RP reason and possibly animation for log in/out

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Merak
Quickly, for PvP, I regret that abuses have made that open PvP is prevented.  Even if most of it has neither RP nor IC motivation, I do not condemn all PvP from the start: natural PvP would have been a great thing without abuses.

Without abusers, it would be fine, obviously. However, There likely is a difference in the definition of \"abuse\". I, for one, define non-RP backed PvP as abuse (except in comparatively rare circumstances like tournaments, etc.), while you obviously don\'t. Reason: when I RP, I don\'t want some OOC PvPer to attack me, even if it weren\'t for griefing per say.

Originally posted by Merak
I understand you way to play.  Especially, if an explanation is found, I do not want it to be applied for all the cases (player must be able play that they are tired and go back home, or anything else).  It is just to have an ingame justification for this very frequent phenomenon.  To be obliged to think that the player is out for lunch, has a fragile modem or has not pay is Internet provider this month is cumbersome for me.  It reminds me that PS is not a world, but a mere game.  It breaks my investment in my character.

I see your reasoning. However, I still think that declaring the vanishing as part of the world would damage RP more than it would help immersion.

Originally posted by Merak
For your spy-behind-a-bush anecdote, I wouldn\'t have told him something (that\'s his problem, as he\'s the follower), except if this has been mandatory to the RP.

We seem to have dramatically different views on RP. I definitely don\'t count technical difficulties as \"their problem\", because that would mean that RL would influence their, and thereby my, RP. Therefore the effect of any sort of RL needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum extent possible. It is quite common, for example, that the /say range doesn\'t suffice for an otherwise realistic RP. Say you\'re sitting in an empty pub, while at the bar two people are talking. Due to /say range, you wouldn\'t hear them, while IRL you easily could. So it is common to just walk there and state that IC-ly you\'re still at your table but you need to hear. Same for spies. It\'s countering the technological limitations of PS to make RP more independant from RL. My take on RP is that we play with each other, even when our chars are enemies, and therefore difficulties of RL are everyone\'s problem, not that of a single player.

Originally posted by Merak
About the fool\'s day, how can you say that there haven\'t been a mutation?  This justification was fun and realistic; \"devs hanged a fish on your back, and inverted 3D-models\" wouldn\'t have been.
About the \"realistic\" adjective I use, I mean \"plausible in PS world\".  In this age of wizardry, how can you know what happened to you on that day, and the Crystal radiation eruption hypothesis breaks your RP?

Yes, it would be possible to have this in PS, I don\'t deny that. After all, it was formulated to look plausible, because otherwise noone would have fallen for it. There is no contradiction from within the setting that could serve to rule out the possibility.
However, that is not the point. The real point is that it quite clearly was not meant as being IC, nor part of the setting. I am perfectly sure of that, because if it were, then
1) the effect would indeed have lasted for a month, and then swap to yet another species, etc., as the news item also declared
2) it would have been put into the setting, instead of being left only on the news page

Therefore it cannot have been meant to be part of the setting, and thus not IC.

Therefore, by trying to RP something that is not inside the setting, the validity of the RP is voided, and thus it does break my RP, especially because if I were to RP that with you, I would implicitely accept that this did happen IC-ly, and therefore be subsequently forced to RP that same thing, because it would be a global effect, meaning that my own RP would also be invalidated beyond RPing with someone whose RP isn\'t valid.

Originally posted by Merak
Also, the /tell command is for me a certain kind of telepathy that people in Yliakum can use (with moderation) when they have met someone before, some kind of persistent link between you and your relaives.

I have had a discussion about /tell in RP on another thread already, and I am 100%-ly against it. A brief summary is that if it indeed were that way, then it would, due to the extreme consequences on society and life in general, necessarily be mentioned in the setting. However, the setting doesn\'t talk about any such thing, so it can\'t be part of the world, and thus must not be used in RP, because RP that doesn\'t adhere to the boundaries of the setting ceases to be RP.
Another hint is that magic works quite differently, so there can\'t be such a completely different thing as universal, unlimited and instant telepathy.

Originally posted by Merak
For disparition/apparition explanation, your analysis of consequences is wise, but you sound yoo much catastrophic for consequences on the society.  Yliakum is already submitted to players (and monsters) appearing randomly anywhere (yesterday, I appeared suddenly on a groffel, in the middle of a ring of people ).

