs you can always open an OOC convo to make intentions clear. If you're willing to dive into the unknown I prefer to handle it like Pieter described, as kind of compromise. Always respect/reflect the actions of the other party and offer a new direction. It works best when you're playing with someone you're on the same level with, because ultimately there'll always be someone who always wants to win. Ideally it'd be: If your character eats some dirt, you're more likely to get offered the possibility to have him/her shine, too.
-
Being godmodded at sucks.
[ 2013.05.26 21:08:21 ] Ava Starfire > /emote pops Che on the nose
:P
Heheh, no hard feelings, though. It can happen to the best of us: "Pieter lets Desiderya get in close and tangle his legs, wrapping one arm around her as she trips him in an attempt to drag her down as he falls." is still sort of godmodding in my eyes.
Ché has been hit on three occasions, and all of them were technicaly instances of godmodding, but I had no problem with it and "rolled with the punches" because I would have allowed the punches to land anyway, as both of them sort of caught Ché by surprise during one of his not so sober/alert times.
Now, I am of course hoping that familairity with my character led to the correct assumption that the hits would land. :D
If I would feel bad about a godmod, I would try to employ a counter-godmod like Pieter desribed, or talk to the player OOCly.
Another thing I sometimes feel are unfair are characters with "omni-presence", and pick up on conversations/see stuff on the other side of the busy, noisy nightclub, sometimes to the point of having god-like awareness of everything that happens in there.. This is especially true if the player in question did not indicate his character was present in that club before he/she suddenly picked up part of a conversation. Sneaking up/eavesdropping on people is ok, but I think you should indictate that you do so before your character hears something interesting (heck, if you do so, I might even invite you to the private chat if we start "whispering"), althought I'm generally ok with someone nearby hearing a word or two that caught their attention and lead to them focus on the converstation taking place.
Now I realize that sometimes (or a lot of times) spacial awareness is an issue in text RP (something I was really hoping for that Incarna would fix. I would suggest that players make a post that describes what they're doing and where whenever a new character enters the scene), so usually, I won't hold it against players if they pick up on conversations, even more so because it often makes the RP a bit more enjoyable.
-
Look at it that way: When you brawl, there's no way of deciding who'll win, because in theory every move has a counter that's easier or more complicated to pull through. So in order to avoid that and to avoid railroading towards a pre-determined outcome (which is fine) you'd have to pre-determine or suggest some partial outcomes.
If you read closely there's nothing forced, because what Pieter basically describes in there is an attempt. It'd be up to the other party (in this case me), whether I want to have that happen or not. In regards to blocking if one party always dodges these attempts it's bad form, even without godmodding someone into an outcome, because it completely nullifies the other parties actions. It also gets tiresome.
If you're doing this kind of conflict with someone you're not, oocly, familiar, I highly suggest having an ooc chat on the side.
-
I think, under "fairness", there is another element - trying as hard as you can to react to the spirit of what other people are trying to do. This means forgiving OOC errors, obviously(1), but also reading and reacting in the best spirit you can.
For example, if it's clear that someone is trying to portray their character as friendly, but coming across as over familiar, you have some options: 1) React with hostility, 2) react cautiously, and be a little uneasy, 3) react as if they had just been friendly.
There isn't a "right" answer, but I think that you should give as much as you reasonably can. The key word being "reasonably". And it's obviously affected by your character and their viewpoints and everything else - situation, prior interaction etc etc. But it's about being cooperative, and that means buying in, at least a little, to the story that the other person is trying to tell, as well as your own.
(1) Example: Inept Minmatar: Of course, she is a Sebiestor.
Ept Minmatar: She's a Brutor. Idiot.
Inept Minmatar: ((Oh *swearword*. Sorry, my mistake.))
The fair thing to do is strike the whole exchange, and either do it over or just move on. The unfair thing to do is to refuse that, have your character assume that Inept Minmatar Character is a spy, spread that around to everyone you know and then do a little dance.
-
Personally, I think it all comes down to control, as others have pointed out. If I say "Shin slams her fist into Anslo's nose, breaking it", I obviously don't give Anslo's player a chance to control his own character. If I say "Shin swings her fist at Anslo's nose", then I do give his player a chance to control him. If Shin and Anslo are lovers, and Anslo's player doesn't object, I can say "Shin kisses Anslo passionately" - I'm depriving Anslo's player of a little control of his character, but I'm doing so with the OOC understanding that it's okay with Anslo's player. It's a little shorthand to avoid the clunky "Shin leans in to kiss Anslo passionately" - "Anslo closes his eyes and returns the kiss" mechanism in places where it is appropriate.
