PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cairn on June 17, 2015, 05:15:05 pm
-
Every few years or so I get the urge to go back and and re-visit some foundational concepts of what makes this game tick.
Inevitably, it opens Pandora's box and the thread is locked. But in the meantime, it's good fun!
Here's a quote I'd like to discuss. Let's try and not get too off topic with it....like I probably will :P
"We cannot control extenuating circumstances. All we control is our reaction to it."
Let me paraphrase: "We can't always control what happens to our character. All we can control is our character's reaction to them."
/Discuss
[Here is my first two cents, but I've change to spare:
-When you're creating a character, you should not only have back story created to some degree, but also some goals in mind. These goals can as much clearly define your character traits as the backstory can. Too many times I have ran into characters who are simply 'out of things to do'. Think about it as you think about your own life - what is your immediate goal? 1 year? 3 years? 5? 10? What do you have on your docket that you want to achieve, immediately or down the line? Your character needs to have something to 'live' for.
-How does this affect how we react to things? Simple. It's like if, through something unforeseeable, you lose your job. Well, one of your immediate goals is self-presevervation, correct? To live, we need to eat. To eat, we need to have food. To have food we need to buy it, with money. You get the point. Your character needs to have reason and purpose. So, consider your goals as well, when you think about your reactions in-game.
There will be more. But I'd like to open conversation up :)
-
When I started with Ellis on EZPC (the non-rp server at the time) I really had no intention to rp. EZPC was down for a couple of weeks and, going through PS withdrawal, I created Waesed on Laanx. Having no idea what I was doing I developed Waesed as I went along. I have created other characters just for rp and resurrected Ellis to tend bar at the RCD.
-
I have only had the pleasure of meeting you once or twice in game, but both have been enjoyable. I'm quite glad that you developed your characters and chose to stick around for some roleplay!
-
"We cannot control extenuating circumstances. All we control is our reaction to it."
Let me paraphrase: "We can't always control what happens to our character. All we can control is our character's reaction to them."
I think the lack of control part is true in most everything, especially the environment in which our characters are thrown. You can't dictate what occurs to the character you are playing.
Exceptions to this, I feel, are things like True Death and some sort of handicap that renders your character disabled in some way. There's nothing wrong with doing these things of course, and they can add a lot of poignancy to a role play, but I do think it's courteous to speak to a player OOCly to see if they're willing to undergo something along those lines. This is especially true if you have not engaged this person before. Some would argue that's "character protection," but I would argue that ultimately the game serves the purpose of being fun. If someone decides they're going to walk up and poison somebody else's character and ba boom, that's it, it will likely spoil that person's fun, which removes the whole point of the game. Plus, if you run around trying to force that on people, they're likely to start avoiding you.
Something I've learned from running role plays is that setting a scenario up with live-action is all good, but at some point you MUST move the participants from watchers to players. They have to be given some capacity to have an influence on the role play. If you stream line it too hard and try to control every angle they'll typically feel that lack of permeability. They don't want to watch things happen, they want to help make things happen (or stop them, situation depending.) That is not to say they will SUCCEED, of course. Out trick them, outsmart them, and the consequences be what they will. It's merely the opportunity that has to be provided in some way.
Some two cents.
-
Precisely,
"A chance for Faramir, captain of Gondor, to show his worth" if you will. If you aren't let to influence the RP, than it is completely someone else's story.
-
Great post Cairn.
There's a lot to touch on, but I'll just touch on one point for now. You mention the need to develop characters that have some substance to them. I have found for myself, that it is VERY DIFFICULT to role play with a blank, undefined character. I've tried creating blank characters and then just defining them as I go as some folks suggest. The problem that I have encountered with this is I cannot determine what my character would do or say in a given situation if I do not know who and what my character is. I can just be myself through my character, but I really don't advise doing that for several good reasons.
1. It tends to make the player emotionally vulnerable to what is said in game.
2. I think it can make it difficult for a new player to grasp character/player separation.
3. If you do this with multiple characters then you end up with a mob of clones that look different but sound the same. People will pick up on this.
My own personal preference is to start out light and to fill in the more specific details later. At minimum, I'll want to figure out:
Who the character is
A basic idea of their personality, likes and dislikes
How do they sustain themselves? ( ie. job, begging, stealing, etc.. )
Where did they come from
How did they get to Hydlaa
Why are they in Hydlaa now?
Where are they going?
What are their basic ambitions and goals
What motivates and demotivates them
-
What I tend to do is form a basic concept of background (where they came from, what happened, why they decided to go to Hydlaa, etc.), who they are/what they like, and their ultimate goal.
After I create them I expand and develop that more, adding bits and pieces here and there as I see fit. I also take a bit of just how I think they would act under certain situations and take that into account while I RP.
-
It is very tempting to put yourself in your character's shoes.
I would honestly say....Hmm.
Honestly, it's best to create a character that can be as far away from you, or that does things that you would most DEFINITELY not do.
Like for real. So you're straight, tried and true? Be someone who's crooked, rotten to the core.
So you struggle with a lot of things? Idk, be a paladin, a champion of good.
RolePlay someone who does NOT have your tendencies, does NOT think like you, and if you met, you might dislike.
Or not. It's your call.
But here's what happens (And happens in this game): A lot of 'mini-me's' get created, each with your own character traits. Than when they get slighted or insulted because of how they are, you take it personally. Why? Because someone just insulted something you do. It's all too natural to get offended. So you're a murderer who dislikes peace? Maybe now's the time to create a Xiosian peace lover, because otherwise all the peace loving tree freaks in Hydlaa will begin to tick you off. Not your character. You.
It's easy to say, "well separate yourself". We all know that a lot of issues in the past of this game have been caused from people getting way too attached to their characters because they in essence are their characters. Idk.
Just sayin' that if you make someone like you, you had better have a strong head on your shoulders and know what you're doing (and there are players here who are quite successful at that :))
I'm with you Rig. I tend to start out light too. I truly can't imagine having a blank slate though. I know someone did it once to where they showed up in Hydlaa naked, with permanent mind damage, and no knowledge. That really didn't work too well I don't think, because as much as we like to say we're super-immersive, none of us have the time to play 24/7 or accommodate people.
Kinda like what Mari brings up - let's say you have a character being healed (I do), and I decide there just isn't ANYTHING that ANYONE can do to make her feel better. Well, that gets piss-poor boring pretty quickly. Odds are she'd just, well, die. Well, that should never be the case. ( I know that sometimes in RPs that odds can certainly feel stacked against you. I do find that you need to be able to derail, or at least unhinge people's plans. In the case I speak of, there have been de-rails and I surely hope there always will be, I love that the players are so creative!)
There truly is an innate need for the 'good guys' to win. Justice has to be served. If you like playing a defeated character, I applaud you. I know several characters who get beaten, tortured or killed, but hope remains. They always come back. I've (maybe) once seen a character that someone invested time into, not a one off alt, that was deprived of hope. There really is that little spark in us, and our characters as an extension of sorts, that drives us to believe there's always a way to overcome.
Take that hope away from someone's character and the game isn't fun anymore. And it's your fault, which is no fun. Give people very little hope of making your character worthwhile and it's much the same.
I don't think blank slates are much fun, lol.
Ummm....
-
Something that I did when I got started was I made a blank slate character and put them in the game. They were really boring and unimportant. One of the countless neutral goods without any depth running around. I used them to get a feel for the setting and identify a niche to be and a story to be. I think take really helped. Granted, by the time I made I suppose you could say a real character I still had a lot to learn, but I could step forward with eyes open.
-
You know, one thing that I like to see in a character is a bit of mystery. I've run into one or two characters in the past that just had things about them that were hidden. They had secrets, masked motivations, or complexities that they would not just blurt out at the drop of a hat. The player would drop a hint here and there that revealed that there was a little more to the character, but they wouldn't just hand you an essay or a bio, you would just get a little bit at a time so that there was always a bit of mystery to return to, and always a Ahhh moment where that new information would change your perspective on the character. This metaphorical onion peeling is an art.
-
Most definitely. Not only is developing that an art, but also the reveal.
@Ascomanni
That's not a bad idea, but it makes my gut hurt a little, haha! I imagine it really was a learning experience though. And I bet you wrangled it into something great :)
-
Here's another thought: character dynamism. The world should not only effect your character but HAVE an effect upon them. Interactions with other characters that are especially noteworthy should have a chance of altering the way they think, and so forth. There's nothing I like better than a good debate between characters. It can be a world of fun when my own finds him/herself reevaluating their thoughts on a subject.
-
Backstory is, to me, the ticking time bomb or the germinating seed- choose a metaphor that resonates with you. Roled had some meta story- and some psychology. And some repressed trauma that even now is slowly coming to his consciousness. Some is obvious. other stuff is oblivious to RR but perhaps noticeable. I find it interesting that in the years of RR's development, well, yeah he had ubergoals- to never be poor again, to never be too weak to defend himself again, to never fall iby n love. The things that happened were unlooked for by me his player- that people would like him, give him money and food- and be kind. Mostly.
What i didn't expect was how long it would take RR to come out ig, then how much more normalized his personality became as he was accepted by his friends. And how their challenges to him would change him. Case in point- I had decided RR was a pacifist, and wouldn't kill humanoids if he could help it. For a while stats made that decision easy- RR COULDNT kill much above a clacker for a few years. Then Dragonis, well, the whole scene with Dragonis, and D left. RR was more devastated than I imagined, and his response was, well, he started murdering humans (rogues, glads, cutthroats) willy nilly. Then he had to figure out how to justify killing with Xiosia.... and he hasn't achieved that yet. I thank Dragonis and Thidin and Barike for making RR harder edged, and more secretly deadly, and more adept at acting nice when needed. Then a huge change was when Rigwyn became blind because of RR and Aleeane's fight with him. I had no idea RR would feel so guilty about his part in Rigwyn's tortured life. Who knew RR would be compelled to help the B@#$%d?
So my player's intention for him was changed and thwarted and twisted.
