RolePlay

[Can-ned Food]

While your advice is likely very good in the general case, I run into one, sizeable issue with it: I identify with character traits that are very inherently inhuman -- the traits exhibited by a character when seen as a system, not a person.  This means that system-optimization and effectiveness take priority over drama in my mind, and trying to tickle the heartstrings is an ineffective motivational means for a character defined in systematic terms.  There is no "emotional pain", IC or even in many cases OOC, to motivate actions any longer at this point -- in fact, I find myself at odds with many roleplayers when considering villany because the level of punishment I want to subject characters to (both my own and others') is far, far beyond the boundaries of other players.  (It also means that my draw to character power does not come from a desire to never be defeated, but a desire to drive foes further than they otherwise would go, past the mental roadblocks they have erected for themselves.)


Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances.  No matter how good it is at generating drama, a behavior that is persistently ineffective is something that one's environment can, and in many cases will punish harshly -- and this includes rules about such things as combat.  Honor is a weapon, and it can be wielded against you, something many players do not realize, either when governing their character's actions, or thinking about how their character's opponents may think and act.  Yet, people insist that the use of patterns and inferences by one's character to gain an advantage over other characters is somehow inherently out-of-character -- when it is in reality, something that is essential to constructing an authentic competitor.

People are systems, albeit not like the kind of which you are thinking.
Experiments with artificial intelligence have shown that affective thinking (a.k.a. emotions) are very useful for decision–making, and that's why some autistic people, though excelling in certain abilities, can't function in others, unlike the more averaged people.

That “persistently ineffective� behavior is another thing, and it is found in the treacherous spaces between disastrously stubborn and being triumphantly so.

Here's something which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.

[Geoni]

Attempt too, but that's just two words. Even that will get old but it should be tolerated.

Hope is a non-physical verb.

Either way, most of the time this kind of emoting only gets done in trust fights. And fight RP all the time gets old for me lol.

[Aramara Meibi]

Here's something which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.

http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41831.0

i've written two (short) papers so far on the subject. still working it out, but your link was a good read for me.

Also of interest to this conversation, http://www.amazon.com/Psychosynthesis-A-Collection-Basic-Writings/dp/0967857007 at least it may give us a common vocabulary for discussion purposes.

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

Hence the saying, "Show, don't tell". It's not an absolute rule ( H.P. Lovecraft must never have heard of this), but it's generally a good rule to follow.

This is the most important and absolute rule in writing honestly - that doesn't mean 100% of the time you have to do it, it's okay to actually let readers know what the character is actually thinking sometimes, and personally I love to do it in RP when there's only so much facial anatomy you can go off of in order to describe a character's expression as -insert adjective-.

And yeah, seperation of author and character is honestly not as important as people make it out to be so long as you as a person, projected onto that character (you have to have a little bit of yourself in a character at least, imo), is done tastefully and with something interesting to place in that character. While publishable writing is primarily written for other people, it's this process that rewards the author I think, because in the process of writing a character you learn new things about yourself, or in some cases ways of thinking that you don't actually think, but you know exist and want to understand more. And RP takes that to a new dynamic level so long as everyone's not just doing it for pure escapism. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying escapism, but there's nothing real about it and it lacks potential depth when you're avoiding inserting the harsh real life experiences that have shaped you into the person you are.

Sorry, scattered and random thoughts here. I'm sure all of this is gobbledygook but it's an interesting topic.

Also @ godmodding discussion: nothing wrong with overusing the words try/tries/trying in your emotes.

I do try to insert my real life experiences and knowledge into my RP -- unfortunately, it almost feels as if I have the wrong experiences and wrong knowledge, if you will, or at least that's the impression I get from some in the community, who don't understand what it's like to go through life as a hypersystemizer...

And yes -- nothing wrong with overusing that phraseology, as long as you aren't creating a cycle -- "/me tries to parry the sword thrust" is problematic because I, as the player of the attacker, have just had your decision (how your character responds to the blow) dropped right back in my lap -- talk about awkward!