Yes, it is, but why? Only because it is forced upon it by RL. In fact, that is more a reason why it cannot be IC: there are absolutely none of the consequences I listed, not even slightly, to be found. The economy and social model works exactly like the RL one, which would be impossible if it was IC.
Also, has there been any effect on your char? No, there hasn\'t, you didn\'t melt to the Groffel, none of you lost even a single HP. So quite obviously there never was any sort of two things in one place, not IC-ly, neither by the game mechanics.
Therefore the disapparation effect can only be OOC, and not meant to be taken as IC.
IOW: the catastrophic consequences didn\'t happen because the cause for them doesn\'t exist.

Originally posted by Merak
So, as this phenomenon exist, and neither Knowledge Seekers nor Xachas explained it yet.  Society already copes with it.

On the contrary: society doesn\'t cope with it at all, because the effect doesn\'t exist in the game world. In order to cope with the effect, society would have to sport at least some specialities that differ quite obviously from RL societies, even if one assumes that the implications aren\'t nearly as severe as I think they would be.

Originally posted by Merak
For people dying poppin up in the wrong place (the former platform of demolished tower), they have a little chance to appear in Death Realm ... (\"Little chance\" because fanatics never go there, it seems ... )

There would be no point of putting NPCs into the DR when they die. The character wouldn\'t know if they did, anyway, and since it is, from an RP POV extremely hard and rare to actually get back out of the DR, noone can just check on it. Maybe a few highly powerful mages of the Dark Way, and from an RP POV, they would see no difference between NPCs and PCs.

Originally posted by Merak
At last, I would like to quote you, because I do like your sentence:
RL must never dictate what I am to RP, because one of the most important and valuable features of RP is that it allows you to bypass the RL limitations.
I fully agree, without ulterior motive.

Glad you agree, but wouldn\'t dragging RL into RP by trying to explain logoffs within RP represent RL changing what everyone RPs?
(I do realise that there is at least one point in PS that is already doing that, but it\'s comparatively minor in it\'s effect and consequences, while the reason for it is similarly hard to remove as logoffs.)
Yes, you can RP something different if you wish, but it would nontheless apply only to very few incidents: those that you witness within /say range. It would also mean that you would need to adopt that for crashes, even if that player always RPs some other reason for leaving, so it would force itself onto that player.

[Merak]

Originally posted by Seytra
We seem to have dramatically different views on RP...

) Indeed.  I think I\'m closer of Nikodemus\'s way of thinking.  A fine thing with PS is that everyone has his own perception of the world, and its own way to complete lacuna of implementation ...

My RP attitude consists in forgetting real world, and considering Yliakum as the only reality while I am ingame.  I consider the world is as I perceive it, and to interpret and understand ICly all what I see and feel.  Popping up and off, telepathy, mutation-week, why the gates of Akkio stay closed and why we cannot get to other levels (I\'ve heard rumours of epidemy... Haven\'t you ).
My only inventions are about
 - my background,
 - my clothes, appearance and moves,
 - to justify a log in/off by a normal attitude (I\'m tired, bye-bye!)
 - to invent a more complex interaction with NPC ...
 - to RP a capacity once I\'ve learnt it from a NPC (ex: find traps, melee and climb).

You RP-way seems fine to me, and I belive mine won\'t hinder you if we mee ingame.

About the setting as it is explained in manual, I  don\'t consider it as a complete reference about all PS world, but outlines of the world required by the player to understand the world and play correctly.  A manual is heavy to keep updated, and will not explain everything (else there wouldn\'t be much fun to play in a world without surprise and discoveries).  Two samples are the message of the day which has been a \"big wipe warning\" long after the big wipe occured, and the groffels that I haven\'t found in manual whereas many are scampering around ...

Also, I haven\'t meet any historian in Hyplaa, and very rare phenomenon as mutation week (or comets in our world) are certainly unexpectable and ununderstandable without History to remember them.

The economy and social model works exactly like the RL one, which would be impossible if it was IC.[...]
IOW: the catastrophic consequences didn\'t happen because the cause for them doesn\'t exist.

You looks like a friend of mine who had argued for half an hour that the consequences of a specific spell could not be those, because this was against laws of physics.  What he had forgotten was that magic defines things that (among other things) do not obey to physics.
If something is impossible in RL, it does not mean that it has to be impossible in PS too (and vice-versa).
I don\'t know why catastrophic consequences didn\'t occured when I appeared. perhaps someone will explain this someday. I\'m glad of it for the groffel and me, that\'s all.

I think it is more interesting to see how things will evolve with special features of PS (and that do not exist in RL, as magic, telepathy, groffels, etc.).
Efforts to coerce economy (for example) to look realistic according to our RL-experience is in my opinion a perverted way to create economy in PS world.  I do not know how it will evolve, but it will be very interesting.

