Understand RPing Objectives

[iridia]

In a sense, yes.

I think for players that are less active it will be harder to involve themselves (or feel involved) in complex or long RP's. Ofcourse you can read posts on the forum or hear about the continuation of a RP IG, but this does have a different 'feel' than actively taking part in a RP.
It should be quite interesting to find a way that satisfies both RP'ers that are very active and those who aren't very active, also for events done by GM's that are split in multiple parts. I can imagine that it must be quite disappointing if you missed Part 1, but participate in Part 2 only to find out you don't really know what is going on.

[Illysia]

As someone coming back in that position, I believe the problem is not so much picking up an RP in the middle but being allowed in. I think as long as people are actually allowed to jump in an RP in the middle and their presence not merely tolerate, it is not that hard to pick up and go. It just requires that the RPer coming in the middle be willing to work a little harder to catch up. Also, that the players who have been in it on from the start be willing to ease the newcomer in to the plot. An infodump is not always the right springboard into an RP. A more natural easing in is needed and a realistic view of how often both parties will actually get to interact with each other.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

This sort of coy behavior from characters is a major gear-grinder for me, actually.  It boils down to a "do you really want your problem solved?" question, which can easily drive a character like mine straight out of your plot because your character(s) are being too obstinate about what's actually going on; either that, or you'll start seeing Kaerli basically trying to force the information out of you.   (Mind-reading, divination, etal)

Being blunt, you are not a great problem-solver. Solving a problem requires more than identifying the problem. I've enjoyed most of the roleplays I've had with you, but other people tend to just think you're forcing yourself upon them (which I honestly think is fun, but other people don't). Ironically, you have a problem that you cannot solve, Kaerli. People can tell you that you have a problem, but no one knows how to help you solve it.

I need brain fuel. bbl

Define "forcing yourself upon them"...?  (And I agree that I have a problem that's not within the natural scope of what I do know how to solve; my problem with problem-solving is more that I misread the constraints than anything else, I suspect.)

[Bonedaf]

You play someones character for them. You have an action that forces the player into an RP that you control and has an outcome you desire. Instead of allowing a bit of friction back and forth and eventually a solution, there's a dominate action early on that you give that doesn't allow for much further RP outside of what you already RPed for the other player.

I've also noticed you are quick to respond/interact before allowing another player to play their character. I understand you have a powerful character and you want that character to remain powerful but realize it can be fun too if you don't just dominate everything. I think you'd be surprised. Even the mighty do not get what they desire all the time.

[Volki]

What Bonedaf said... He said it better than I could.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

You play someones character for them. You have an action that forces the player into an RP that you control and has an outcome you desire. Instead of allowing a bit of friction back and forth and eventually a solution, there's a dominate action early on that you give that doesn't allow for much further RP outside of what you already RPed for the other player.

I've also noticed you are quick to respond/interact before allowing another player to play their character. I understand you have a powerful character and you want that character to remain powerful but realize it can be fun too if you don't just dominate everything. I think you'd be surprised. Even the mighty do not get what they desire all the time.

Are you saying that it's a problem with the phraseology of my actions outside of combat going too far towards assuming completion?  Or is there something else going on?

[Akavar]

Perhaps this might help you understand, Kaerli:

"(20:54:21) Kaerli sheathes her own anlace, looking over his dagger closely [do you mind giving me a more detailed description of it?]
(20:55:17) Akavar says: The handle has enchanted opals which serve to enhance my spells in certain areas.
(20:56:11) Kaerli nods "I'm familiar with the practice myself, and have handled quite a few weapons with various enchantments on them. Still doesn't change the fact it's made from cheap steel...if you can even call it steel, that is."
(20:56:29) Akavar says: I would like one of better quality.
(20:56:53) Kaerli gives Akavar a bit of a predatory grin. [re: the weapon description, I was more asking for size/shape/styling than enchantments, etal.]
(20:57:27) Akavar says: [oh, I see. ]
(20:57:42) Kaerli nods some, then shakes her head with a small frown "That's a good idea; sadly, smiths here have not even come close to mastering the art of incorporating magic into their weapons."
(20:58:04) Kaerli says: [are you familiar with in-character vs. out-of-character chat btw?]
(20:58:35) Akavar says: It is just a run-of-the-mill dagger other than the enchantment. I have seen better butcher knives.
(20:58:53) Kaerli says: So, you have to decide: fancy opals with Dark Way magic, or solid steel that can serve you well for cycles to come."