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

While your advice is likely very good in the general case, I run into one, sizeable issue with it: I identify with character traits that are very inherently inhuman -- the traits exhibited by a character when seen as a system, not a person.  This means that system-optimization and effectiveness take priority over drama in my mind, and trying to tickle the heartstrings is an ineffective motivational means for a character defined in systematic terms.  There is no "emotional pain", IC or even in many cases OOC, to motivate actions any longer at this point -- in fact, I find myself at odds with many roleplayers when considering villany because the level of punishment I want to subject characters to (both my own and others') is far, far beyond the boundaries of other players.  (It also means that my draw to character power does not come from a desire to never be defeated, but a desire to drive foes further than they otherwise would go, past the mental roadblocks they have erected for themselves.)


Furthermore, my deepest concerns with the behavior of other characters lie not with character behaviors that are somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally objectionable, but in behaviors that are persistently ineffective, that show an inability not to be altered by emotional shifts, but an inability to adapt to and optimize for circumstances.  No matter how good it is at generating drama, a behavior that is persistently ineffective is something that one's environment can, and in many cases will punish harshly -- and this includes rules about such things as combat.  Honor is a weapon, and it can be wielded against you, something many players do not realize, either when governing their character's actions, or thinking about how their character's opponents may think and act.  Yet, people insist that the use of patterns and inferences by one's character to gain an advantage over other characters is somehow inherently out-of-character -- when it is in reality, something that is essential to constructing an authentic competitor.

People are systems, albeit not like the kind of which you are thinking.
Experiments with artificial intelligence have shown that affective thinking (a.k.a. emotions) are very useful for decision–making, and that's why some autistic people, though excelling in certain abilities, can't function in others, unlike the more averaged people.

That “persistently ineffective� behavior is another thing, and it is found in the treacherous spaces between disastrously stubborn and being triumphantly so.

Here's something which compares RPGs to so-called real life, with what some would describe as an existentialist objectivism.

Correction -- affective thinking is useful for some types of decision-making -- our species evolved to be social originally, and some types of decisions (such as those that govern social behavior) intermesh heavily with affective thinking.  However, that same thinking can be a major impediment to trying to use one's higher-level thinking functions to make a decision where emotions aren't called for -- say, trying to figure out how big a bridge girder needs to be to span a chasm.  In otherwords, emotions are a part of the Orient step in Observe-Orient-Decide-Act, and they can just as easily disorient you as they can point you down the right path.

[Can-ned Food]

Correction -- affective thinking is useful for some types of decision-making

  My final word on the subject:  “very useful forâ€� does not exclude ‘not useful’.  A hammer is a very useful tool, but that doesn't mean that it is the only useful tool, or that it is never not useful.
You rock, Kaerli.  But, honestly,

What do they teach them at these schools?

p.s.
see below.

[Geoni]

I do try to insert my real life experiences and knowledge into my RP -- unfortunately, it almost feels as if I have the wrong experiences and wrong knowledge, if you will, or at least that's the impression I get from some in the community, who don't understand what it's like to go through life as a hypersystemizer...

There's nothing wrong with a systematic personality, but if that's all there is to a person or character people are going to get bored with them, useful as that personality can be. If we were going to get philosophical though, everything is systematic, even human psychology. But sometimes systems fail and need to be reworked, making that a constant effort - and if you've developed a system that has multiple plans and everything figured out before something happens, then there's no surprise/true failure/development.

But honestly Kaerli, I mean this in no way to be a personal attack, but half of the time I'm talking to you you're complaining about something regarding Kaerli and her personality when by the end of a conversation or RP I'm like 'okay so what are you complaining about?' If anything, from all that you've told me and Kaerli's interactions with other characters, the only problematic thing I see so far is an overpowered character and that might be why people can't warm up to her - I've gotten the impression that she sets up a wall of invulnerability through rationalizing everything. Every character should have something to gain, but just as importantly, something to lose. But if loss is just shrugged off or ignored then any potential for depth is gone. Irrationality in the face of conflict is one of the things that gives something a human touch.

[Pierre]

RPGs as fiction:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/jun/19/the-joy-of-reading-role-playing-games

The literary connection there reminds me of a quote by E. M. Forster, he of the lovely and keen short novels.  He said that his flaw as a writer was that he was only able to write 3 characters - himself, someone he despised, and someone he idolized.  He contrasted this to Shakespeare, who was able to write of all shades of all people, and this I love.