But wouldn\'t dragging RL into RP by trying to explain logoffs within RP represent RL changing what everyone RPs?... Yes, you can RP something different if you wish, but it would nontheless apply only to very few incidents: those that you witness within /say range. It would also mean that you would need to adopt that for crashes, even if that player always RPs some other reason for leaving, so it would force itself onto that player.

I don\'t think that an explanation would modify the way people RP their vanishing.  And I don\'t want to force player to use this explanation.  Again, it will be used only for unexplainable cases, so when you are too far for the /say and you don\'t know the character.

But let\'s forget this \"official explanation request\".  Let\'s anyone have his own explanation, and perhaps rumours transmitted by word of mouth will create an onofficial one (natural dynamics of PS !)

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Merak

Originally posted by Seytra
We seem to have dramatically different views on RP...

A fine thing with PS is that everyone has his own perception of the world, and its own way to complete lacuna of implementation ...

Within limits, yes.

Originally posted by Merak
My RP attitude consists in forgetting real world, and considering Yliakum as the only reality while I am ingame.  I consider the world is as I perceive it, and to interpret and understand ICly all what I see and feel.  Popping up and off, telepathy, mutation-week, why the gates of Akkio stay closed and why we cannot get to other levels (I\'ve heard rumours of epidemy... Haven\'t you ).

Well, mine is to create an in-depth understanding of how the PS world is supposed to be, thereby creating a mental model of the world and it\'s workings, based on the official documents only, filling in the gaps and removing ambigueties / contradictions by using the unambigous parts as reference, interpolating from there, using RL as sanity check, and to use RL as-is when there is nothing to be interpolated from. Then I compare the current implementation to that and see what of it matches up with the official documents, what can be reasonably assumed to not need to be mentioned in them (due to it either being exactly like IRL or having only very minor, localised consequences), adding it to the model, and what would have to be mentioned in order to exist but isn\'t, leaving it out of the model (like the contents of the char creation).

Thus, I take everything that cannot exist within the model as being completely OOC, and completely disregard it for RP purposes.
Example: people popping up, running through the tavern and then vanishing. These people simply don\'t exist IC-ly.

People, actions, etc. only start being IC when the player clearly entered an RP session, usually by /me-ing, or acting / talking in an RP fashion for an extended time. However, the RP still is subject to continous sanity checking, and when it runs out of the setting, I stop treating it as RP and retroactively purge it from my char\'s experiences.
Example: someone talking about angels and other things that don\'t exist in PS.

Originally posted by Merak
About the setting as it is explained in manual, I  don\'t consider it as a complete reference about all PS world, but outlines of the world required by the player to understand the world and play correctly.  A manual is heavy to keep updated, and will not explain everything (else there wouldn\'t be much fun to play in a world without surprise and discoveries).  Two samples are the message of the day which has been a \"big wipe warning\" long after the big wipe occured, and the groffels that I haven\'t found in manual whereas many are scampering around ...

I consider the website the only reference. All major things that were intended to exist in PS will have found their way there, because it\'s the project\'s description and vision. It is hard to maintain, and minor changes and everyday things that are more or less common sense don\'t need to be in it.
Things that are ingame are not part of the setting unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, like the books in the library and the NPC talk. The latter doesn\'t usually have major consequences on the overall world, anyway, like Ojaveda being sealed off for the \"quarantine\" (Though I would much prefer to RP that it\'s not closed off, because that\'s just there to explain the lack of implementation, which I think isn\'t only not necessary, but bad).

Originally posted by Merak
Also, I haven\'t meet any historian in Hyplaa, and very rare phenomenon as mutation week (or comets in our world) are certainly unexpectable and ununderstandable without History to remember them.

This is mixing IC with OOC here AFAICS. The fact that you have not met a historian in PS definitely does not mean that there are none. In fact, it is absolutely certain that there are several, because it is completely natural, unless the setting states that for some reason people don\'t like talking about the past, which it doesn\'t.

Originally posted by Merak
You looks like a friend of mine who had argued for half an hour that the consequences of a specific spell could not be those, because this was against laws of physics.  What he had forgotten was that magic defines things that (among other things) do not obey to physics.
If something is impossible in RL, it does not mean that it has to be impossible in PS too (and vice-versa).