My character would not have known the difference in daggers, quality of steel or handles. He was training daggers at a very low level. It seemed to me that you were forcing rp. You need to let others be themselves. As a carpenter in rl I can tell you all about the type of hammer I am using, whether it is a ripping or claw hammer, used for framing or finish, or the type of handle and the benefits of that type. Had you asked about magic I (Akavar) would have answered in a very different manner.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

Perhaps this might help you understand, Kaerli:

"(20:54:21) Kaerli sheathes her own anlace, looking over his dagger closely [do you mind giving me a more detailed description of it?]
(20:55:17) Akavar says: The handle has enchanted opals which serve to enhance my spells in certain areas.
(20:56:11) Kaerli nods "I'm familiar with the practice myself, and have handled quite a few weapons with various enchantments on them. Still doesn't change the fact it's made from cheap steel...if you can even call it steel, that is."
(20:56:29) Akavar says: I would like one of better quality.
(20:56:53) Kaerli gives Akavar a bit of a predatory grin. [re: the weapon description, I was more asking for size/shape/styling than enchantments, etal.]
(20:57:27) Akavar says: [oh, I see. ]
(20:57:42) Kaerli nods some, then shakes her head with a small frown "That's a good idea; sadly, smiths here have not even come close to mastering the art of incorporating magic into their weapons."
(20:58:04) Kaerli says: [are you familiar with in-character vs. out-of-character chat btw?]
(20:58:35) Akavar says: It is just a run-of-the-mill dagger other than the enchantment. I have seen better butcher knives.
(20:58:53) Kaerli says: So, you have to decide: fancy opals with Dark Way magic, or solid steel that can serve you well for cycles to come."

My character would not have known the difference in daggers, quality of steel or handles. He was training daggers at a very low level. It seemed to me that you were forcing rp. You need to let others be themselves. As a carpenter in rl I can tell you all about the type of hammer I am using, whether it is a ripping or claw hammer, used for framing or finish, or the type of handle and the benefits of that type. Had you asked about magic I (Akavar) would have answered in a very different manner.

So, basically, its that she doesn't pick up on the social cues regarding topic of conversation...

[Bonedaf]

I'm not sure, I think it's just how you view RP (and you're not unique in this way). You see RP as a challenge and an opportunity to show off how better your character is than others. To put it bluntly, and perhaps a little harshly, some of your actions are godmodding because you don't give the other player an option to react. And just the general feel seems like you have little interest in development of a story and more in just showing off how much of a badass your character is.

Using this as a transition back to the topic, I think a lot of problems with RP come when players fall in love with their character rather than the story. This creates a position where players don't want bad things, or really anything but great things, to happen to their character. They stop playing their character with natural flaws and believable strengths. There's little development and story. It's really just a bunch of individual characters, there's no plot to interact or bring people together. No adversity. No friction.

If anyone were to write a book about your character would it be an interesting read? Would there be themes and morals of the story? Or just a list of their victories and exploits?

[Aramara Meibi]

So, basically, its that she doesn't pick up on the social cues regarding topic of conversation...

is that a question? if so, then the fault is not with the character. a character is more than just a list of skills and stats. if you treat the character as merely a digital avatar through which to interact with people in a virtual world, and then find that you are having trouble interacting with people, once again, it isn't the fault of the avatar. breathe life into your character. for instance, decide whether or not they have trouble reading social cues and then role play that out. make that an obstacle they have to overcome, and then maybe other characters might offer help in overcoming that obstacle. see? there's a means for engaging other players in RP.

now, to return to the OP, in my time playing I've participated in a wide variety of RP situations, from crime solving, romantic relationships, tense diplomatic situations, religious ceremonies, idle gossip, workplace situations, bizarre drinking games, brutal combat, espionage, ritual homicide... the list goes on. the point i think is to really submit yourself over to the character you play, think like them, act like them, speak like them. they should have a life of their own, and it should be a life of fulfillment, right? or else, really what's the point? yeah, i think the story that I watched play out with my characters was hella interesting, very dynamic, with high points and low points, victories and defeats, friends, enemies, even a nemesis, and tons of development throughout. i had a good time, 's all i'm sayin'.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

I'm not sure, I think it's just how you view RP (and you're not unique in this way). You see RP as a challenge and an opportunity to show off how better your character is than others. To put it bluntly, and perhaps a little harshly, some of your actions are godmodding because you don't give the other player an option to react. And just the general feel seems like you have little interest in development of a story and more in just showing off how much of a badass your character is.