That is part of the danger of rp- what might happen.
-
Here's another thought: character dynamism. The world should not only effect your character but HAVE an effect upon them. Interactions with other characters that are especially noteworthy should have a chance of altering the way they think, and so forth. There's nothing I like better than a good debate between characters. It can be a world of fun when my own finds him/herself reevaluating their thoughts on a subject.
Amen! That is a wonderful thought. It's kind of like, hey, what's the point of having a static character anyways?
@Roled: I agree that backstory is key, and really ought to be a huge part when considering your actions moving forwards. The reasoning behind this being that if you have backstory you really ought to have reasons for what you're doing because of that backstory, correct?
I really like your last bit, about the danger of RP - because it's both dangerous and what makes it fun!
-
When I made my first roleplaying character for this game (Sarras, duh), I think I was ~16 years old and wanted to go on adventures. Not my first time roleplaying, but probably my first time roleplaying with a character that I didn't plan to forget in the next month. I tried to make the character a lot different from me, but being young, her worldview and circumstances were similar to mine. For that reason, I never elucidated on her past because I decided it was a work in progress. Now I've solidified it, but never have I had to reveal much of it to anyone since 1) I'm not chatty and 2) I think character pasts should be revealed through actions, not long, deep conversations. Your character's past should include past interactions with other characters. So if some other player's character did something mean (like chopping off your character's hand...), your character should reflect that in future behavior.
But when I make a character, 100% of the time it spawns from an idea, and I mold the character around that. Once I start playing, the surrounding world begins molding that character, and my only purpose is to ensure that character's goals are met, to the best of my character's abilities.
-
But when I make a character, 100% of the time it spawns from an idea, and I mold the character around that. Once I start playing, the surrounding world begins molding that character, and my only purpose is to ensure that character's goals are met, to the best of my character's abilities.
That's kind of a cool way to do it :)
I like the thought of starting with an idea - is it hard to do that and then react certain ways to situations, or do you find it easier this way?
-
Well, I have impressions in my head of other people. Stereotypes. Personality types. Most of my roleplaying actually occurs in RPG games. I even roleplay when I play a Zelda game lol. If it's a tough situation, I think, "What would the average person do in this situation? Now, how would someone who is more inclined toward ___ react?"
Most people overall behave the same way to circumstances. If your character is missing an experience that most people have, or otherwise has had an experience that most people have not, that should show in your character's reaction.
-
Hence the saying, "Show, don't tell". It's not an absolute rule ( H.P. Lovecraft must never have heard of this), but it's generally a good rule to follow.
-
Let's try another topic:
Some things are considered "must-ask" such as true death, and whatnot.
There are some who would argue that NOT letting other players inflict things on you without asking is OOC. Thoughts? I think this one is obvious, but there was once a school of thought that was very much for this.
-
If you allow the victim to call the results of the action and give them enough wiggle room to suffer common death, true death, or escape somehow, then I don't see much need to ask OOC. With a new player, I might be more inclined to ask first and then continue the conversation with them afterwards oocly so that they don't feel like they've been floored and ignored.
-
It is very tempting to put yourself in your character's shoes.
I would honestly say....Hmm.
Honestly, it's best to create a character that can be as far away from you, or that does things that you would most DEFINITELY not do.
Like for real. So you're straight, tried and true? Be someone who's crooked, rotten to the core.
So you struggle with a lot of things? Idk, be a paladin, a champion of good.
RolePlay someone who does NOT have your tendencies, does NOT think like you, and if you met, you might dislike.
Or not. It's your call.
But here's what happens (And happens in this game): A lot of 'mini-me's' get created, each with your own character traits. Than when they get slighted or insulted because of how they are, you take it personally. Why? Because someone just insulted something you do. It's all too natural to get offended. So you're a murderer who dislikes peace? Maybe now's the time to create a Xiosian peace lover, because otherwise all the peace loving tree freaks in Hydlaa will begin to tick you off. Not your character. You.
It's easy to say, "well separate yourself". We all know that a lot of issues in the past of this game have been caused from people getting way too attached to their characters because they in essence are their characters. Idk.
Just sayin' that if you make someone like you, you had better have a strong head on your shoulders and know what you're doing (and there are players here who are quite successful at that :))
On the other hand, it can be very dangerous to create a character that you have nothing in common with. If you share nothing with your character you're going to end up hating them. I've always found that when writing, or playing any character, you need to find the traits in them that you identify with. This doesn't mean playing yourself all the time, it just means picking out the parts of someone that you agree with. Roleplaying, or any sort of acting/writing isn't about becoming someone completely new, it's about adjusting the dials on yourself, and taking new perspectives. Whether we want to or not, it's impossible not to carry our own life experiences into our work. What we can do though, is take what we know and skew it a little. Find the bits of our lives that make us excited, scared, or angry, and use those to connect ourselves to our characters in a way where you still there, but the ego is not. You are not your character, and your character is not you, but you are still tied together by invisible strings.
That's not to say that you should put too much of yourself into your characters. You should take care of your own emotional safety. You should be able to understand why your character does something, but you don't necessarily have to agree with what they're doing. You might be playing a character who murders someone else. Of course you'd be able to see why killing people is wrong, and you know you are separate from your character in that sense, but you should also be able to empathize with their reasoning. Maybe they thought they were protecting themselves, or maybe they were wronged in the past. Maybe they feel trapped, and think that robbing and murdering someone is they're only escape. These moments of separate, but empathetic connections turn an otherwise flat character into someone who is dynamic, and well rounded. It makes a hero's seem heroic, and villains seem so much more sinister. I'd say instead of cutting yourself off, twist yourself into something new.
The danger only comes when you're too connected to your character. You should ask yourself, "How would I feel if I put my character through a living hell right now? Would I be excited to see them tested, and changed? Or would I feel afraid and angry because I'm so close to my character?" If the answer is the latter, you may have to take a step back, and do some real critical thinking.
You're aiming for that goldilocks zone, where you're not invested to the point of emotional harm, while still feeling close enough to enjoy your character, and enjoy what they do. There are a few ways to go about finding what works for you, and it's really different for everyone. You can try and write a character who you know just enough about to play, and just wing it as you go along, and let your character evolve in game. This is how Zalya came to be. I think that this method is filled with flaws though. Most notably the length of time it takes to actually find yourself in a place that you are happy with. As I've grown as a roleplayer, I've found that I like to write, and rewrite backstories until my character feels whole. I'll write a story about them, list major life events, think about what kind of music they like, and write about their family and upbringing. Then I'll look back, and if anything doesn't sit well with me, I'll rewrite it until the entire backstory makes me feel giddy. This process takes some work, but I always feel like I'm able to hit the ground running in game, and I can skip a lot of awkwardness. There is instant flow, and I can really shape there growth more accurately, and respond to conflict with far more distinction.
Here's another thought: character dynamism. The world should not only effect your character but HAVE an effect upon them. Interactions with other characters that are especially noteworthy should have a chance of altering the way they think, and so forth. There's nothing I like better than a good debate between characters. It can be a world of fun when my own finds him/herself reevaluating their thoughts on a subject.
This is so important.
If a character does not change through the course of a roleplay, then you have not succeeded as a roleplayer. This may sound harsh, but having a character that reacts, and responds to roleplay both inwardly and outwardly is essential. Think about how your favorite fiction pieces would be if none of the characters evolved. What would Star Wars be if Luke Skywalker stayed a moisture farmer all his life? Who would Batman be if he wasn't affected by the death of his parents? What would Les Miserables look like if Jean Valjean never had a change of heart? I can tell you what the audience would look like; Miserables. I've seen characters that remain static through tons of engaging, heartfelt roleplay, and it's like roleplaying with a wall. If you've been playing a character for years who hasn't changed at all, then you are doing a disservice to yourself, and to others.
Fortunately most character evolution comes naturally. Sometimes, you as a player won't even realize it until after it's happened. The only time it doesn't happen, is when the evolution is stifled because the player doesn't want to change. Please don't do this. You are denying the best part about roleplay; the ability to interact, and to be interacted with. Let your good guy slide down the path of evil into the realm of moral ambiguity when her wife is killed. Let your peace loving xiosian freak the hell out when he has to fight and kill the local villain. Let your brooding kran scholar brighten up when kra is surrounded by new friends. These are the moments of unpredictability that make roleplaying such an absolutely fantastic pastime.
Which brings us back to the original quote.
"We cannot control extenuating circumstances. All we control is our reaction to it."
The first time I read this, I thought it was rather limiting, but the more thought I gave it, I realized the truth to it. What this means to me is that as a roleplayer, you are not living in a world alone. You are part of a collaborative environment. If you try to roleplay in the same way that you would play a single player game, or write a single authored story, you will come off looking like a jerk wad. If you let yourself carefully sink into the world as a whole, and let your character be bumped around by the other's in that world, then you will have a truly dynamic, and deeply complex experience. It's that experience that keeps dragging back online.
Let's try another topic:
Some things are considered "must-ask" such as true death, and whatnot.
There are some who would argue that NOT letting other players inflict things on you without asking is OOC. Thoughts? I think this one is obvious, but there was once a school of thought that was very much for this.
I played an intense cyberpunk MOO, where almost all out of character contact was considered taboo. I couldn't stand that aspect. There are some people who enjoy giving up the control that comes with OOC knowledge, but I think that at least a little bit of OOC knowledge and chatter is absolutely necessary for keeping the conflict IC, and keeping the roleplay running smoothly. At it's heart, roleplaying is about consent. Every action you take is a declaration of intent, and every reaction you have can be boiled down to a yes or a no. You need to be able to trust the people you are roleplaying with to respect that, and you need to let them trust you. If another character's actions deeply concern you as a player, you need to be able to stop the game and talk about it, or else the problem will build, and an IC conflict will move into real life, feelings will get hurt, and the roleplay will cease to be fun.