This holds true only for magic, and even there not completely. The fact that there is magic does not mean that \"anything goes\". Likewise, the fantasy genre of PS can\'t be used to explain that.
Once the setting, including magic, has been defined, then that becomes natural laws, which are just as fundamental as the ones IRL.
So a spell can defy laws of physics, but it\'s effects cannot.
Example: a fireball can be cast (making a burning substance appear out of nowhere, not burning the caster and then fly in a controlled fashion towards a target). However, after it has impacted, it sets normal things on fire, and this fire then obeys the normal, quite RL, laws of physics just like fire created any other way.
IOW RL laws of physics are in charge unless the settings explicietly defines that they are not. When there is lack of definition by the settings, and also there is no hard circumstancial evidence to force implication of it, then it must be assumed that RL physics apply. It\'s the only way it can work, since otherwise the setting would need to state that there is gravity, light, cells, etc, pp.. And because that is completely impossible and highly redundant, only differences must be stated, and where none is stated, there is none.

Example of explicitely stated difference:
Spell \"freeze\". IRL, it isn\'t possible to create cold. By magic it is.

Example of implied difference:
Clackers being able to live. IRL, an insect of that size can\'t live because the insects\' respiration system and exoskeleton don\'t scale.

Example of invalid difference:
Rogues being incapable of doing their \"job\" and instead standing in one place all day.

Originally posted by Merak
I think it is more interesting to see how things will evolve with special features of PS (and that do not exist in RL, as magic, telepathy, groffels, etc.).

Yes, but nontheless these cannot be made up by players, and instead must come from the official dev team, simply because otherwise hundreds of conflicting versions would float around, of which, at best, one will end up being valid, and most likely none.
Players can use the wishlist to give options to the devs, but anything that has major or global effects cannot be RPd unless it has been officially adopted.

Originally posted by Merak
Efforts to coerce economy (for example) to look realistic according to our RL-experience is in my opinion a perverted way to create economy in PS world.  I do not know how it will evolve, but it will be very interesting.

It has to, in fact, because the mindset of the ingame population is the exact same as IRL. There is money, there are merchants, there are guards, there is fighting, etc., pp.. This means that the outcome of the economy can only be highly similar if not identical to the RL economy. IRL, economies in every part of the world, and be it completely separated from the rest, did evolve into exactly the same system. Even the idea of communism has, once implemented, devolved into the same basic system: the official definition and model had no resemblance of the actual workings. Therefore changes in the basis of the system will necessarily result in the exact same changes of the system both IRL and ingame.

Originally posted by Merak
I don\'t think that an explanation would modify the way people RP their vanishing.  And I don\'t want to force player to use this explanation.  Again, it will be used only for unexplainable cases, so when you are too far for the /say and you don\'t know the character.

OK, but these cases would still likely not fit the intent. Example:
You see me log off in the distance. You assume that I have been vanished by the crystal or something to that effect.
However, I have not RP\'d my exit, but instead OOC-ly agreed with all involved factions to postpone the remaining RP, so IC-ly, I did not even move, let alone vanish.
Now, the next day, our chars get to know each other, and your char mentions having seen me vanish. This may also go via several others, by you telling someone that you\'ve seen me before I vanished and wish to know where I got that sword or whatnot.
Now the differences of RP clash.

Originally posted by Merak
But let\'s forget this \"official explanation request\".  Let\'s anyone have his own explanation, and perhaps rumours transmitted by word of mouth will create an onofficial one (natural dynamics of PS !)

Aye, that would at least make it possible to ignore differences in the interpretation when they clash.
My take on these things is to simply never mention it IC-ly. That way RP can more easily remain valid because differences don\'t show up.

[Merak]

For me, you have a too strong belief in the ability of your real life knowledge to fill the gaps of PS.  Even if things will probably run as you say for economy, it is not valid for every thing.
Especially, for magic, you cannot resume any spell to an impossible phenomenon with RL physics consequences.  Even if this definition may work with Flames Burst, it is hard to apply it to Rock Armor (rocks covering your body, but that don\'t weight anything and that don\'t hinder you).

For the case where I see you disappearing when you postpone your RP, when I will speak with you, I will understand that I misunderstood, I may have seen your double, and we both are able to readjust and to forget previous words ...

Nonetheless these cannot be made up by players, and instead must come from the official dev team, simply because otherwise hundreds of conflicting versions would float around, of which, at best, one will end up being valid, and most likely none.

That\'s already like that in RL, for everything we do not understand (god, war, men/women relationship, the best way to raise a child, etc).  If PS is a living world, I don\'t expect it to be different on this point, not because it is like that in RL, but because we are behind the keyboard.  You do not have to fear versions of others and they do not fear yours: you may be convinced by their interpretation, and they by yours.

As long as actions, RP and interpretations remain close to ingame objective facts, there shouldn\'t very bad clashes.

