Originally posted by Golmir
I agree that in a perfect RPing world pple would not vanish in front of us, but the chars are living in an alternate reality where realism follows different rules.
The reality is for them that they can cease to exist for others ((when you are offline, crashed, ...))
They speak rather slowly ((expect for fast typists))
They can come back to life when they die.
They can stand at the same place without listening nor talking ((when you are forced to go AFK))
Absolutely not. These things are
not IC, they do
not exist in the game world. I have had a discussion about just that in
this thread, and I tried to explain why making these things IC would require a complete rewrite of the entire world, society and economic concepts of the game world to something radically different from RL. Conversely, the fact that the game world is based on the exact same social and economic concepts as RL means that the OOC things cannot be IC, for the system wouldn\'t work in that case.
Originally posted by Golmir
the game mecanics are the boundaries they have to deal with everyday.
I agree with Chaos that NPCs was not the best exemple, but the idea is that realism is limited but we can integrate OOC facts to the RP to keep it immersive.
Immersion is one thing, but removing realism without applying the full set of implications and effects does something even worse: create contradictions and clear OOC-ness for the one who starts to do more than simply accept the superficial. Once someone starts to think about what the game reality is, they start looking for connections, the logic that is inherent, cause and effect. If now things start falling apart, by logic dicating a game world \"fact\" to lead to something different than what is actually ingame, then the realism of the game world, and with it the immersion, get severly more and more permanently damaged than by having to differentiate between OOC issues and a consistent IC reality.
The idea of making everything that is OOC and hard / impossible to get rid of IC is a pitfall. It looks and sounds attractive and reasonable to those who have not yet begun to think behind the superficial. But one day almost everyone will start that deeper thinking, they
have to in order to deepen their char\'s personality and background, and then the great disappointment will be there, making every try to deepen the RP in fact make it more shallow.
The number of illogic consequences needed likely varies between players, and likewise does the impact of each, depending on what it actually is and affects, but there is a point for everyone where everything ceases to be immersive or realistic and falls apart to become a mere heap of color and text and program code.
As an example I may quote the \"alchemy\" part of NeverWinter Nights. You find books detailing how to create magical items. The issue is this: each item can be made only
once, regardless of how many times you could based on the ingredients. Also, it works in one, at best a few, place only. These places are, however, not different, so it is obvious that
1) the system is scripted to allow creation in certain places, with the assumption that a player will either create the item straight off or never, which isn\'t always true
2) the system is supposed to not give a player unreasonable amounts of items to keep the game balanced
NWN has had quite a few of other, similar flaws, which eventually lead to the immersion break at the beginning of the third chapter.
Point is: anything that differs from RL needs to have not only some explanation, but also everything that is affected by that change needs to be changed in the world concept, to make cause and effect still apply, because otherwise those who try to better their RP beyond a certain point will be hurt by the carelessness of design that was intended to help them.
Originally posted by Golmir
The main problem for this is that not everyone uses the same IC interpretation of the same facts.
Indeed. Mine is that they didn\'t ever happen. It\'s not always that easy, but I was able to work on that base all the time.
Originally posted by Golmir
Why did that person I was talking to disapear?
They did not.
Originally posted by Golmir
am I supposed to keep talking to the void because it would be non-realistic to have people disapearing?
Depending on the situation, the course to take differs.
- It was a client crash, and the player relogs soon after:
You simply continue where you left off, the vanishing did never happen
- The player needs to leave for unforeseen RL reasons:
You either agree on them to leave for some IC reasons, or silently ignore that they are gone (especially if you are a group of RPing chars instead of just two). You can also agree to postpone the remainder of the session, in which case it will be handled the same way as above: when it is resumed, you start where you left off, and noone ever vanished.