The amount of OOC warning you give someone is based entirely on player preferences. Most situations can be handled IC with no problems. Like Riggy said, as long as you are not forcing an option onto someone, the peace should be kept. OOC chat should only occur when it is helping smooth the RP along. If there is a concern, talk about it, come to a compromise, and then get on with the action. If the RP isn't going to work in the long run, call it off. I hate doing it, but if there's a major problem with the RP then you have the option to walk away. Roleplaying should be fun, engaging, and cathartic. If an RP is bringing you down, and both you, and the other players you're with can't fix it, then it's time to cut your losses. A lot of it comes down to what people are comfortable with. If you are going to be pushing the boundaries a little, then the people you're playing with should know that going into the RP.
-
You guys have evolved many good concepts.
Remember the modes of literature, too: the best characters, or at least the better developed ones, are derived from natures or interests which the writer knows well. Thus, the main characters in a novel are usually taking aspects from the writer, then exaggerated and developed into new personalities while maintaining traits which the writer understands and can relate.
Another thing I like about RPGs is the use of escapism or adventure in a variant world. Often I want a PC which resembles my own because I want to explore that world myself, and use the PC as an avatar for me.
Of course, changing some characteristics lends to greater escapism too — something which appeals to most actors: I may act as a dashing playboy, or a beleaguered politician, or a conniving tycoon, because that's something which I wouldn't want to do IRL but would like to try for a while. It's that ability to assume a costume or change of clothes and then live as another which makes RP so endearing to the players; however, at heart much of the character remains essentially me, just in another skin.
I see it come down to this: what would you be like if you had taken a different path if the world, whether through different interests or by different circumstances and crucial events? Make the characters more relate-able, and you'll enjoy them better.
You may need, from time to time, to act the role of someone entirely different for the sake of a greater story, which is a very necessary skill for good actors. You also want characters that are much more comfortable for aforementioned reasons. Both should be done, but for different goals.
I'm really just rehashing some of what was already said. Do whatever it takes to ensure better play in the role which you assume.
-
Thank you, both Zalya & Can-ned food! Excellent multiples of points, both.
@Zalya/Can-ned:
I do agree that you should find points of commonality with your character, otherwise you risk it being an alien. And yes, I think it would be easy to misconstrue and swing too far one way or the other. I do believe though that there has to be the ability to shake off that attachment at times, otherwise we'll be overprotective and prevent our characters from falling into harm's way, which is generally what grows and matures them. Not necessarily physical harm, but perhaps just...hardship of some sort. 100% though I agree with you, I'm just kind of fleshing out in case someone comes along and reads this and is like hey, I can use all of this to help me RP better! (Which is what I'm doing, lol.) Thank you both, again.
@Rigwyn & Zalya:
Rigwyn's post interests me quite a bit, because that's a gem on how we should be playing it. I think that some RPers can get into the habit of 'forcing' actions on others, although in a roundabout way, I.E. setting them up for either absolute success or absolute failure. I believe like Rigwyn said, you should probably know both the individuals you play with and what they are capable of or willing to do. It's probably a good idea to have the /tell card up your sleeve for a player you don't know... Thoughts?
-
I feel that lack of control is one of life's biggest and hardest lessons. It's a hard pill to swallow fer sure, and it's a sign of emotional maturity once one has grasped it. As said in the OP, all one ultimately has control over is one's own actions and reactions. In my personal experience, those who feel that they MUST control their environment or others ultimately succumb to behavior that can easily be called 'out of control'. Just imagine a child having a tantrum because they didn't get that cookie they wanted. Yeah, I've seen adults act in that very same way. Hell I've seen governments do it too. On the other hand, when one accepts the limitations of their control, and learns to practice self-control, they might find difficult situations easier to handle, and outcomes more favorable.
And if RP can teach that for peeps, and I believe it can, then great, grand, wonderful. No yelling on the bus!
-
It is very tempting to put yourself in your character's shoes.
I would honestly say....Hmm.
Honestly, it's best to create a character that can be as far away from you, or that does things that you would most DEFINITELY not do.
Like for real. So you're straight, tried and true? Be someone who's crooked, rotten to the core.
So you struggle with a lot of things? Idk, be a paladin, a champion of good.
RolePlay someone who does NOT have your tendencies, does NOT think like you, and if you met, you might dislike.
Or not. It's your call.
But here's what happens (And happens in this game): A lot of 'mini-me's' get created, each with your own character traits. Than when they get slighted or insulted because of how they are, you take it personally. Why? Because someone just insulted something you do. It's all too natural to get offended. So you're a murderer who dislikes peace? Maybe now's the time to create a Xiosian peace lover, because otherwise all the peace loving tree freaks in Hydlaa will begin to tick you off. Not your character. You.
It's easy to say, "well separate yourself". We all know that a lot of issues in the past of this game have been caused from people getting way too attached to their characters because they in essence are their characters. Idk.
Just sayin' that if you make someone like you, you had better have a strong head on your shoulders and know what you're doing (and there are players here who are quite successful at that :))
On the other hand, it can be very dangerous to create a character that you have nothing in common with. If you share nothing with your character you're going to end up hating them. I've always found that when writing, or playing any character, you need to find the traits in them that you identify with. This doesn't mean playing yourself all the time, it just means picking out the parts of someone that you agree with. Roleplaying, or any sort of acting/writing isn't about becoming someone completely new, it's about adjusting the dials on yourself, and taking new perspectives. Whether we want to or not, it's impossible not to carry our own life experiences into our work. What we can do though, is take what we know and skew it a little. Find the bits of our lives that make us excited, scared, or angry, and use those to connect ourselves to our characters in a way where you still there, but the ego is not. You are not your character, and your character is not you, but you are still tied together by invisible strings.
That's not to say that you should put too much of yourself into your characters. You should take care of your own emotional safety. You should be able to understand why your character does something, but you don't necessarily have to agree with what they're doing. You might be playing a character who murders someone else. Of course you'd be able to see why killing people is wrong, and you know you are separate from your character in that sense, but you should also be able to empathize with their reasoning. Maybe they thought they were protecting themselves, or maybe they were wronged in the past. Maybe they feel trapped, and think that robbing and murdering someone is they're only escape. These moments of separate, but empathetic connections turn an otherwise flat character into someone who is dynamic, and well rounded. It makes a hero's seem heroic, and villains seem so much more sinister. I'd say instead of cutting yourself off, twist yourself into something new.
The danger only comes when you're too connected to your character. You should ask yourself, "How would I feel if I put my character through a living hell right now? Would I be excited to see them tested, and changed? Or would I feel afraid and angry because I'm so close to my character?" If the answer is the latter, you may have to take a step back, and do some real critical thinking.
You're aiming for that goldilocks zone, where you're not invested to the point of emotional harm, while still feeling close enough to enjoy your character, and enjoy what they do. There are a few ways to go about finding what works for you, and it's really different for everyone. You can try and write a character who you know just enough about to play, and just wing it as you go along, and let your character evolve in game. This is how Zalya came to be. I think that this method is filled with flaws though. Most notably the length of time it takes to actually find yourself in a place that you are happy with. As I've grown as a roleplayer, I've found that I like to write, and rewrite backstories until my character feels whole. I'll write a story about them, list major life events, think about what kind of music they like, and write about their family and upbringing. Then I'll look back, and if anything doesn't sit well with me, I'll rewrite it until the entire backstory makes me feel giddy. This process takes some work, but I always feel like I'm able to hit the ground running in game, and I can skip a lot of awkwardness. There is instant flow, and I can really shape there growth more accurately, and respond to conflict with far more distinction.
Here's another thought: character dynamism. The world should not only effect your character but HAVE an effect upon them. Interactions with other characters that are especially noteworthy should have a chance of altering the way they think, and so forth. There's nothing I like better than a good debate between characters. It can be a world of fun when my own finds him/herself reevaluating their thoughts on a subject.
This is so important.
If a character does not change through the course of a roleplay, then you have not succeeded as a roleplayer. This may sound harsh, but having a character that reacts, and responds to roleplay both inwardly and outwardly is essential. Think about how your favorite fiction pieces would be if none of the characters evolved. What would Star Wars be if Luke Skywalker stayed a moisture farmer all his life? Who would Batman be if he wasn't affected by the death of his parents? What would Les Miserables look like if Jean Valjean never had a change of heart? I can tell you what the audience would look like; Miserables. I've seen characters that remain static through tons of engaging, heartfelt roleplay, and it's like roleplaying with a wall. If you've been playing a character for years who hasn't changed at all, then you are doing a disservice to yourself, and to others.
Fortunately most character evolution comes naturally. Sometimes, you as a player won't even realize it until after it's happened. The only time it doesn't happen, is when the evolution is stifled because the player doesn't want to change. Please don't do this. You are denying the best part about roleplay; the ability to interact, and to be interacted with. Let your good guy slide down the path of evil into the realm of moral ambiguity when her wife is killed. Let your peace loving xiosian freak the hell out when he has to fight and kill the local villain. Let your brooding kran scholar brighten up when kra is surrounded by new friends. These are the moments of unpredictability that make roleplaying such an absolutely fantastic pastime.
Which brings us back to the original quote.
"We cannot control extenuating circumstances. All we control is our reaction to it."
The first time I read this, I thought it was rather limiting, but the more thought I gave it, I realized the truth to it. What this means to me is that as a roleplayer, you are not living in a world alone. You are part of a collaborative environment. If you try to roleplay in the same way that you would play a single player game, or write a single authored story, you will come off looking like a jerk wad. If you let yourself carefully sink into the world as a whole, and let your character be bumped around by the other's in that world, then you will have a truly dynamic, and deeply complex experience. It's that experience that keeps dragging back online.
Let's try another topic:
Some things are considered "must-ask" such as true death, and whatnot.
There are some who would argue that NOT letting other players inflict things on you without asking is OOC. Thoughts? I think this one is obvious, but there was once a school of thought that was very much for this.