[Hadfael]

What does this thread show?
That even roleplayers are not playing the same game.
@Seytra: You are playing a text based RPG based on the settings as they are written in the website.
You ignore every implementation of it since it is only a tecnical solution (therefore OOC). and I agree with Nikodemus when he talks about \"pretending\" when you talk about RPing.
Pretending that people don\'t disapear in the middle of a conversation or a fight is negating that the conversation ever occured. And continuing this conversation as if the disconnection never occured when the other relogs is negating every event that occured inbetween, just because the crash was OOC. You char only exists when you are online. But PS is a persistent world. Pretending nothing happened while you where offline yourself in denying all the actions of other players made in your offline time.
If you play PS like a Pen&paper there is no need for devs to add any line of code. All you need is a DM and a group of friends meeting together to RP actions in the settings. You can RP according to the settings and ignore its implentations since they are OOC. Or you can simply wait for a return of /rollstat do use the stats of your char to RP according to the settings using your char stats.
Nothing is the settings states that you can not shop down a tree with an axe. and you can roleplay it. But you will be forced to deny to the others the fact that they see the tree still at the same place just because the way trees are implemented is OOC. Blow all the candles at Kada\'s and deny the OOC fact that others are not in the darkness. I am not saying that it would not be roleplaying. But PS is not pen and paper. There is no DM to deal with your RL emergencies and adapt the world to reflect your actions. The world still exists for others. In the way it was defined in the settings, right. But also as it is implemented.
You play the PS settings, we talk about playing the computer RPG.
The question about disapearing people is valid in this context. You say that it is a workaround to preserve immersion from interferences. This is true. But ignoring what is implemented in the name of not realism but consistency with the background is a constant use of workarounds. when the settings don\'t provide an answer you ignore what happened and \"pretent\" nothing happened. DR is part of the settings, so it is fine. login in/off is not mentioned, therefore you pretend it does not exist. It is roleplaying, but not in a persistant world that you share with other people.
And there is a risk in your way to RP. You not only deny the mecanics of the implementations but also the IC lives of other players. You play among them but not always with them. You decide who is part of you galme and who is not.
It is roleplaying to use a candle to set the whole wooden structure of the tavern on fire. You will then have to ignore everyone roleplaying that they have a drink until someone roleplayed rebuilding it. Or you will have to search for a workaround...a guard came in to stop you...then you will have to deny that someone was training with that same guard.
PS is not only an imaginary world based on the settings designed for small groups of players to RP on their own when they meet. The world exist while you are offline and exists for others as they see it.

[Nilrem]

While this thread started with a suggestion of implementing an animation for logging of, it turned in a nice exchanging of how roleplaying is viewed. Perhaps its place should be General Discussion, then (I haven\'t spotted it earlier since I hardly visit the wishlist section, and I\'ve to say it advance that I haven\'t read it all thoroughfully)

That roleplayers have, each own, a different vision about certain things, it\'s a fact. Still, there should be no problem at all, since, as human beings, we all are minded beings, that allows us to see, analize, and decide, under our own criteria, what fits mosts with our believings, and when roleplaying with another person, that has a different vision about a certain topic, we should be mature enough to deal with that subject with enough care as to not destroy the other (and ours) fun. Even reached a point, I\'d agree that, if that proves to not work, even avoid any reference to the topic.

So, in certain conditions, what here is called pretending that something never happened, isn\'t so, since that never happened. When someone dissapears in the middle of a conversation without having warned previously oocly?
I can think of several answers:
a) That person entered in a place, then crashed, but his 3d model went on running, so there was the chance that another person, when seeing him, could have greeted him.
b) That person was roleplaying with another/s, and had a crash.
c) That person was roleplaying with another/s, and left without warn.
d) You enter a room, and precisely at that moment, that other player logs off, and you see his char \"dissapearing\".

As for a) then indeed, that person never entered the place, so your greet, eventually didn\'t ever took place. (You call it pretending, while it\'s simply avoiding a game flaw to affect your roleplay. Most likely that person will relog again, and reenter the same place again, so things can be, then, roleplayed normally, if no crashes happen again. Just imagine the situation of him arriving at the place, and you, obviously amazed, asking him how he did dissapear previously. Most likely, that players intention wasn\'t making his char dissapear, he simply experienced a crash, and you\'re forcing him to roleplay something that he has never done, simply because you state that you\'ve \"seen\" it.)