-
Personally, I think it all comes down to control, as others have pointed out. If I say "Shin slams her fist into Anslo's nose, breaking it", I obviously don't give Anslo's player a chance to control his own character. If I say "Shin swings her fist at Anslo's nose", then I do give his player a chance to control him. If Shin and Anslo are lovers, and Anslo's player doesn't object, I can say "Shin kisses Anslo passionately" - I'm depriving Anslo's player of a little control of his character, but I'm doing so with the OOC understanding that it's okay with Anslo's player. It's a little shorthand to avoid the clunky "Shin leans in to kiss Anslo passionately" - "Anslo closes his eyes and returns the kiss" mechanism in places where it is appropriate.
In all fairness, and just so it's out there, Anslo wouldn't duck from a kiss. He is a very very lonely person.
YOU OWE ME ANSLO(c)
/me (p) flees ............................................\o\
EDIT: OK Real talk. I agree with Shin. I mean there's some thing's where you automatically know thing's are ok even if a choice isn't given (i.e. relationships). For things like fights or whatever, it should be discussed between both parties and ONLY both parties. I feel like IC fights fist to fist are meant for an audience and to entertain people. We're actors and audience all in one.
So, if I wanted to have Anslo beat Saede or Arthas to a pulp for :reasons:, I would talk to them before hand before I even HINTED at a fight to any other person. It's all about knowing each other and being on the same page OOCly to create an IC brawl or event that entertains everyone else. Eve is about a lot of things, but one of those things are stories. What good is your story if you hoard it all to yourself?
-
Anslo, there's this thing like appearing too desperate.... :twisted:
And I agree with both Shintoko and Laria, when you've got the OOC understanding right, it's okay to start depriving a bit of control. In the end it defaults to Laria's point of 'Trying to play cooperatively and keep the best interests of yourself and your partner(s) in mind.'. If you're trying to play against someone they're not bound to enjoy it, or come back for more. :p
-
Anslo, there's this thing like appearing too desperate.... :twisted:
And I agree with both Shintoko and Laria, when you've got the OOC understanding right, it's okay to start depriving a bit of control. In the end it defaults to Laria's point of 'Trying to play cooperatively and keep the best interests of yourself and your partner(s) in mind.'. If you're trying to play against someone they're not bound to enjoy it, or come back for more. :p
YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME
-
Blocking is an improv term; it means squelching another actor instead of going with.
I'll give a fighting example as they're popular.
Kat swings a fist at Makkal, Makkal easily ducks it.
Kat attempts to trip Makkal, Makkal steps away.
Kat tries to catch Makkal in a bear hug, Makkal slips out.
It's the opposite of godmodding. Instead of forcing actions on a character, you render another characters actions against you completely useless.
Fair or unfair?
A little unfair to me. Who knows, maybe I actually want my character to be punched/grabbed whatever. You can never know for sure.
-
Makkal is referring to two different posts in each line:
Kat swings a fist at Makkal (action 1 posted by Kat), Makkal easily ducks it. (action 2 posted by Makkal)
Kat attempts to trip Makkal (action 1 posted by Kat), Makkal steps away. (action 2 posted by Makkal)
Kat tries to catch Makkal in a bear hug (action 1 posted by Kat), Makkal slips out. (action 2 posted by Makkal)
-
Uhm yes, I read it too fast.
I thought it was telling that you try to punch someone and then directly add that you miss. Unless you have a very good reason for it (like being drunk, missing intentionally and so on).
-
I kind of go back and forth on things sometimes, if Katrina is still reading this when I took S. physically to your Lounge, I was literally putting her life in your hands, and if you had done some unconsentual violence I would have had to be ok with it. (it's why I was asking quite pointedly about security and gaurantees). I tend not to take my character physically anywhere where there are not IC assurances or she's not in control. Other people's channels can be dangerous :P
-
I find fairness is one of those things where everyone has their own definition and this is simply an attempt to see how everyone defines and applies the concept.
Fairness is, by definition, subjective.
