RolePlay

[Cairn]

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?

[Volki]

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.

[Rigwyn]

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.

[Cairn]

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.

[Rigwyn]

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.

[Zalya]

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.

[Can-ned Food]

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.

[Cairn]

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?

[Aramara Meibi]

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!

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

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.

[Cairn]

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?

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

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...

[Cairn]

It is innate.

But it's not everyone's motivation.

OH, and.

We're not all humans.

[Geoni]

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.

[Volki]

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.