Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lillith Blackheart]

*may have done that on purpose*

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Game first, roleplay second.

What that means is you're a player first and always in control, and the choice always begins with you. The character can't say or behave without your fingers making the clicks and tapping on the keyboard. It means your needs as a player come before your characters, and it also means that you as a player have to decide how you want to interact with others to achieve your optimal entertainment level.

Having expectations of others to abide by your personal standards and rules is asking for disappointment. Expect the lowest common denominator and be genuinely surprised when people raise the bar. That doesn't necessarily mean lowering your own behavior to make a point; you can't WIN an issue where one side clearly doesn't want to be flexible.

It's certainly our prerogative to decide how we handle these situations. I don't necessarily agree with it, because I know that I'm always in control of my own behavior and I decide who makes an impact on my experience were I am allowed to enforce consensual behavior (ie, who i roleplay with and whether they can impact me) . I certainly wouldn't let someone's inability to draw a respectable ic/ooc boundary to impact my goals, especially for concern about someone trying to 'besmirch' my 'reputation' (whatever the hell that is). Although that's not entirely true: even if i did have the inclination to write a blog/journal IC I wouldn't do it because of past meta-gaming experiences.

Is it 1200 yet? I'm hungry...

[Z.Sinraali]

That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

No need. I'll grant that RP rules are arbitrary if established arbitrarily. But in that case, the decision rule you propose, which as near as I can tell is more or less "RP as if your character knows everything you do" is established just as arbitrarily as its negation. (Which I happen to advocate.)

[The Cosmopolite]

That is a point on which you and I are going to disagree. It's a question of definition, I fear, and we're probably both able to make a case for our respective positions but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

No need. I'll grant that RP rules are arbitrary if established arbitrarily. But in that case, the decision rule you propose, which as near as I can tell is more or less "RP as if your character knows everything you do" is established just as arbitrarily as its negation. (Which I happen to advocate.)

Quite correct regarding the equivalent arbitrariness of that rule (or indeed any other someone wants to promulgate without agreement). You'll note that I don't place any particular negative slant to these things being fairly arbitrary in this context. It's simply the way it is. It is people who think there is a universality to the Holy Divide that may not be challenged that don't like it when people say that individual drawings of where the divide lies are arbitrary.

However, I have to correct you: I have not advocated the rule you describe and I think it is a caricature of my position. It's actually the typical caricature but I'm assuming in this case the caricature is innocent and I haven't explained my position well enough.

All I've said, I think, is that if someone wants to engage in nonconsensual RP involving my character outside the confines of the game then they should be on notice that I may respond with some nonconsensual RP of my own that will not recognise labels they have unilaterally affixed to the material in question. This is a fairly narrow position compared to 'RP as if your character knows what you know' as a general rule. My broader position is that if I think as a player someone is abusing the IC/OOC divide concept then I will not necessarily respect their reliance on it to gain an abusive advantage over me. It takes quite a bit for me to conclude such abuse, I should add.

That largely theoretical position – given I haven't personally had to actually use it in anger, as it were, except arguably in one somewhat contentious case – is where I should probably leave matters as I sense repetition creeping into what I am saying in a thread that some would probably say has roamed way beyond its original remit.

I'll just end by saying what I always say in these discussions at some point: different RP standards != no RP standards. If that could be accepted and understood, really accepted and understood mind you, by everyone concerned then we wouldn't have a tenth of the disputes that have erupted over the years. Sadly I now think, after years of watching this eternal debate, that the negation of that point is ineradicable in the minds of many. Certainly, most disputes involve people acting and speaking as if they believe different RP standards = no RP standards. Talk of a 'lowest common denominator' being the source of the trouble is just, as I see it, a variation on that theme in the end.

Cosmo

[Z.Sinraali]

Well I did ask for a formulation of the rule you were advocating and you didn't answer. So I put up the caricature to force the question.

In the end, neither that position nor its negation (or opposite, since that's obviously impossible) is held by anyone. The baseline is always "RP as if your character knew some of the things you did," with a bunch of follow-on decision rules explaining what exactly to use and what not to.

Myself, I think the "Holy Divide," as you so pointedly put it, has enough positive effects that it's worth respecting even if somebody else refuses to.

Like not starting threadnaughts all the time, for starters.

[Julianus Soter]

I actually am of Doyle's opinion as of the moment.

I roleplay, and I can do so frequently. I participate in the storyline.

But I, as a player, only do so because I find it fun. If I didn't find it fun, my character wouldn't be doing much of anything, would he?

Thus, i do fun things in the game. My character is then roleplayed doing those things, given certain motivations, background, context, etc. He interacts in the language and terminology of the universe. He expresses emotions, empathy, and anger in ways I, the player, do not.

However, I the player still have emotions, that shape my perception of 'fun', which in turn controls my character's actions. i steer away from things I don't view fun, like sovreignty or POS tower management. My character's motivations might simply be 'money', 'duty', or 'plans', but they're all under my control. He simply plays the tune to the rhythm I set out as the player.