From my thesis:
Fairness is a subjective judgement; each person determines for himself what he feels to be fair. Judgements of what is fair and what not, when looking from a intrapersonal perspective, have been termed attitudes or dispositions. These judgements of fairness can be extended beyond a single person and applied to a group of people. Such interpersonal evaluations of fairness are known as are known as norms. I would like to define justice as a specific kind of fairness judgements, namely the fairness judgements that involve norms. Justice is if someone gets what norms say that he or she deserves. Injustice is if someone gets what the norms say he or she doesn’t deserve or does not get what the norms say he or she does deserve.
-
"Fair RP" to me comes down to two things, consequences and godmoding:
/me shoots XXX in the chest with a three-round burst from her pistol
Totally bullshit godmoding, never going to happen. For obvious reasons.
/me throws a bottle at XXX
Probably okay, especially as it doesn't say "which hits XXX in the head", or something to that nature. It gives the target a chance to act, to have their bodyguards respond, etc.
/me lifts XXX's chin up with a finger and gives them a soft kiss
I think this is okay, even potentially on some random person. The prime reason is that a kiss leaves no permanent harm on the recipient. Whether it's accepted or not, totally up to the player in question, just like RL.
In short, prodding a character to action is acceptable in my book, provided you don't choose how to respond for them.
-
/me lifts XXX's chin up with a finger and gives them a soft kiss
I think this is okay, even potentially on some random person. The prime reason is that a kiss leaves no permanent harm on the recipient. Whether it's accepted or not, totally up to the player in question, just like RL.
In short, prodding a character to action is acceptable in my book, provided you don't choose how to respond for them.
This depends completely on who you kiss, or whatever, and if that character would allow that action to take place. For my own part I can tell you that if my toon showed up at any kind of party or event and random characters he don't know to well, or worse, characters he knows of but don't like, tried to kiss him, he'd block the attempt as well as he could. There are several other examples that could be made, but just because an action is benevolent or kind don't mean the other party want them to happen.
Unless you have an OOC chat going on the side and/or a prearranged understanding that the action performed is fine, it can still be seen as godmodding when you do pretty much anything that the opposing party get's no say in, you can not guarantee that the player behind that toon want him/her/it to be doing that, or seen to be of the mindset that the action was acceptable. I somehow doubt that, say Merdaneth, would be to happy to see his toon openly accepting or enjoying a passionate kiss from a random stranger, especially if said stranger was Minmatar or Gallente, for instance. I could obviously be wrong, but I'm confident I got it rather right in this case, and that the IC results of this are undesired.
-
You have to be a BIT careful not to get too bogged down in permission seeking, though. Generally speaking it works best if each writer makes one decision per paragraph - usually the result of an action attempted on them by someone else - and then poses a new action to another of the writers involved.
If you seek permission for your reaction to an action then the writing will get completely baroque and recursive and it will take HOURS to do anything!
-
You have to be a BIT careful not to get too bogged down in permission seeking, though. Generally speaking it works best if each writer makes one decision per paragraph - usually the result of an action attempted on them by someone else - and then poses a new action to another of the writers involved.
If you seek permission for your reaction to an action then the writing will get completely baroque and recursive and it will take HOURS to do anything!
Pieter gets it. It's about spontaneity, the kind that doesn't leave any lingering effect. First off, some sort of passionate scene like that doesn't happen in public that often, and second, when it does, the two parties are usually pretty fond of each other.
However, let's say that out of the blue, some Gallente decides to plant one on an Amarrian that's totally not receptive of the gesture. I would hope the party in question would tend to use good judgement, and do something like "XXX leans in close to XXX's face", to give them a heads up... but what if they just go for it? The unwilling recipient would likely back off and either smack them / punch them / have them tossed out. The party in question, if in public, would probably be made fun of, and might even get wardec'd or something by the recipient for trying something so insulting.
Content generation! And really, who in a few years down the road would even remember such an incident, anyways? I can remember some really out-there stuff that happened at La Maison, that thankfully few of us remember. Time heals these types of wounds... as opposed to knife wounds, or scars, or things of that nature. Those are the serious kinds of godmoding maneuvers that should be watched out for, dilligently.
-
I like all being said, but I'd like to caution against one thing that has been suggested very often: discussing things OOCly. Of course, it takes away a good deal of problems, but arranging everything in advance also takes away the fun, the mystery, etc.
For example, if I know someone won't accept a kiss, then probably my toon won't attempt it. And yet, if I didn't know the outcome in advance, he might have had.
So I'm more in favour of the consequences idea someone mentioned. If you don't godmod, and portray well the strengths and weaknesses of your character, then you shouldn't need to ask except for key/important things. Else, just act and see what happens.