I played an intense cyberpunk MOO, where almost all out of character contact was considered taboo. I couldn't stand that aspect. There are some people who enjoy giving up the control that comes with OOC knowledge, but I think that at least a little bit of OOC knowledge and chatter is absolutely necessary for keeping the conflict IC, and keeping the roleplay running smoothly. At it's heart, roleplaying is about consent. Every action you take is a declaration of intent, and every reaction you have can be boiled down to a yes or a no. You need to be able to trust the people you are roleplaying with to respect that, and you need to let them trust you. If another character's actions deeply concern you as a player, you need to be able to stop the game and talk about it, or else the problem will build, and an IC conflict will move into real life, feelings will get hurt, and the roleplay will cease to be fun.
The amount of OOC warning you give someone is based entirely on player preferences. Most situations can be handled IC with no problems. Like Riggy said, as long as you are not forcing an option onto someone, the peace should be kept. OOC chat should only occur when it is helping smooth the RP along. If there is a concern, talk about it, come to a compromise, and then get on with the action. If the RP isn't going to work in the long run, call it off. I hate doing it, but if there's a major problem with the RP then you have the option to walk away. Roleplaying should be fun, engaging, and cathartic. If an RP is bringing you down, and both you, and the other players you're with can't fix it, then it's time to cut your losses. A lot of it comes down to what people are comfortable with. If you are going to be pushing the boundaries a little, then the people you're playing with should know that going into the RP.
TL;DR: what do you do as a RPer when your world never ran on emotion to begin with?
While your advice is likely very good in the general case, I run into one, sizeable issue with it: I identify with character traits that are very inherently inhuman -- the traits exhibited by a character when seen as a system, not a person. This means that system-optimization and effectiveness take priority over drama in my mind, and trying to tickle the heartstrings is an ineffective motivational means for a character defined in systematic terms. There is no "emotional pain", IC or even in many cases OOC, to motivate actions any longer at this point -- in fact, I find myself at odds with many roleplayers when considering villany because the level of punishment I want to subject characters to (both my own and others') is far, far beyond the boundaries of other players. (It also means that my draw to character power does not come from a desire to never be defeated, but a desire to drive foes further than they otherwise would go, past the mental roadblocks they have erected for themselves.)
This means that character dynamicism also has a fundamentally altered meaning for me -- my character doesn't go through heartfelt, emotional shifts, but evolves based on improvements to her knowledge-base and logical understanding.
I agree that some degree of OOC chatter and interaction is necessary for the health of a RPing community, though -- without it, players cannot get on the same page with each other, which is critical, especially as the community tries to grow.
Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances. No matter how good it is at generating drama, a behavior that is persistently ineffective is something that one's environment can, and in many cases will punish harshly -- and this includes rules about such things as combat. Honor is a weapon, and it can be wielded against you, something many players do not realize, either when governing their character's actions, or thinking about how their character's opponents may think and act. Yet, people insist that the use of patterns and inferences by one's character to gain an advantage over other characters is somehow inherently out-of-character -- when it is in reality, something that is essential to constructing an authentic competitor.
-
I'm really not sure how to address this post, because generally speaking, most people don't evolve.
I suppose what it really boils down to is that if you evolve, good for you. Don't expect others to do it, much like we can't expect you to alter to fit us.
That being said, there will always be discord generated. Because since we don't evolve, we'll continue with our odd little behaviors, instead of adapting to become competitors.
Being competitors is probably far from our minds.
Godmodding = forcing things on others, right?
-
I'm really not sure how to address this post, because generally speaking, most people don't evolve.
I suppose what it really boils down to is that if you evolve, good for you. Don't expect others to do it, much like we can't expect you to alter to fit us.
That being said, there will always be discord generated. Because since we don't evolve, we'll continue with our odd little behaviors, instead of adapting to become competitors.
Being competitors is probably far from our minds.
Godmodding = forcing things on others, right?
Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional. Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...
-
It is innate.
But it's not everyone's motivation.
OH, and.
We're not all humans.
-
Hence the saying, "Show, don't tell". It's not an absolute rule ( H.P. Lovecraft must never have heard of this), but it's generally a good rule to follow.
This is the most important and absolute rule in writing honestly - that doesn't mean 100% of the time you have to do it, it's okay to actually let readers know what the character is actually thinking sometimes, and personally I love to do it in RP when there's only so much facial anatomy you can go off of in order to describe a character's expression as -insert adjective-.
And yeah, seperation of author and character is honestly not as important as people make it out to be so long as you as a person, projected onto that character (you have to have a little bit of yourself in a character at least, imo), is done tastefully and with something interesting to place in that character. While publishable writing is primarily written for other people, it's this process that rewards the author I think, because in the process of writing a character you learn new things about yourself, or in some cases ways of thinking that you don't actually think, but you know exist and want to understand more. And RP takes that to a new dynamic level so long as everyone's not just doing it for pure escapism. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying escapism, but there's nothing real about it and it lacks potential depth when you're avoiding inserting the harsh real life experiences that have shaped you into the person you are.
Sorry, scattered and random thoughts here. I'm sure all of this is gobbledygook but it's an interesting topic.
Also @ godmodding discussion: nothing wrong with overusing the words try/tries/trying in your emotes.
-
In my personal experience, those who feel that they MUST control their environment or others ultimately succumb to behavior that can easily be called 'out of control'. Just imagine a child having a tantrum because they didn't get that cookie they wanted.
Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances.
These two kinds of players annoy me to no end.
Also @ godmodding discussion: nothing wrong with overusing the words try/tries/trying in your emotes.
try/attempt/hopes to/if/[attack, tran v] [player, object] with [weapon]
Typing "tries to" over and over gets old.
-
While your advice is likely very good in the general case, I run into one, sizeable issue with it: I identify with character traits that are very inherently inhuman -- the traits exhibited by a character when seen as a system, not a person. This means that system-optimization and effectiveness take priority over drama in my mind, and trying to tickle the heartstrings is an ineffective motivational means for a character defined in systematic terms. There is no "emotional pain", IC or even in many cases OOC, to motivate actions any longer at this point -- in fact, I find myself at odds with many roleplayers when considering villany because the level of punishment I want to subject characters to (both my own and others') is far, far beyond the boundaries of other players. (It also means that my draw to character power does not come from a desire to never be defeated, but a desire to drive foes further than they otherwise would go, past the mental roadblocks they have erected for themselves.)
Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances. No matter how good it is at generating drama, a behavior that is persistently ineffective is something that one's environment can, and in many cases will punish harshly -- and this includes rules about such things as combat. Honor is a weapon, and it can be wielded against you, something many players do not realize, either when governing their character's actions, or thinking about how their character's opponents may think and act. Yet, people insist that the use of patterns and inferences by one's character to gain an advantage over other characters is somehow inherently out-of-character -- when it is in reality, something that is essential to constructing an authentic competitor.
People are systems, albeit not like the kind of which you are thinking.
Experiments with artificial intelligence have shown that affective thinking (a.k.a. emotions) are very useful for decision–making, and that's why some autistic people, though excelling in certain abilities, can't function in others, unlike the more averaged people.
That “persistently ineffective” behavior is another thing, and it is found in the treacherous spaces between disastrously stubborn and being triumphantly so.
Here's something (https://thetwistedrope.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/life-is-an-rpg/) which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.
-
Attempt too, but that's just two words. Even that will get old but it should be tolerated.
Hope is a non-physical verb.
Either way, most of the time this kind of emoting only gets done in trust fights. And fight RP all the time gets old for me lol.
-
Here's something (https://thetwistedrope.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/life-is-an-rpg/) which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.
http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41831.0
i've written two (short) papers so far on the subject. still working it out, but your link was a good read for me.
Also of interest to this conversation, http://www.amazon.com/Psychosynthesis-A-Collection-Basic-Writings/dp/0967857007 at least it may give us a common vocabulary for discussion purposes.
-
Hence the saying, "Show, don't tell". It's not an absolute rule ( H.P. Lovecraft must never have heard of this), but it's generally a good rule to follow.
This is the most important and absolute rule in writing honestly - that doesn't mean 100% of the time you have to do it, it's okay to actually let readers know what the character is actually thinking sometimes, and personally I love to do it in RP when there's only so much facial anatomy you can go off of in order to describe a character's expression as -insert adjective-.
And yeah, seperation of author and character is honestly not as important as people make it out to be so long as you as a person, projected onto that character (you have to have a little bit of yourself in a character at least, imo), is done tastefully and with something interesting to place in that character. While publishable writing is primarily written for other people, it's this process that rewards the author I think, because in the process of writing a character you learn new things about yourself, or in some cases ways of thinking that you don't actually think, but you know exist and want to understand more. And RP takes that to a new dynamic level so long as everyone's not just doing it for pure escapism. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying escapism, but there's nothing real about it and it lacks potential depth when you're avoiding inserting the harsh real life experiences that have shaped you into the person you are.
Sorry, scattered and random thoughts here. I'm sure all of this is gobbledygook but it's an interesting topic.
Also @ godmodding discussion: nothing wrong with overusing the words try/tries/trying in your emotes.
I do try to insert my real life experiences and knowledge into my RP -- unfortunately, it almost feels as if I have the wrong experiences and wrong knowledge, if you will, or at least that's the impression I get from some in the community, who don't understand what it's like to go through life as a hypersystemizer...
And yes -- nothing wrong with overusing that phraseology, as long as you aren't creating a cycle -- "/me tries to parry the sword thrust" is problematic because I, as the player of the attacker, have just had your decision (how your character responds to the blow) dropped right back in my lap -- talk about awkward!
-
While your advice is likely very good in the general case, I run into one, sizeable issue with it: I identify with character traits that are very inherently inhuman -- the traits exhibited by a character when seen as a system, not a person. This means that system-optimization and effectiveness take priority over drama in my mind, and trying to tickle the heartstrings is an ineffective motivational means for a character defined in systematic terms. There is no "emotional pain", IC or even in many cases OOC, to motivate actions any longer at this point -- in fact, I find myself at odds with many roleplayers when considering villany because the level of punishment I want to subject characters to (both my own and others') is far, far beyond the boundaries of other players. (It also means that my draw to character power does not come from a desire to never be defeated, but a desire to drive foes further than they otherwise would go, past the mental roadblocks they have erected for themselves.)
Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances. No matter how good it is at generating drama, a behavior that is persistently ineffective is something that one's environment can, and in many cases will punish harshly -- and this includes rules about such things as combat. Honor is a weapon, and it can be wielded against you, something many players do not realize, either when governing their character's actions, or thinking about how their character's opponents may think and act. Yet, people insist that the use of patterns and inferences by one's character to gain an advantage over other characters is somehow inherently out-of-character -- when it is in reality, something that is essential to constructing an authentic competitor.
People are systems, albeit not like the kind of which you are thinking.
Experiments with artificial intelligence have shown that affective thinking (a.k.a. emotions) are very useful for decision–making, and that's why some autistic people, though excelling in certain abilities, can't function in others, unlike the more averaged people.
That “persistently ineffective” behavior is another thing, and it is found in the treacherous spaces between disastrously stubborn and being triumphantly so.
Here's something (https://thetwistedrope.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/life-is-an-rpg/) which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.
Correction -- affective thinking is useful for some types of decision-making -- our species evolved to be social originally, and some types of decisions (such as those that govern social behavior) intermesh heavily with affective thinking. However, that same thinking can be a major impediment to trying to use one's higher-level thinking functions to make a decision where emotions aren't called for -- say, trying to figure out how big a bridge girder needs to be to span a chasm. In otherwords, emotions are a part of the Orient step in Observe-Orient-Decide-Act, and they can just as easily disorient you as they can point you down the right path.
-
Correction -- affective thinking is useful for some types of decision-making
:thumbup: My final word on the subject: “very useful for” does not exclude ‘not useful’. A hammer is a very useful tool, but that doesn't mean that it is the only useful tool, or that it is never not useful.
You rock, Kaerli. But, honestly,
What do they teach them at these schools?
p.s.
see below (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=42200.msg477148#msg477148).
-
I do try to insert my real life experiences and knowledge into my RP -- unfortunately, it almost feels as if I have the wrong experiences and wrong knowledge, if you will, or at least that's the impression I get from some in the community, who don't understand what it's like to go through life as a hypersystemizer...
There's nothing wrong with a systematic personality, but if that's all there is to a person or character people are going to get bored with them, useful as that personality can be. If we were going to get philosophical though, everything is systematic, even human psychology. But sometimes systems fail and need to be reworked, making that a constant effort - and if you've developed a system that has multiple plans and everything figured out before something happens, then there's no surprise/true failure/development.
But honestly Kaerli, I mean this in no way to be a personal attack, but half of the time I'm talking to you you're complaining about something regarding Kaerli and her personality when by the end of a conversation or RP I'm like 'okay so what are you complaining about?' If anything, from all that you've told me and Kaerli's interactions with other characters, the only problematic thing I see so far is an overpowered character and that might be why people can't warm up to her - I've gotten the impression that she sets up a wall of invulnerability through rationalizing everything. Every character should have something to gain, but just as importantly, something to lose. But if loss is just shrugged off or ignored then any potential for depth is gone. Irrationality in the face of conflict is one of the things that gives something a human touch.
-
RPGs as fiction:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/jun/19/the-joy-of-reading-role-playing-games
The literary connection there reminds me of a quote by E. M. Forster, he of the lovely and keen short novels. He said that his flaw as a writer was that he was only able to write 3 characters - himself, someone he despised, and someone he idolized. He contrasted this to Shakespeare, who was able to write of all shades of all people, and this I love.
You have little idea of who Shakespeare is, and why? Because his characters are all flesh and blood, from the villian of the universe Iago to the angel of Desdemona to all the other characters with their flaws and strengths. For me it makes Shakespeare harder to digest, because I do not have one creature to hold onto - but there are moments, like when Lear is on the moors in the dark rain and wind, knowing he is losing his mind and yet fighting against it, mad, mad, let me not be mad!! And in those moments I have a glimpse of a man who knows what it means to be on the edge and be almost tipped over into it. But Shakespeare is all of his creations, from Cleopatra in her jealousy and her age with respect to Anthony's prospective bride...that scene is so darling and subtle, I know she's a fiend but I love Cleopatra.
The point of all this is for me, how difficult it is to RP in this gorgeous immersive fully fleshed out way, but how good it is for the soul when you can even get a piece of it right. Because the stories inside the plays and novels that I'm talking about are absolutely sustaining. In a very deep and heavy duty way. Sustaining, necessary for life.
If any of us fail at RP I would suggest reading more. Either the RPG books mentioned in the Guardian article I linked to, or Tolstoi, Shakespeare, any novels that grab you. Because you get infused by them and it comes out of you.
Or, you could use great literature for lower purposes, like I did when I was trying to piss off an old time player in the pub, years ago, who I did not like and who did not like me - this creature would get in /tell with me and talk to me, uninvited, about OOC and IC in this bossy snobby way. Meanwhile his char would be talking in main with a horrible, hysterical deep south accent - I thought he would do well by reading a lot of Mark Twain instead of just never using the "g" key - anyway - so one night I pulled out a set of plays by that darling Moliére and had the book open next to me as I RP'd in the pub - "eyes chewing up the scenery" etc., every good line was Moliére's and it was beautiful :love: But that was meta, very funny but very meta and not immersive. But it's one of my best memories from darling old Planeshift :love:
-
Ah I do miss seeing you ig Pierre/ Pierrette :love: mia amorousa!
And I quote meta things ic all the time- since RR is such a bookworm himself and fancies himself a poet of sorts. He's wont to spit forth meaty metaphors when'er inspiration's muse breathes her damp flames 'gainst his mortal tinder. She cooks his clauses. Yet alas, too oft the ruminations be swallowed afore the flavors settle upon untasting tongues!
Alas, alack, it's what I lack, I lack a lass, alas! alack!
;D :innocent: :whistling:
RR
-
My final word on the subject:
No; well, it would've been, but I recognize that I should've made another point in my other post (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=42200.msg477109#msg477109). D'oh! My apologies, especially to Kaerli because that response above seems too curt.
Anyway, I was leading into saying that the things which we construct about ourselves and call existence is more than simply making decisions about choices, which is only one aspect of a greater nature. ‘Why?’ can ever fold back on itself and find no other monadic kernel than simply ‘To be.’ Simplify the act of making decisions by tearing it from motivations, or vice versa, and there would be a nihilism with nothing for which any decisions must be made.
Intuitive, but not always obvious.
We're not all humans.
That's another thing, too. I mostly play Gedundk, and in trying to behave as a kran would, I find that my opportunities for interactive RP with other PCs is limited, especially when it seems to me that most other characters (whether their players are aware of this or not) don't understand the Kran.
You know, they're almost asocial. Not ‘nonsocial’ or irrelevant, ‘unsocial’ or resistant, nor ‘antisocial’.
So, of course Gedundk's interests lie in developing kras skills, or studying and gathering. I'm not doing it to level–up, but because it makes sense to kran.
How many other Kran players see it that way?
-
That's another thing, too. I mostly play Gedundk, and in trying to behave as a kran would, I find that my opportunities for interactive RP with other PCs is limited, especially when it seems to me that most other characters (whether their players are aware of this or not) don't understand the Kran.
You know, they're almost asocial. Not ‘nonsocial’ or irrelevant, ‘unsocial’ or resistant, nor ‘antisocial’.
So, of course Gedundk's interests lie in developing kras skills, or studying and gathering. I'm not doing it to level–up, but because it makes sense to kran.
How many other Kran players see it that way?
There's a lot of evidence in the lore that Kran are asocial, yeah. They're kind of like klyros without the whole telepathically knowing everyone of their kind on a first name basis, but they're brotherly in a more emotionless but still functional way. Sort of 'every kra for kraself but every kran helps every other kran'. I further interpret it as stemming from previous wars, isolationism, and them being one of the least mobile but most physiologically different races in Yliakum, making them harder to understand and thus socialize with for someone who hasn't interacted with kran much. So I'd like to think that the social norm for a kran is to be work focused, being self-reliant so that they aren't bothering each other too much, and work for coin that might aid them in having an enjoyable diet or extracurricular (the arts).
Personally I play Geoni as a deviant from his own race in that he's very social and has adopted a sex identity (he) to further make it easier to get along with everyone. The downside to his socialization is that it is sometimes emotionally overwhelming and causes a dramatic drop in energy and often means falling asleep all of a sudden, as if he's got a specialized kind of narcolepsy with the same kind of emotions that often come with that disease irl. I also take him deviating from his race as making him more racially aware and thus stereotypes people despite the social norm of anti-racism - he isn't racist but instead of treating everyone the same he treats people based on their own culture. I think there's a lot to play around with when it comes to developing your kran's philosophy and how kra interacts with the world and it's what makes them my favorite race in the game.
-
Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional. Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...
There's nothing wrong with competition in a competitive game, literary role playing is not really geared for competition. The next closest thing would be dicing. I would suggest going with that, but I know you, and I know that even with dice, you will try to come up with all sorts of reasons why your character should not suffer *significant* damage.
Oh, she would have dodged that.
She would have seen that coming. She has eyes on the back of her head.
She can blink out and back in when something really terrible is about to happen to her.
She would just know what you were about to do and would have avoided you altogether.
Yeah, ok... that 3 ton boulder landed on her head. Ok.. she has a mild flesh wound. A blemish... on a hidden spot.
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade here. You can call it an upside down black heart if you like, but we all know this is a spade.
I get the impression that you view the ooc negotiation and determination of damage as part of the game and as an area where competition should exist. I don't think most folks would agree with that. For someone like yourself, I would strongly recommend PVP with no ic or ooc chat instead of role play fights.
-
My meta-sister, Roledito :love: :love: :love:
I think the dice idea is a no-go, it's random, and that's probably not what Kaerli means by competition. But I agree with the PVP suggestions, big time, and Kaerli let's pvp next time we meet, ok? I had good pvp teachers but never learned properly, but I've got great axes and it'd be good for me to deal with your char. It would be very easy to get into a rp argument to start it off :)
-
Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional. Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...