As for b) in that case, normally the common agreement is wait for that person, it\'s a matter of decency. One day you\'ll crash too, and you\'d like others involved in the rp to have wait for you. If the person doesn\'t relog, then it\'s on the rest of the rp group to decide how to react, and again, they most commonly decide for the most neutral and unaffecting thing that harms the less possible their own going roleplay. Knowing the other\'s char personality, or even the one that the player behind has, can help to decide the group for a \"natural\" action, that doesn\'t break completely the atmosphere. Simply some time will be lost, commenting, and agreeing with the rest of partners, how to act.

As for c) then that person lacked on politeness. There has to be a warn when someone\'s going to log off. I, personally, try to always state it in an ooc sentence that I will log of, and, even more, to avoid this confusion, that certain players seem to want to have, with dissapearing characters, after having stated oocly that I\'ll log off, I try to find a reason for my char to walk away (it\'s late, things to do, or embarassing situation...) and then log off. Although it can be a bit tricky to have to find always an explanation of why the char\'s leaving, and even sometimes I\'d like him to stay there, I prefer doing that, and avoid any further complications dealing with dissapearances or things like those.

As for d) most commonly that person didn\'t see you. It has no sense to roleplay that you\'re seeing people dissapearing simply because people is logging off. In that case, I think the more reflexive way of acting, is simply ignoring that \"dissapearance\". Please, observe that, the alternative to make the char dissapear when someone logs off, would be letting the 3d model stucked there (to avoid those \"dissapearings\") and that would even lead to more twisted tries of roleplaying what should not be ever roleplayed. Again, common sense is always the best ally to know how to act, what to take, in one\'s rp.

As for a char only existing when the players online. Ahhhh timing. Timing\'s indeed very (imo) hard to play with, I myself let people decide about it. Implementing timing officially would be, imo, an error. Simply because it would lead to that problem you\'re pointing out. While time should be passing unstoppably, no matter if you log on or not in the game, fact is, that characters have a limited expected life time, each one depending on the race, and a player has not to be harassed with that, when he either can\'t or simply doesn\'t want to play the game, as his/her char will become elder without being able to be played due to RL issues or decisions. IOW, a player should be able to live his/her own char as long as he/she considers it. The other alternative could be an individual time counter that stops and continues when you log off/in, but that would lead to timing incongruences (some characters becoming elder at very higher ratios than others of the same race) and even could lead to a very restrictive use of the game (since I don\'t want to waste char living time, I\'d find other ways, to agree with my most known ones to enter the game at certain remarked dates, so I\'m sure that, whenever I log in, I\'d find, surely, something pleasant to do) so, once again, the best choice is to rely in each one\'s mind to sort out this kind of problems.

About chopping the tree and things like that. When you\'re in a group, and someone says that he chops a tree, and there\'s roleplay behind that, then, for the rest of the group, the tree is automatically chopped. For the same reason that, if you\'re roleplaying, and, important part, I know that you\'re (that isn\'t always easy) and you say that you have a sword in your hand, I don\'t need to see a sword, to assume that you indeed have one. For the same reason that I won\'t claim someone that says he/she\'s a tailor to show me the (\"real\") tools that\'s using. You\'ve the power to decide what your char is, despite the game limitations (that is, if a job isn\'t implemented, that doesn\'t mean that you can\'t be someone that practices it) same applies for the candles, if someone blows the candle, and again, it\'s accepted as the group as a roleplayed action, then that candle isn\'t lighting anymore.
I see your point, still, in the fact that, when that group leaves the tavern, and another reenters it, they\'ll see the candle lighting (as there\'s no feature to denote that someone blew it) so, they, not having the information will assume that the candle is lighted on. However, the fact that they don\'t have that information, doesn\'t deny the fact that, when the roleplaying action took place (with the previous, now gone, group) that candle was indeed not lighting; if this second group assumes the candle lighted, it isn\'t to deny or depreciate the former group actions, but a merely lack of information, due to game mechanics.

About the example of the guard, while the fact of someone firing Kada Els is a bit extreme imo, I seem to spot what you try to mean. Indeed someone can say that a guard came, and helped to extinguish the fire. However, your flaw is in assuming that the fire that came in, has to be one of the \"official\" NPC guards, which is, by all means, uncertain. There are more guards than the official ones.
While for instance, now there\'s only one library in the \"implemented\" Yliakum, I roleplay that there are more, and I don\'t think I\'m taking any risk in it, as I think that chances are that, even in Hydlaa alone, there is more than one simple library; don\'t let that things that aren\'t yet implemented (or perhaps never will) encorset your sight.

As for the statement about PS being designed for a small group, I\'d like to think not, everyone should be welcomed to roleplay, I think the more roleplayers we have, and the more diverse they\'re in their conceptions, the more we\'re enriching this universe.