Using this as a transition back to the topic, I think a lot of problems with RP come when players fall in love with their character rather than the story. This creates a position where players don't want bad things, or really anything but great things, to happen to their character. They stop playing their character with natural flaws and believable strengths. There's little development and story. It's really just a bunch of individual characters, there's no plot to interact or bring people together. No adversity. No friction.

If anyone were to write a book about your character would it be an interesting read? Would there be themes and morals of the story? Or just a list of their victories and exploits?

First off: I find that there's always something a character can do to react to the actions Kaerli takes; it may just be off in left field (i.e. too forceful or out-of-scope for the other player).  Or is it my fault for presenting a character with a situation their player cannot react to?  (A good example of this would be the time Kaerli was laid out by HF poisoning...most of the players had not the foggiest clue what was happening with her.)

Regarding adversity, I find that people want to create adversity, but simply are not willing to put in the work I see as needed to be a determined, effective adversary (vs. a melodramatic one).  Part of the point behind the way I play is that I respond to the amount of effort people put into opposing my character; pushovers will get pushed over and left by the side of the road, whereas an adversary willing to fully engage in the mindgame over an extended period of time will be rewarded for their efforts.

[Bonedaf]

When things like this happen:

[Player one] simply stops the sword cold with her right forearm, the blade hitting the rib of her bracer. She kicks the blade over to [Bystander] as the [You] fumbles it.

...it discourages me. Because what's the point of me being there? If another player player is going to tell me what happens to me or what I do, why don't they just play by themselves and make all that up? Sure I could RP that I kicked you in the face knocking you down and jumped up grabbing my blade and slitting your throat with it, but is that really fun or believable? And I'm sure there are other ways I could of RPed it back to be a "worthy adversary" for you but I just don't want to because I know it will just get into a match where we have to out do each other with more ridiculous and more glorious actions. It's silly.

Don't confuse me not RPing my character as some badass adversary for you as me not putting effort into my RP. Frankly, the RP I've had with you and see you do makes me want to keep my other characters, that could prove to be an interesting opponent to you, out of any RP like that.

[LigH]

You may find a lot of discussion regarding the term "godmodding" all over this board...

[Illysia]

[Player one] simply stops the sword cold with her right forearm, the blade hitting the rib of her bracer. She kicks the blade over to [Bystander] as the [You] fumbles it.[/color]

It might be of help to make these distinctions visually clear. The part in blue is kinda godmoddy due to the language used in that it indicates absolutely no chance of anything affecting that state, the complete stopping of action against Player 1, and little reason to believe that another attempt would fare any better, yet it by itself could still be worked with just fine. However, the part in red is most assuredly godmodding. Once Player 1 does something that involves a reaction from [You] that action must be presented as an attempt to carry out the plan. Then, [You] must be allowed to chose their own reaction.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

[Player one] simply stops the sword cold with her right forearm, the blade hitting the rib of her bracer. She kicks the blade over to [Bystander] as the [You] fumbles it.[/color]

It might be of help to make these distinctions visually clear. The part in blue is kinda godmoddy due to the language used in that it indicates absolutely no chance of anything affecting that state, the complete stopping of action against Player 1, and little reason to believe that another attempt would fare any better, yet it by itself could still be worked with just fine. However, the part in red is most assuredly godmodding. Once Player 1 does something that involves a reaction from [You] that action must be presented as an attempt to carry out the plan. Then, [You] must be allowed to chose their own reaction.

There are indeed two parts to this; one is a parry (the blue part) and the other a response to the other character posting that he lost his grip on the sword (the red part).

The problem with "...attempts to" logic in a parrying (blocking, dodging) context is that it returns control of the outcome of an attack back to the attacker (which negates the point of that anti-godmodding rule entirely).  As to your other objections to it, I'm not sure what you want me to do; writing in a bunch of theoretical holes that the opponent is in no position to take advantage of is a waste of everyone's time and reading energy.

The second (red) half is an ex parte action as the character that once was wielding the blade had already lost control of it (as they had posted themselves).  However, I agree that the language there does not make the sequencing clear when taken out of context; "after [You] fumbled it." would be a much better choice of wording.  Or are ex parte actions not legal RP to begin with?  Should I have said "attempted to kick the blade over to [Bystander]" even though there was nobody in control of the blade at that point in time?

Also: is there a reason an opportunity has to be presented on a silver platter to be taken?  Do you folks just not see things that are not explicitly written out?