The last resort is to completely ignore the fact that someone left and never resume, which is most often necessary when someone was gone for an extended period, RL weeks or somesuch, when the IC situation has changed too much to make the continuation of the session desirable. In some occasions it can still be done, but if the ongoing RP has cemented / defined things that would otherwise have been defined in the remainder of the session, then the session can be assumed to have ended a certain way Obviously, one is still free to continue the session with the implied outcome in mind.
In no case, any IC mentioning of OOC occurances is ever necessary. The greatest IC concession to OOC is to occasionally make a char leave when they would not necessarily leave IC-ly, i.e., making up a reasonable IC reason to leave. One can almost always be found, and be it nature calling. Second is to claim to have been out of town or similar things after extended OOC absence.
Again, the way the game world works has never been touched, never was any change made that would dictate effects different from RL.
Originally posted by Golmir
NPCs are normal people but they don\'t act like that. You have took at them in the eyes ((target them)) or they ignore you.
Immersive and realistic are two different concepts of RPing. What is possible in Pen&Paper RPG is different with a computer.
That isn\'t IC. It\'s just as OOC as having to click in the chat box to actually talk. They don\'t act like normal Yliaki, but only in terms of OOC game mechanics. Also, they can be used for RP, we\'ve done that several times, most commonly with healer types like Aleena when no healer char was online. Working around these things preserves immersion better than forcing the OOC limitations into IC in the long, even medium, run.
Originally posted by Golmir
giving an IC answer to an OOC question that was not quoted as one is mostly a way to give the newbie an exemple of what he had his char saying.
Yes. In cases where the question can be considered IC, like \"Where are the sewers\", it\'s possible to set an example be responding IC-ly, though the difference will likely be overlooked by the newbie. These cases are the exception, not the rule, though.
Originally posted by Golmir
The main problem with the use of brakets is that some are convinced that they are roleplaying since they use them. They often forget that while they do that the char is idle. Standing there like a breating statue.
This is true. While brackets are being used, the char doesn\'t do anything However, again, it\'s one of the things that aren\'t happening in the game world. When people are talking OOC for an extended time, then for their chars time effectively stops. If they had been in an RPing group, then they\'d fall silent, but it\'s truly bad OOC etiquette to engage in a lengthy OOC discussion while in an RP session (if not all participants are partaking in the OOC discussion).
Originally posted by Golmir
I also saw people answering OOC to a \"how ware you?\" asked IC...doing so they did play the role of a rude char not answering a friendly question.
This depends on whether they were IC before or not. If yes, then yes, though in that case it would be unlikely that they\'d indeed answer OOC. If not, then their char doesn\'t even exist IC-ly, and should therefore be, from an RP POV, ignored upon discovery of that fact.
Originally posted by Golmir
It seems now admited that /tell, /group, /guild are used as OOC chanels. And I did myself use them this way. But is it supposed to be this way just because it is not \"realistic\" to talk to people at the other side of the world. Maybe is it not realistic, but it could be immersive to see them as mental links, telepathy, psionics, ... making them IC chanels most of the time
No, no, no. In order to make them IC it would require an explicit modification of the settings, again bearing more or less severe consequences for the world (postal service almost unnecessary, spying extremely easy, etc.). The settings doesn\'t even hint at the possibility of such a thing by means other than true magic, therefore this would be a need- and baseless unofficial modification of the setting which isn\'t acceptable. If it was, then we\'d open a can of worms and soon have people \"RP\"ing spaceships and all sorts of other crap, like vampires. I short: it\'s the \"It\'s fantasy\" non-argument all over again.
A few select chars have settings-conforming means of achieving IC /tells or even /group with a few other select chars, however a general \"Everyone can freely talk to everyone in the world (or even to their friends)\" is a modification of the setting that would effectively be forced upon everyone by a few, so it\'d have to be truly official in the setting to be acceptable as IC, exactly as Cha0s said, with the full consequences for the game world, society and economy.
BTW:
Originally posted by Golmir
tell me where Poricet is.
Poricet is a small city on the third level of Yliakum, near the falls. The inhabitants are unfriendly, especially to outsiders.