There's nothing wrong with competition in a competitive game, literary role playing is not really geared for competition. The next closest thing would be dicing. I would suggest going with that, but I know you, and I know that even with dice, you will try to come up with all sorts of reasons why your character should not suffer *significant* damage.
Oh, she would have dodged that.
She would have seen that coming. She has eyes on the back of her head.
She can blink out and back in when something really terrible is about to happen to her.
She would just know what you were about to do and would have avoided you altogether.
Yeah, ok... that 3 ton boulder landed on her head. Ok.. she has a mild flesh wound. A blemish... on a hidden spot.
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade here. You can call it an upside down black heart if you like, but we all know this is a spade.
I get the impression that you view the ooc negotiation and determination of damage as part of the game and as an area where competition should exist. I don't think most folks would agree with that. For someone like yourself, I would strongly recommend PVP with no ic or ooc chat instead of role play fights.
Here's the thing -- you are making the mistake of thinking that whatever "trick" your character has (whether it be a spell, an attack technique, or what-have-you) exempts you from the mental chess game of combat. Why do people like Asmo, Suno, Phenha/Fuusan, and Mishka/Jocas have no trouble laying down damage on Kaerli? It's because they're going through the mental chess game to do so, instead of trying to OOCly bypass it.
-
I've seen you pull some things that completely defy reason in the past in order to avoid damage. I won't pull up old logs to prove what I'm saying, I don't think there's any need.... well, that and the old Outlaws site was been taken down a few years ago due to inactivity. :'( Anyway, I admit that I take damage too easily, but to me, standing there all day going blow for blow and constantly missing, blocking, causing teeny-tiny scratches, and hand-waving reasonable damage with illogical and unbelievable excuses is not my idea of letting the story progress or of being competitive for that matter. Perhaps this is something that Mishka, Phenha, Suno and Amso enjoy, perhaps they see this as epic and bad-ass or something. I really don't know. If they do, then that's fantastic; you have finally found your crowd. Maybe it's me - perhaps I don't really like combat RP all that much or I have a strange idea of what combat RP should be like.
-
riggypoo, deary, by your own logic, do not engage with kaerli, you will not win.
-
But its not about winning or losing... its about the journey, and when you are deadlocked the journey stalls.
-
true.
i wrote something somewhere on this forum about an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object... i've forgotten what it was exactly, but i'm sure it's applicable here...
i've learned somewhere along my journey that if you meet a dead end, you go on looking for another way around. i've pounded my fists to bloody pulps too many times to ever want to do it again. there's always another option.
-
Once there was an elephant and a rhinoceros. The elephant was unstoppable when he was on the run and when the rhinoceros wanted to stay where he was...he was immovable. The elephant knew that. One day the elephant decided to charge the rhinoceros. You know what happened? They killed each other.
-
Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional. Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...
There's nothing wrong with competition in a competitive game, literary role playing is not really geared for competition. The next closest thing would be dicing. I would suggest going with that, but I know you, and I know that even with dice, you will try to come up with all sorts of reasons why your character should not suffer *significant* damage.
Oh, she would have dodged that.
She would have seen that coming. She has eyes on the back of her head.
She can blink out and back in when something really terrible is about to happen to her.
She would just know what you were about to do and would have avoided you altogether.
Yeah, ok... that 3 ton boulder landed on her head. Ok.. she has a mild flesh wound. A blemish... on a hidden spot.
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade here. You can call it an upside down black heart if you like, but we all know this is a spade.
I get the impression that you view the ooc negotiation and determination of damage as part of the game and as an area where competition should exist. I don't think most folks would agree with that. For someone like yourself, I would strongly recommend PVP with no ic or ooc chat instead of role play fights.
Here's the thing -- you are making the mistake of thinking that whatever "trick" your character has (whether it be a spell, an attack technique, or what-have-you) exempts you from the mental chess game of combat. Why do people like Asmo, Suno, Phenha/Fuusan, and Mishka/Jocas have no trouble laying down damage on Kaerli? It's because they're going through the mental chess game to do so, instead of trying to OOCly bypass it.
This post has revealed a lot about why you ask so many questions about roleplaying. You're trying to play chess, while everyone else is playing party games. You're going to have a really tough time playing this game if you're playing by the rules of another. Roleplaying is inherently collaborative. It can only exist if both parties are willing to cooperate. This is especially true for tense situations like combat. You need to be able to trust the person on the other side of the computer screen to be fair, reasonable, and fun. The joy of roleplaying, at least for me, comes from working together with others to push the limits of my own imagination. Trying to compete in roleplaying is like trying to play Spatoon while painting the Sistine Chapel. All you'll do is make people frustrated. Roleplaying with someone who doesn't take their hits makes me frustrated, conned, and just generally upset. Which is why I avoid anyone with that reputation. Maybe it makes me petty, but honestly, I'd rather feel petty than betrayed.
You can call it whatever you like. Mental Chess, technique, strategy. You can use whatever meta-gamey terminology that suits your taste, but it doesn't change the fact that I, and many other roleplayers (back me up here other roleplayers) think that treating roleplay as something you can win or lose is downright icky. It's not like it's bad to like competition. There are plenty of successful activities that are very competitive. Roleplaying is not one of them. Which really begs the question, are you really here to roleplay, or just play strategy games with unwilling participants?
To broaden that question, and maybe get this thread back on track a little bit, I ask all roleplayers the simple, but burning question.
Why do you roleplay?
-
Wait. Most of the times I've roleplayed it's been competitive. That's excluding PS. Once upon a time, I roleplayed on forums, and there was a goal of winning, either by survival or killing the opponent. It was what Kaerli described: mental chess. Back then I viewed roleplaying itself as a game and an art, somewhat like what you would consider sparring in martial arts. I still think of it the same way, but most people on PS do not hold that same opinion, and it's been so long since I've been able to read books and long forum posts without frustration that I've lost the motivation to roleplay as much or as well as I used to. I haven't actively pursued that kind of roleplay for a while.
I understand what Kaerli has written. (Now, at last, since I've only been able to check in here occasionally and somehow misread the entirety of the last page LOL.) When Kull had returned sometime last year and was causing trouble, I was excited to join in on his roleplays. However, the climate of the roleplay scene on PS did not allow him to play to his full potential, and he left because he felt unwelcome. I do not like how he was treated by some of the players here. Now, it is expected that you have full control of your characters, to the point that they can be possessed by stupidity incarnate, throw themselves into a death guaranteed, and then somehow emerge alive despite making every effort not to. Your characters may be physically damaged and mentally traumatized, but if that's all you're willing to do, that's boring.
Roleplay in Planeshift is lacking. It's lacking the gut instincts of fear and excitement. I miss having those moments where I think, "My character could die right now." Many of you will think I'm crazy for saying it, but you have no idea what you're missing.
Kaerli was OP as all hell get out, tho. Facts be facts.
-
I think what you are describing Volki, and correct me if I am mistaken, is where the characters are competitive, but the players are cooperative. Yes, you feel danger, you start to worry about what might happen to your character, but despite that, you do the right thing and play fairly anyway - even if it means that you are forced to watch your charcter suffer and burn.
I think that sort of excitement is awesome, but imho it only happens when you have ooc cooperation. It only happens when players play fairly. When they take their damage and do believable things. When doing this, sometimes you let things slide a little if you think it might contribute to the story. I might let your character pull off an incredible move at the expense of my character if I think it would be really awesome for your character to succeed in that move. In this case there is both attachment ( I want my character to succeed and win ) yet there is also detachment ( I am willing to do what is best for the story/rp even if it means losing to some extent )
When one or both players have a weird fetish for *winning* the conflict at any cost, when they put the advancement of their own character ahead of everything else, when they are willing to lie and cheat in order to *win*, these awesome things don't happen. You end up with a boring deadlock or else one player says screw it and lets the other win just so they can terminate the rp and go do something more interesting.
-
Why do you roleplay?
Roleplaying because it's fun. It's like a huge theater, where everyone has its roles and plays them in improvisation, and when we disconnect, it's like we're watching the movie of our play, thinking of how we can improve, what things will interest the public (the players)...
-
There's no winning in roleplay, as it always goes on and on and on. You might have defeated your opponent in the battle, but what's the point? There'll come another. And another after that.
In my eyes, you have to embrace the end of characters as loosing can be fun if you just open your eyes. The two most epic moments in PlaneShift I had was the end of two characters I at that point would have considered "main". I sat there in sheer amazement as the awesome rp unfolded that eventually lead to the end of those two. It was way better than a movie.
-
Roleplaying is inherently collaborative. It can only exist if both parties are willing to cooperate.
To broaden that question, and maybe get this thread back on track a little bit, I ask all roleplayers the simple, but burning question.
Why do you roleplay?
I picked and chose a little from your quote, Zalya, but I love it :)
That's really the key, and that's where I think OOCly if you adopt that chess-game strategy, you're not giving anyone a fair shot. Ever. Your character can fight to win, but if YOU are fighting to win, instead of playing to collaborate...well, other people have explained it far better than I can anyways :)
Thanks for keeping this thread going guys. It is so cool to see so many different opinions and thoughts and ideas put into the light!
Why do I roleplay?
I role-play to tell and be a part of stories. It is immensely satisfying to me to simply create a character and see what other people are doing. The most fun I have is when I get swept up in someone else's RP and get to peel those onion layers, find out something new, or just marvel at the mystery of what's going on.
@Donari: 2nded. I love it!
@Rigwyn: Lol ::)
-
I've seen you pull some things that completely defy reason in the past in order to avoid damage. I won't pull up old logs to prove what I'm saying, I don't think there's any need.... well, that and the old Outlaws site was been taken down a few years ago due to inactivity. :'( Anyway, I admit that I take damage too easily, but to me, standing there all day going blow for blow and constantly missing, blocking, causing teeny-tiny scratches, and hand-waving reasonable damage with illogical and unbelievable excuses is not my idea of letting the story progress or of being competitive for that matter. Perhaps this is something that Mishka, Phenha, Suno and Amso enjoy, perhaps they see this as epic and bad-ass or something. I really don't know. If they do, then that's fantastic; you have finally found your crowd. Maybe it's me - perhaps I don't really like combat RP all that much or I have a strange idea of what combat RP should be like.