In the essence, I believe fairness boils down to one thing: respecting the other.
Content generation! And really, who in a few years down the road would even remember such an incident, anyways? I can remember some really out-there stuff that happened at La Maison, that thankfully few of us remember. Time heals these types of wounds... as opposed to knife wounds, or scars, or things of that nature. Those are the serious kinds of godmoding maneuvers that should be watched out for, dilligently.
Oh, but some of us still remember. ;)
-
"But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it."
-
"But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it."
And thus Pieter became my second favorite poster.
-
There are plenty of capsuleers from plenty of cultural backgrounds where doing something like trying to kiss someone unrequited would be a grave insult and there'd be death involved immediately after.
That's not the case for plenty of other capsuleers, though.
-
It occurs to me that Makkal sometimes greets others with a cheek kiss. I should probably have her attempt to do it and let the other person respond (so they can dodge and launch a counterattack) but the wording will likely rub me the wrong way.
Maybe that's why bowing is so popular.
-
I've not witnessed your usual wording, but something as innocent as switching from *Makal greets you with a quick kiss on the cheek* *Makkal moves to greet you with a quick kiss on the cheek*.
All the rules have exceptions, counterclauses, gut judgements, etc.
-
Maybe that's why bowing is so popular.
More because cheek kissing for a greeting is definitely not something existing in most cultures I would rather say, but I may be wrong.
-
I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that a kiss on the cheek is common in several European countries. Again, I could be wrong.
-
Maybe that's why bowing is so popular.
More because cheek kissing for a greeting is definitely not something existing in most cultures I would rather say, but I may be wrong.
Cheek kissing for greeting exists in European, North American, and South American cultures.
Alternatively, I'd be interested in knowing how many EVE players actually bow when they meet someone in meatspace.
-
Myself, I typically bow my head slightly when I meet someone for the first time.
-
I thought cheek kissing was mostly a non english native thing and that the latter just shake hands. My bad then.
Myself, I typically bow my head slightly when I meet someone for the first time.
Same.
And some cultures IRL bow too anyway.
-
Cheek kissing anyone who might have a knife is a bit foolish.
There is a reason why people shake hands when they meet for the first time, to show that they at least have no weapon in that hand.
-
No, people shake hands because that's what they've been taught to do.
-
When I'm involved in RP with someone I don't know very well, I tend to keep to the pleasantries. Drinks, light conversation, etc.
If Lasa is in an IC relationship, there is more leeway, if you get what I mean. Like I could RP something like:
/me takes Eric's arm and puts it around her shoulders.
Because they are close, you can kinda assume they wouldn't resist.
Same goes for close IC friendships. It's just gauging how the other person is. :)
-
Am I bad for having no trouble believing that the precautions Lallara mentions are still rooted in perfectly valid concerns in Finland? :D
-
Am I bad for having no trouble believing that the precautions Lallara mentions are still rooted in perfectly valid concerns in Finland? :D
Never trust the Death Metal countries not to be wielding knives.
-
I think it all comes down to the type of actions and the people doing it. As has been said, there needs to be SOME kind of OOC discussion between participants to ensure no god modding occurs. But aside from that, the more innocuous things come down to simple common sense. Like Seph and others said, Anslo wouldn't try to plant a kiss on Samira regardless of how attractive he is because he (character) and I (player) know damn well how Amarr folk would react to that.
That's not saying it's never done, some people still do it just for shits and giggles and to see what happens, but it isn't like say...
/me tightens his right arm to flick out his implanted piezo-blade and slices Sepherim in half for enslaving his ((non-existant)) daughter.
No bueno.
tl;dr (imo): Fair RP is making sure the bigger actions (a fight, a steal, kidnapping, murder, etc) are discussed OOC first to be balanced based on a characters already established background. Other more innocuous things (a kiss, a bottle toss, maybe even a punch in some cases) can be played by ear with people who've known each other a bit IG. Failing that, permission OOC should probably be touched on just to not rustle jimmies.
-
It also is often about compromise.
A rather old classic teaches a lot about channel RP in general. Behold: Elf Only Inn (http://www.elfonlyinn.net/d/20020523.html).
-
It also is often about compromise.
A rather old classic teaches a lot about channel RP in general. Behold: Elf Only Inn (http://www.elfonlyinn.net/d/20020523.html).
Is it bad that I read 'behold' in Rolf's voice? Like, Ed, Edd, & Eddy Rolf?