PS: I personally don\'t think that characters cease to exist when they log off for some period of time, simply I haven\'t met them. And as for the Death Realm, well, even if it forms part of the setting, there\'s, I think, a nice diversity of opinions and choices on how it should be roleplayed. That for another time

[Hadfael]

Originally posted by Nilrem
...
About chopping the tree and things like that. When you\'re in a group, and someone says that he chops a tree, and there\'s roleplay behind that, then, for the rest of the group, the tree is automatically chopped.
...
same applies for the candles, if someone blows the candle, and again, it\'s accepted as the group as a roleplayed action, then that candle isn\'t lighting anymore.
I see your point, still, in the fact that, when that group leaves the tavern, and another reenters it, they\'ll see the candle lighting (as there\'s no feature to denote that someone blew it) so, they, not having the information will assume that the candle is lighted on. However, the fact that they don\'t have that information, doesn\'t deny the fact that, when the roleplaying action took place (with the previous, now gone, group) that candle was indeed not lighting; if this second group assumes the candle lighted, it isn\'t to deny or depreciate the former group actions, but a merely lack of information, due to game mechanics.
...
As for the statement about PS being designed for a small group, I\'d like to think not, everyone should be welcomed to roleplay, I think the more roleplayers we have, and the more diverse they\'re in their conceptions, the more we\'re enriching this universe.
...

I hope that you see the contradiction between your exemples and your conclusion.
You speak of separate groups of roleplayers not sharing the world but splitting it. Each group playing his own game according to its imagination. This is possible in pen&Paper where all the people who played with the background and rules of D&D were able to play the same game. But they did not play together. Only small separated groups.
This is the risk I was talking about. Separate groups of RPers, living in separate instances of the world and denying or ignoring the others.

[Seytra]

@ Golmir: This is, indeed, the common and normal way things happen. However, albeit counterintuitive, it does in reality not pose problems, for the reason Nilrem has mentioned: people can think and they, knowing they are RPing together and not against each other, will find a way to make their RP fit together when they decide that it is a good idea to RP together.

The one thing that needs constant adjustment is, as Nilrem stated, time linearity. Due to all the issues listed, it is commonplace that insertions and even reorderings of events are performed within individual char\'s or even groups of char\'s experiences. Every player then rearranges the timeline the own char experienced so that the new element fits in.

Also an observation is that due to the fact that PS allows interaction with a limited number of people at one time only (because otherwise the chat will scroll way too fast, etc.), it is always small groups RPing, or, at most a few, smaller, RPing groups in one place. If a place is \"full\", then the new group tends to move to another place, because of the chat clutter.
However, if the RP that is going on would benefit from or even demand a synchronisation of some sort, then this is still being done. Furthermore, it almost never happens that someone can\'t join the ongoing RP because their timelines / whatever mismatch. I have done that only seldomly, when I was expecting a postponed session to be resumed shortly (and thus my char wasn\'t IC-ly there for some time), and the outcome of the session decided whether my char was dead or not, but in general it is always possible. If need be, you can utilise the timeline rearranging by taking part in the past or future of your char. It therefore is still very possible and in fact normal that the world evolves for all chars, and it also adds the benefit that other\'s action can affect your own reality and vice-versa. Obviously there are limits, like cities being destroyed, or houses, i.e., anything that cannot be recovered from within comparatively short time but would be important for lots of chars. A tree being chopped down wouldn\'t be easily recovered from, but it\'s not truly important for chars so it doesn\'t need to be made consistent accross players. A fire destroying the tavern is a bordercase and thus should happen realistically seldomly, and cities destroyed almost never.

The fundamental nature of RP that players usually RP only a comparatively small part of their char\'s lives (leaving out everything repetitive and non-exciting like bathroom breaks, etc., unless it is relevant for the ongoing RP) allows for a great deal of \"unseen\" time, in which one can stuff all the events that one missed or that need to be reordered in time. This time can come into existance at will of the player. If you log off for a day, and then relog, then you can RP that you were away for the day, but if noone else was online during that time, or noone did aything that affects your char, then it\'s not required. Likewise, when someone burns down the tavern and your RP can\'t ATM work with that, then you can stuff it into the future or the past unseen time.