You have little idea of who Shakespeare is, and why?  Because his characters are all flesh and blood, from the villian of the universe Iago to the angel of  Desdemona to all the other characters with their flaws and strengths.  For me it makes Shakespeare harder to digest, because I do not have one creature to hold onto - but there are moments, like when Lear is on the moors in the dark rain and wind, knowing he is losing his mind and yet fighting against it, mad, mad, let me not be mad!!  And in those moments I have a glimpse of a man who knows what it means to be on the edge and be almost tipped over into it.  But Shakespeare is all of his creations, from Cleopatra in her jealousy and her age with respect to Anthony's prospective bride...that scene is so darling and subtle, I know she's a fiend but I love Cleopatra.

The point of all this is for me, how difficult it is to RP in this gorgeous immersive fully fleshed out way, but how good it is for the soul when you can even get a piece of it right.  Because the stories inside the plays and novels that I'm talking about are absolutely sustaining.  In a very deep and heavy duty way.  Sustaining, necessary for life.

If any of us fail at RP I would suggest reading more.  Either the RPG books mentioned in the Guardian article I linked to, or Tolstoi, Shakespeare, any novels that grab you.  Because you get infused by them and it comes out of you.

Or, you could use great literature for lower purposes, like I did when I was trying to piss off an old time player in the pub, years ago, who I did not like and who did not like me - this creature would get in /tell with me and talk to me, uninvited, about OOC and IC in this bossy snobby way.  Meanwhile his char would be talking in main with a horrible, hysterical deep south accent - I thought he would do well by reading a lot of Mark Twain instead of just never using the "g" key - anyway - so one night I pulled out a set of plays by that darling Moliére and had the book open next to me as I RP'd in the pub - "eyes chewing up the scenery" etc., every good line was Moliére's and it was beautiful    But that was meta, very funny but very meta and not immersive.  But it's one of my best memories from darling old Planeshift 

[Roled]

Ah I do miss seeing you ig Pierre/ Pierrette    mia amorousa!

And I quote meta things ic all the time- since RR is such a bookworm himself and fancies himself a poet of sorts.  He's wont to spit forth meaty metaphors when'er inspiration's muse breathes her damp flames 'gainst his mortal tinder.  She cooks his clauses. Yet alas, too oft the ruminations be swallowed afore the flavors settle upon untasting tongues!

Alas, alack, it's what I lack, I lack a lass, alas! alack!

    
RR

[Can-ned Food]

My final word on the subject:

No; well, it would've been, but I recognize that I should've made another point in my other post.  D'oh!  My apologies, especially to Kaerli because that response above seems too curt.

Anyway, I was leading into saying that the things which we construct about ourselves and call existence is more than simply making decisions about choices, which is only one aspect of a greater nature.  ‘Why?’ can ever fold back on itself and find no other monadic kernel than simply ‘To be.’  Simplify the act of making decisions by tearing it from motivations, or vice versa, and there would be a nihilism with nothing for which any decisions must be made.
Intuitive, but not always obvious.

We're not all humans.

That's another thing, too.  I mostly play Gedundk, and in trying to behave as a kran would, I find that my opportunities for interactive RP with other PCs is limited, especially when it seems to me that most other characters (whether their players are aware of this or not) don't understand the Kran.
You know, they're almost asocial.  Not ‘nonsocial’ or irrelevant, ‘unsocial’ or resistant, nor ‘antisocial’.
So, of course Gedundk's interests lie in developing kras skills, or studying and gathering.  I'm not doing it to level–up, but because it makes sense to kran.

How many other Kran players see it that way?

[Geoni]

That's another thing, too.  I mostly play Gedundk, and in trying to behave as a kran would, I find that my opportunities for interactive RP with other PCs is limited, especially when it seems to me that most other characters (whether their players are aware of this or not) don't understand the Kran.
You know, they're almost asocial.  Not ‘nonsocial’ or irrelevant, ‘unsocial’ or resistant, nor ‘antisocial’.
So, of course Gedundk's interests lie in developing kras skills, or studying and gathering.  I'm not doing it to level–up, but because it makes sense to kran.

How many other Kran players see it that way?