At the same time -- you have to deal with the problem of expectancy -- if you are playing into your opponent's lap with what you're doing, you shouldn't expect to win. I will admit that I sometimes had a habit of overabstracting biomechanics out, though -- it's very easy to do when you've learned most of what you know about RPing fighting from RPing fighting.
-
Why do you roleplay?
I'd have to say that I RP for my characters. I enjoy the process of creating and designing a character, adding a strong level of depth and conflict to their current situation, and then beginning their current story to see what they're made of. It is for this reason I enjoy both writing and RPing. The difference between the two is that the latter isn't strictly controlled and decided on like the narrative of a story or novel would be - instead it is left to the world in which they're cast in, their chemistry with other played characters, and what other people do with their characters that involve your own. RP is very much its own art - it is the combination of writing, improvisation, and acting.
I've been doing it for seven years now, and I can say that the downside to RP overall is everyone having different tastes and the need for there to be enough people with close enough taste to agree on a storyline or RP. So what general writing has that RP doesn't is security in what you want, which is very important when you have something to say and a unique way of saying it, with the trade-off of the story having a sense of death once you publish it: it's like something in review, that had a beginning and an end.
At the end of the day, I find that both writing and RP compliment each other very well and I can't find myself giving RP up despite all of my qualms with getting things going with other people. People who RP extend themselves into their characters, which you are forced to interact with with your own characters, so it's as if you've got people presenting the things they hold dearest to themselves and we all put these feelings in the same space to see what happens, without too much restriction (at least in a narrative sense).
-
RPing fighting is a complex matter. It can be fun IF, and ONLY IF the player accepts the fails of the character. You can play competitive, but as soon as you don't assume that you made a fault, the RP is dead.
-
I think what you are describing Volki, and correct me if I am mistaken, is where the characters are competitive, but the players are cooperative. Yes, you feel danger, you start to worry about what might happen to your character, but despite that, you do the right thing and play fairly anyway - even if it means that you are forced to watch your charcter suffer and burn.
I think that sort of excitement is awesome, but imho it only happens when you have ooc cooperation. It only happens when players play fairly. When they take their damage and do believable things. When doing this, sometimes you let things slide a little if you think it might contribute to the story. I might let your character pull off an incredible move at the expense of my character if I think it would be really awesome for your character to succeed in that move. In this case there is both attachment ( I want my character to succeed and win ) yet there is also detachment ( I am willing to do what is best for the story/rp even if it means losing to some extent )
When one or both players have a weird fetish for *winning* the conflict at any cost, when they put the advancement of their own character ahead of everything else, when they are willing to lie and cheat in order to *win*, these awesome things don't happen. You end up with a boring deadlock or else one player says screw it and lets the other win just so they can terminate the rp and go do something more interesting.
It's not that I seek to win every last conflict any of my characters get into, or that I do not ever want to engage in cooperative play -- it's that I expect driven play. I expect cooperation and collaboration to be goal-oriented and focused, relying on disciplined communications and close sharing of mental models to the point where nothing happens without everyone "having the flick" about the task and the situation it is set in. Furthermore, without that drivenness, I really have no driving force to keep me invested in what my character is doing, or what the situation surrounding them is.
Kaerli's combat drivenness stems from that combining with a martially oriented character. I've tried combining that penchant for driven play with other character archetypes on many occasions; yet invariably, the result is a character that the community (or the Settings team sigh) seems unwilling or unable to accept. Why?
-
I've tried combining that penchant for driven play with other character archetypes on many occasions; yet invariably, the result is a character that the community (or the Settings team sigh) seems unwilling or unable to accept. Why?
Just for clarity, when I speak, I speak for myself, not for the settings team.
Regarding your question, is it possible that your idea of super-competitive play might be flawed? I'm not saying it is, but if *the community* as you put it, is saying that you are overly competitive at the ooc level, then maybe you might want to listen to what they are saying and consider the possibility that they might be right about this. Then again, it's entirely possible that *the community* is just wrong about it.
It's really hard to do combat based RP without running into some kind of friction. Either you run into someone overpowered, invulnerable, unrealistic, or someone who takes offense or whatever. For this reason, I now try to focus more on the story than on the combat. I can lose a fight and still tell a good story in the process. I would rather do that than win a fight and mess up the story in the process. That's just my own personal way of working though this problem.
-
I've tried combining that penchant for driven play with other character archetypes on many occasions; yet invariably, the result is a character that the community (or the Settings team sigh) seems unwilling or unable to accept. Why?
Just for clarity, when I speak, I speak for myself, not for the settings team.
Regarding your question, is it possible that your idea of super-competitive play might be flawed? I'm not saying it is, but if *the community* as you put it, is saying that you are overly competitive at the ooc level, then maybe you might want to listen to what they are saying and consider the possibility that they might be right about this. Then again, it's entirely possible that *the community* is just wrong about it.
It's really hard to do combat based RP without running into some kind of friction. Either you run into someone overpowered, invulnerable, unrealistic, or someone who takes offense or whatever. For this reason, I now try to focus more on the story than on the combat. I can lose a fight and still tell a good story in the process. I would rather do that than win a fight and mess up the story in the process. That's just my own personal way of working though this problem.
My point is that this drive is not just a problem for combat RP -- it interferes with my RP in many other ways as well. It turns my crafters into utter workaholics, forces victimhood on characters who are intended to be picked on, and basically renders my alts mostly unresponsive to people trying to distract them from their initial goals.
-
Why do people like Asmo, Suno, Phenha/Fuusan, and Mishka/Jocas have no trouble laying down damage on Kaerli? It's because they're going through the mental chess game to do so, instead of trying to OOCly bypass it.
I've tried combining that penchant for driven play with other character archetypes on many occasions; yet invariably, the result is a character that the community (or the Settings team sigh) seems unwilling or unable to accept. Why?
And what are Mishka, Asmo, Suno, and Phenha? Chopped liver?
If you are RP fighting with the settings team, you are doing something right. I can't get them to even spar with me.
-
Why do people like Asmo, Suno, Phenha/Fuusan, and Mishka/Jocas have no trouble laying down damage on Kaerli? It's because they're going through the mental chess game to do so, instead of trying to OOCly bypass it.
I've tried combining that penchant for driven play with other character archetypes on many occasions; yet invariably, the result is a character that the community (or the Settings team sigh) seems unwilling or unable to accept. Why?
And what are Mishka, Asmo, Suno, and Phenha? Chopped liver?
If you are RP fighting with the settings team, you are doing something right. I can't get them to even spar with me.
They're a small minority of the playerbase, to say the least.
Also: re the Settings team not accepting my characters -- this is a problem where I'm trying to worldbuild basically too far indepth for the Settings team to want to work with me on such things.
-
Let's move on from Kaerli's complains that we're not accepting/not playing the way He wants, and try a new topic!
Shan't beat the dead dog too long, eh?
How do we feel about reacting in unexpected manners?
-
I really wasn't sure if I wanted to broach this, and even now I'm not.
I will say this much, though: the schism between the communal–storytellers and the game–mechanoids is ridiculously silly. Kaerli wouldn't need to complain about unsupported playstyles if both sides embraced the other's perspectives on RP and designed PS accordingly. They aren't as oppositional as it seems to be thought by most of the people I see posting on this message board.
I won't say how it can be done, but it can, and quite simply, really.
Oh, and that's why I role-play: story-playing within a gameworld. Most of the time I don't get it to a satisfying intent, but that's the dream. O--)
Cheers. :flowers:
How do we feel about reacting in unexpected manners?
That's what GMs should be ready–for. If there isn't one, then either the game is or each player must contribute to that office.
Do you mean my personal opinion? Well, it depends on how thoroughly designed the scenario is. If it's done well, it can be either open or close, expandable or regulated. If not, i.e. something happens which can't be managed in the scenario, then if you deus ex machina a response you'd better be able to explain why the eagles came.
Not all unexpected events need be something which gives a player some advantage. They could be disasters that threaten everyone. If you sweep those types of problems away, the players might be relieved but you run the risk of kindergartening, which gets dull.
But we're talking about games that have no GM. In that case, it is very possible to have conflicting interests that must be resolved, and if you can't settle for an arbitrator then you exclude an entire class of players from your RP. Is that what you want?
Completely collaborative play isn't really play as I see it.
-
You bring up some very valid points :)
I was thinking more along the lines of not 'tried and true' responses.
Like someone tries to...idk...buy a character a drink. But instead of just cheerily going along with it, the character is offended and somehow it escalates into a bar fight.
Obviously this all needs to be IC, but do you see where I'm going? That all 'reactions' need not be atypical, even for a character? Someone brought it up to me that each character doesn't have just one way to react, but perhaps multiples. Do we explore those multiple ways?
-
Our real life actions and reactions are situational, why not the characters we play? Life situations are always in flux, and they have some effect on our behavior. So, perhaps your character is feeling stressed, or is just having a crummy day, or just decided to kick their drinking habit, or maybe all three, how will this effect their reaction to an offer for a drink?
-
Ah. Well, I honestly haven't been able to find anybody in the infrequent times that Gedundk is there, but the ones that I do are either
- Just busy or not interesting to Gedundk
- Don't seem to be involved enough to stir things about
As for that last one, I know that improv is more difficult that you'd think it would be, but still — I don't know. Gedundk is a kran, anyway, so that makes it more difficult to open up to other people. And here I thought playing an asexual would be so much simpler! :sweatdrop:
-
Playing a Kran can be super hard.
Mostly because when I see a kran, they're somebody's alt who's either powerleveling, or they're standing there with no description staring at nothing, then they log off.
Not to mention, yes, it is super hard to play a Kran with all of their natural traits.