A char does continue to live when you aren\'t online. They therefore can do things, or nothing, as would be realistic for the char. The only thing that happens is that noone sees them during that time, or at least not consciously notices the char. And this is just like things happen IRL. If you have a regular job, then you can usually claim that you were doing it just like every day. If something happened that would have affected you, then you can easily come up with something like having been sick, or out of town, or whatever.
Even with a lot of unseen time being used, your char\'s seen time won\'t deviate much from what you actually RP. Weeks pass quite readily in PS, and a day offline can mean weeks or only minutes, providing you with plenty of time insertion points to conjure up seen time from unseen time.

Your way to use PS, which is what you call \"RP\", however, limits the char\'s actions to exactly what is possible by game mechanics. It also means that everything that the game does (crashes, bugs, missing implementations, etc.) actually does happen, regardless of the setting. If the game does not allow for sitting, then noone can ever sit. If the game doesn\'t support extinguishing candles, then they can never be extinguished. You would have to take everything exactly as it is, without your chars ever being able to reason about it. IOW, you\'d be forced to respond to almost everything with \"I don\'t know, it\'s just how it is\". Doing that would take away almost all possibilities, because, let\'s face it, PS allows almost nothing yet.

This creates a far greater breach of the immersion and consistency than the splitting up (which happens in your scenario as well due to the chat issue). It would remove the requirement of joining the individual storylines, but at the cost of almost everything one can do.

It also is a fact that at any given time, almost all players in PS are not interacting with each other. They do that because
- they\'re spacially separated from each other
- they\'re RPing things that are of interest to a few players only
- they\'re avoiding the chat issue

Their RP only seldomly joins, and this would not happen any more or less when every player would RP PS exactly as implemented. Like IRL, most of the time you live alongside others, possibly hundreds or thousands of people, but the number of people you meaningfully interact with still is very very low. 99% of the people that anyone lives alongside could not exist or be someone completely different without it making any difference for the life of that person. The same thing happens IC-ly, and the separate groups RPing alongside each other reflect that. Whenever something does affect the life of another char, then things can and are being joined easily.

Example of all of the above:
Someone burned down the tavern in a RP session with a group of RPers, and another group of RPers enters the tavern while it\'s burning down:

Several options:
- The burning group tells the other group about the fire, and they RP along.
This is common, especially if the other group doesn\'t have something exciting to RP, but not required.

- The burning group tells about the fire, but the other group chooses to ignore the fire and continue their RP.
This is also common, though a bit limited by the chat issue, so the events usually are RP\'d at separate locations of the tavern.
The realities are, from a player\'s POV, disjoint, but IC-ly, if the two groups interact with each other afterwards, and the event is being mentioned, then it is easily possible to make the event have happened at some other time,  and the other group\'s RP, which IRL went on simultaneously, had IC-ly taken place before or after that.

- The burning group doesn\'t tell about the goings-on, so the event happened at some point in the other group\'s time where it did not affect them. Not the most polite way, but tends to happen when the groups don\'t know each other, which also means that their timelines don\'t need matching. Should they RP more with each other after that, then things can easily be matched up.

Also, the groups can always decide that it was some other tavern that burned down.

Also, please don\'t think that I ignore everything and play a text-based game: this is not so. I do make use of PS. It is true that I could do without almost all functions, but those that I rely heavily on are movement and visuals. They are why I play PS instead of chatroom RP, because they take away a huge deal of abstraction and typing while adding a natural feeling of real-time.
I don\'t like typing, and I also don\'t like reading more than a bunch of lines, it\'s slow, limited in expresiveness and prone to misunderstanding.
Visuals and movement serve to provide all the basics that would otherwise fill pages of text. They also automatically repeat themselves for anyone who comes along. One therefore only needs to state the differences between the graphics and the actual situation, which most of the time are only a few lines, thereby freeing the player to what they actually are in PS: to RP. That\'s the beauty of a graphical game.

All additional functions, especially those that are comparatively crude in their current implementation, are being used whenever they can be used. If you have a mug, then, when you RP that you drink from one, you equip it. If you have no mug, then you still RP that you drink from one. Never, however, you RP the flaws of the system, like that some races hold their mugs so that the contents would immediately spill. IOW, the implementation is used to aid the RP, not to dictate it. Where a usable implementation is missing, then text takes over.

Summary: when you RP not the implementation, but the settings, then you automatically have to bend the time your char experiences, to account for logoffs, etc.. This is, however, the only thing that requires changing and, if used properly, is all you need to join your RP with that of every other player in PS. It\'s reward is a huge deal of flexibility and options. PS as implemented is like a flower bed, while you can, by only bending time, make it into the universe that the settings describe.

This, BTW, makes it possible to RP with or join events with players who view PS differently, because there seldomly is need for the differences to actually show. There still are some views that tend to be incompatible, but they\'re comparatively few.