Print

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

[Matariki Rain]

I've had some discussions lately which have left me wanting clear and inoffensive ways to describe different styles of roleplay corporations. Something a bit more than "immersive" and "RP-lite", especially since "RP-lite" both covers a lot of ground and rubs some people the wrong way.

In a chat in the OOC channel, Kyber proposed:

• "No RP",
• "Predominantly OOC, RP supported",
• "Predominately RP, non-RPers in the IC framework supported", and
• "Wholly immersionist".

This seems to me to be a good starter, although when I come to apply it to corps I have known I tend to find they're "Mostly N, but with a bit of N+-1". A corp can be immersionist but have members who are fellow travellers who roleplay just enough to get by in the corp, for instance, or can be predominantly OOC in practice but with a shared story that makes things feel IC.

Thoughts to help refine this? And what might we call classes that are a bit like these?

[Malcolm Khross]

Hm, that IS a tough one...

I think Kyber's a pretty good but like you said, you're kind of going to have to be a bit specific per corp. Like, the Honor Guard is "Wholly Immersionist" because non-RPers are permitted to enjoy the website and hang out in our public OOC channel, but only RPers are permitted in the corp and everyone in the corp is held to the RP standards expected of its members.

At the same time, KotMC would be option 3. Predominately RP but with several non-RP members that are more or less supported in the framework of the corp.

[Ryven Krennel]

Sometimes KotMC seems somewhere between 2 and 3 really.  But yes, mostly 3.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I-RED seems more like #2. Mostly OOC, with some heavy roleplayers mixed in.

[Bataav]

The ILF feels like a #2 too.

Much like I-RED we have some pilots who RP much more than others.

[Desiderya]

LDIS scores mostly a #3, I think.

Khybers list looks suitable.

[John Revenent]

Number 2 for I-RED indeed.

[Arkady Sadik]

I'm not sure a single scale is really going to "fit" the many shades you have. On the other hand, trying to describe all the different varieties makes it complicated, and complexity makes it less useful.

One important distinction in addition to the "level of RP" is the "causality of RP". A lot of in-game decisions will often have both IC and OOC motivations. For example, from a selection of ICly sensible areas to move to, one is picked primarily by OOC reasons ("more targets to shoot = more fun" or somesuch), and then an IC reason is found to explain the decision. Othertimes, decisions are motivated ICly and the "OOC fun" is derived from the IC decisions with IC reasons and IC consequences.

A recent example was the Arek'Jalaan thing (I got the spelling wrong again for sure). While some characters will have no issue at all with it, others might. Is it "normal" in such situations to go "meh, I want to have RP, so I'll adjust my character a bit so I can get in there" - which still is fully IC, fully believable, fully RP, but motivated by OOC reasons - or is it "normal" to go "I might get some RP out of it if I change my character, but I also get RP out of it if I don't, so I'll just RP the wayI feel is right without worrying about the OOC stuff"?

For most entities, decisions have both motivations. The question is what is more dominating: Are most decisions done primarily for OOC reasons, and then IC reasons to explain the decisions are found? Or are the decisions based on IC considerations primarily, and OOC considerations usually take a backseat?

Neither of the two is (er, the various places on the continuum are...) "wrong RP", it's just different kinds of RP and different kinds of enjoying the game.

(It's incredibly difficult to discuss "RP styles" without at least sounding to someone like you're saying "urdoinitwrong", sadly. :-/)

[Valdezi]

I would classify the ILF as 3, I think. We are RP focused and do things for RP reasons, but Corp chat is generally OOC, so we're not fully immersionist.

[Bataav]

The ILF feels like a #2 too.

I would classify the ILF as 3, I think. We are RP focused and do things for RP reasons, but Corp chat is generally OOC, so we're not fully immersionist.

I guess it's the fine line between internal and external RP.

Externally we are indeed much more a #3.

[Lyn Farel]

I think this general rating is pretty accurate to my experience. And like any general rating, it is general and is used at best to give general ideas and tendancies, not to describe every little detail that makes each entity unique.

While this description is more centered on the composition of the RP corps (RPers and non RPers and how they behave), I also myself had another kind in mind :

- Inconscious RP : done by most of the corps and alliances ingame. Even if big alliances like Goonswarm, PL, etc, are not really RP, they still have a certain impact on the game and the universe, and like everything, can be considered IC-ly.

- Corporate RP / RP lite : most of the RP corps and entities I have found outside backstage are mainly conscious of their RP line, but only on the corporate level. Inside, very few or none of them really plays seriously a character.

- Classic RP : well, most of us, playing RP characters AND RP entities.

[Matariki Rain]

I'm trying to pin down the reason why -- while finding Kyber's classification a useful starter -- it's not quite working for me. I think it's mostly because it talks about individuals as well as groups, and even though the groups are made of individuals I think the group expectations matter.

Is corp less immersionist if it has some members who mostly don't roleplay but who do roleplay enough in the corp channel and forum to get along with the immersionism? The corp culture is immersive and the individual actions support that so I'd call it an immersive corp. If the corp culture is that those people can talk about their computers and modern politics in the corp channel and forums (without OOC markers) then the corp culture isn't immersive. Does that make sense?

Another case to consider: does the corp consider that it's possible for a corp member to say "That public action (in space, on the markets, doing deals) wasn't IC"?

Just drawing out some ideas here.

[lallara zhuul]

I might be beating the same bush here.

I think only measurement for corps RP should be does it have consequences in the game.

A loyalist acts like a twat in public, gets bumped down in the hierarchy.
IGS posts are about accomplishments in the game, not about make believe Holder stuff on the planet (that they do not have access to.)

Just basically walk the talk, anything else, to me, is just insulting.

[Isobel Mitar]

Regarding immersiveness, I do think there is a difference between what members of the group prefer to do and what kind of RP-related social expectations a group sets for other members of the group.

An example:

In group A 80% of people RP immersively, but about 20% do not RP at all. Corp channels are a mix of IC and OOC. The corp wants to hire more people of both types who are comfortable with the mixture.

In group B 50% of people RP immersively, and 50% RP less intensively by keeping their communication IC-compatible. IC and OOC channels are separated, and OOC on IC channels is not acceptable (and vice versa). The corp wants to hire people who can maintain this separation in game.

Very different environments, likely to breed different kinds of RP. Which one a player might prefer depends on how much value they set to different things in their game and RP.

[kalaratiri]

I would class my corp, Teraa Matar as 'want to be #4, but are really #3'