-
Let's see... I want to touch on two things:
But we're talking about games that have no GM. In that case, it is very possible to have conflicting interests that must be resolved, and if you can't settle for an arbitrator then you exclude an entire class of players from your RP. Is that what you want?
Traditionally, the way many of us handled this decentralized play is when one player attempted to do something to another, then one who is acted upon decides if the action was successful and if so, how effective it was. The idea behind this is it eliminates the effects of god modding, but it requires honor. Without that honor, you run into problems. The most obvious problem in the case of god modding via invulnerability.
Dice can be used as an arbiter, but not everyone likes dice. I sometimes just discuss doing a die roll with the other player and go with it. Some players are more inclined to go with judgment or whatever.
The problem with using game mechanics to decide is that there's a huge disparity in stats among players - so much so that pairing players of such different stats makes no sense at all. We're talking gods and ants. Yes, you could make skill tiers but even that is hard to do fairly and that kills the fun of players randomly joining in if they notice that you are playing near them. What some of us do is to ignore stats completely and role play having some basic area of proficiency. Again, honor/trust is needed here. For a player who has an obsession with being overpowered, this does not work well.
When the majority of players play one way, and then another consistently tries to defy that system with a way that the majority of players disagree with, that player effectively excludes themselves via their choice to not adapt.
Re: Playing a Kran.
It's funny that Cairn said that playing a kran was hard. I made one or two attempts at it and found it to be rather awkward. I think the mistake that I made was playing into the strong, moronic stereotype. Also, krans look huge and powerful and like they are made of stone, but the settings and game mechanics kind of at odds with this.
-
Kran are only hard to play when your kran doesn't identify as male or female and you gotta use the kranouns all the time. ;D
One of my suggestions to making the unsociability of kran more interesting and interactive is to either force them into a situation with some sort of backstory (I've been sent here to do ___, ___ stole something from me and now I'm searching for them, my friend ___ is causing trouble and I should probably do something about it, etc). That, or take inspiration from antisocial behavioral disorders. Just partially though, since they're good natured or come from a place where they don't see the wrong in what they're doing. When you throw a certain cultural background into a melting pot like Hydlaa, there's going to be mixed reactions and it's great to focus on the bad reactions your character gets ICly, because that's where conflict grows from.
At the end of the day, with kran or any of the races for that matter, the amount you're able to do with your character comes from the amount you're able to interpret from established lore, rather than just taking it for face value and not deviating (...deviating reasonably).
-
Let's see... I want to touch on two things:
But we're talking about games that have no GM. In that case, it is very possible to have conflicting interests that must be resolved, and if you can't settle for an arbitrator then you exclude an entire class of players from your RP. Is that what you want?
Traditionally, the way many of us handled this decentralized play is when one player attempted to do something to another, then one who is acted upon decides if the action was successful and if so, how effective it was. The idea behind this is it eliminates the effects of god modding, but it requires honor. Without that honor, you run into problems. The most obvious problem in the case of god modding via invulnerability.
Dice can be used as an arbiter, but not everyone likes dice. I sometimes just discuss doing a die roll with the other player and go with it. Some players are more inclined to go with judgment or whatever.
The problem with using game mechanics to decide is that there's a huge disparity in stats among players - so much so that pairing players of such different stats makes no sense at all. We're talking gods and ants. Yes, you could make skill tiers but even that is hard to do fairly and that kills the fun of players randomly joining in if they notice that you are playing near them. What some of us do is to ignore stats completely and role play having some basic area of proficiency. Again, honor/trust is needed here. For a player who has an obsession with being overpowered, this does not work well.
When the majority of players play one way, and then another consistently tries to defy that system with a way that the majority of players disagree with, that player effectively excludes themselves via their choice to not adapt.
Re: Playing a Kran.
It's funny that Cairn said that playing a kran was hard. I made one or two attempts at it and found it to be rather awkward. I think the mistake that I made was playing into the strong, moronic stereotype. Also, krans look huge and powerful and like they are made of stone, but the settings and game mechanics kind of at odds with this.
To which I ask one question: is that power disparity something that is, or should be for that matter, in-character observable?
Because that seems to be the crux of our problems -- I play Kaerli as powerful as she is partly because to do otherwise would contradict her observed abilities in the game mechanics (i.e. that power disparity is observable/IC because the mechanics are the only data provider). However, most RPers seem to ignore the magnitude of that power disparity in favor of some notion of "believability", as if said power disparity was an OOC artifact slated to go away completely as soon™ as the game is rebalanced properly (which will likely require a top-to-bottom overhaul of skills and stats, but that's a topic I've already broached in another thread). Or in other words -- should the ability of some characters to do things like slay Ulbers in (armored) hand-to-hand be treated as a legitimate in-character capability, or something that's simply an artifact of the game?
Ignoring stats and skills altogether, of course, raises the spectre of mob interference/lack of hunting capability as a problem, as well...(while some characters are in metagame positions where they can hunt and defend themselves from aggressive mobs effectively without having highly developed stats/skills, this is by no means universal, and isn't going to be impacted positively by whatever balance changes come down the pike, because vertical balancing doesn't give you the opportunity to fix the problems that ail PS' combat system)
Kran are only hard to play when your kran doesn't identify as male or female and you gotta use the kranouns all the time. ;D
One of my suggestions to making the unsociability of kran more interesting and interactive is to either force them into a situation with some sort of backstory (I've been sent here to do ___, ___ stole something from me and now I'm searching for them, my friend ___ is causing trouble and I should probably do something about it, etc). That, or take inspiration from antisocial behavioral disorders. Just partially though, since they're good natured or come from a place where they don't see the wrong in what they're doing. When you throw a certain cultural background into a melting pot like Hydlaa, there's going to be mixed reactions and it's great to focus on the bad reactions your character gets ICly, because that's where conflict grows from.
At the end of the day, with kran or any of the races for that matter, the amount you're able to do with your character comes from the amount you're able to interpret from established lore, rather than just taking it for face value and not deviating (...deviating reasonably).
The lore could do with a major overhaul and restructuring -- whoever thinks that the lore of a sandbox world should be told in the form of stories should be dropped on their head a few times to reboot it. More precisely, the PS lore, in addition to not being well-fleshed-out (which is a different story), is not designed to be referenceable...there is still far too much that is only spoken of in quests, which doesn't work for a game that really should be centered around interactions between player characters.
-
To which I ask one question: is that power disparity something that is, or should be for that matter, in-character observable?
It's fine to have some disparity, but when there is too much, the game becomes unbalanced.
-
Let's move on:
Thought: Alts kill guilds
/?
-
How so? Are you talking about people metagaming with alts for a competitive or manipulative advantage or more the dilution that seems to occur when you have a guild consisting of 30 characters and 2 players?
-
or, new guild with cool premise is formed, everyone creates an alt specifically for that guild, no one ever plays their alt.
-
For me, a character is a character whether its one you play more often or less often. I think that if you trust the player, then it doesn't matter how many guilds their characters are in.
-
but if no characters in a guild are ever online, the guild is effectively dead. even if a main joins a guild only to realize that no other guild members are ever present, they probs won't stay in that guild too long.
-
Since the thread's taken a turn to guilds- long ago, after the diaspora- I suggested that all Guilds be secondary to factions- which are earned by character's actions in game. There are far fewer factions, and that way alliances and buddies and people who are interested in what your char is interested in are more easily found and rped with. instead of the Guild banner in the /who list, it could be the associations/factions "Seeds of Wildwood", "Bakers Association of Yliakum" etc.
And when newcomers join, they could be met by a 'welcome wagon' kind of association who's 'guild' or faction mission is to help new people out. But, well, ownership... resistance to change... recalcitrance... etc ... I don't remember that proposal being seriously discussed.
The current system isn't working, doesn't enhance character development or rp or immersion, and only works to separate not to provide unifying processes...
like other things do in PS...
But then, well, who am I?
-
You're turning into a troll or a gremlin or something, Roled. :p
Seriously though, in this example, would a guild be obligated to be aligned to an existing faction? Would it be more akin to a sub-faction? I ask because I wonder if that might cause a problem for those who want a guild that is unrelated to any of the in-game factions.
Back when there were lots of players, guilds made sense, but now with only a handful of players, it doesn't really help if everyone is in their own guild. It's kind of like taking a fist full of M&Ms and sorting them into separate Tuppeware containers by color. >.> ( with lids and everything )
-
so many guilds are formed with premises that don't fit the factions, and limiting guilds to the premises of the factions is, well, limiting. also, you gain faction points through questing, which is dumb. so if one very wisely chooses not to quest, then they end up factionless, regardless of their RP behavior.
-
I'll go ahead and answer my own question a bit too.
But firstly, yeah, I don't like the whole factions idea. While it is IC, it doesn't offer much player-control, which is part of what makes Yliakum great.
The main thing I have with having alts in guilds is the concept of alts in the first place (which is for me, a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. I have been renowned for having several alts before >.>) but having had several alts, I also know that I don't play them all very regularly. I think the best players in PlaneShift are able to devote their time to one or two characters, and have a few bit players. To be a good roleplayer that contributes to a guild, I think you have to be more than a bit player: you need to be a fully fleshed character.
Not only do alts kill guilds, but they can degrade the game, too. If players get attached to your alts and you don't have the time to play them, you're putting people off and killing 'threads' of RP. Why? Because people get disinterested and move on when you can't dedicate time to involving them or being involved with them.
Idk. I've tried to get it down to where I play one character constantly (or have been, with Wulfar - I think it's getting time for him to move on and I'll play someone else), and maybe one-two alts (Lyla atm), with a few bit characters that I can bring on for an as-needed-only basis. That way, whoever gets a hold of me, be it for a guild or just general RP can have my undivided attention.
There are people who multitask better than others, granted. But I find that if you spend so much time bouncing ideas into alts, you lose a lot of what makes having a main special: truly fleshing it out, truly making it special, and truly being involved on a much more than superficial level with PlaneShift and its players.