There's a lot of evidence in the lore that Kran are asocial, yeah. They're kind of like klyros without the whole telepathically knowing everyone of their kind on a first name basis, but they're brotherly in a more emotionless but still functional way. Sort of 'every kra for kraself but every kran helps every other kran'. I further interpret it as stemming from previous wars, isolationism, and them being one of the least mobile but most physiologically different races in Yliakum, making them harder to understand and thus socialize with for someone who hasn't interacted with kran much. So I'd like to think that the social norm for a kran is to be work focused, being self-reliant so that they aren't bothering each other too much, and work for coin that might aid them in having an enjoyable diet or extracurricular (the arts).

Personally I play Geoni as a deviant from his own race in that he's very social and has adopted a sex identity (he) to further make it easier to get along with everyone. The downside to his socialization is that it is sometimes emotionally overwhelming and causes a dramatic drop in energy and often means falling asleep all of a sudden, as if he's got a specialized kind of narcolepsy with the same kind of emotions that often come with that disease irl. I also take him deviating from his race as making him more racially aware and thus stereotypes people despite the social norm of anti-racism - he isn't racist but instead of treating everyone the same he treats people based on their own culture. I think there's a lot to play around with when it comes to developing your kran's philosophy and how kra interacts with the world and it's what makes them my favorite race in the game.

[Rigwyn]

Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional.  Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...

There's nothing wrong with competition in a competitive game, literary role playing is not really geared for competition. The next closest thing would be dicing. I would suggest going with that, but I know you, and I know that even with dice, you will try to come up with all sorts of reasons why your character should not suffer *significant* damage.

Oh, she would have dodged that.
She would have seen that coming. She has eyes on the back of her head.
She can blink out and back in when something really terrible is about to happen to her.
She would just know what you were about to do and would have avoided you altogether.
Yeah, ok... that 3 ton boulder landed on her head. Ok.. she has a mild flesh wound. A blemish... on a hidden spot.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade here. You can call it an upside down black heart if you like, but we all know this is a spade.

I get the impression that you view the ooc negotiation and determination of damage as part of the game and as an area where competition should exist. I don't think most folks would agree with that. For someone like yourself, I would strongly recommend PVP with no ic or ooc chat instead of role play fights.

[Pierre]

My meta-sister, Roledito 

I think the dice idea is a no-go, it's random, and that's probably not what Kaerli means by competition.  But I agree with the PVP suggestions, big time, and Kaerli let's pvp next time we meet, ok?  I had good pvp teachers but never learned properly, but I've got great axes and it'd be good for me to deal with your char.  It would be very easy to get into a rp argument to start it off

[Kaerli_Stronwylle]

Yet, at the same time -- competition is an innate part of the human mindset -- a world without it is artificial, hollow, stagnant, and eventually dysfunctional.  Despite this, I have found no way to accurately emulate a competitive character without being a competitive player, at least to some degree...

There's nothing wrong with competition in a competitive game, literary role playing is not really geared for competition. The next closest thing would be dicing. I would suggest going with that, but I know you, and I know that even with dice, you will try to come up with all sorts of reasons why your character should not suffer *significant* damage.

Oh, she would have dodged that.
She would have seen that coming. She has eyes on the back of her head.
She can blink out and back in when something really terrible is about to happen to her.
She would just know what you were about to do and would have avoided you altogether.
Yeah, ok... that 3 ton boulder landed on her head. Ok.. she has a mild flesh wound. A blemish... on a hidden spot.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna call a spade a spade here. You can call it an upside down black heart if you like, but we all know this is a spade.

I get the impression that you view the ooc negotiation and determination of damage as part of the game and as an area where competition should exist. I don't think most folks would agree with that. For someone like yourself, I would strongly recommend PVP with no ic or ooc chat instead of role play fights.

Here's the thing -- you are making the mistake of thinking that whatever "trick" your character has (whether it be a spell, an attack technique, or what-have-you) exempts you from the mental chess game of combat.  Why do people like Asmo, Suno, Phenha/Fuusan, and Mishka/Jocas have no trouble laying down damage on Kaerli?  It's because they're going through the mental chess game to do so, instead of trying to OOCly bypass it. 

[Rigwyn]

I've seen you pull some things that completely defy reason in the past in order to avoid damage. I won't pull up old logs to prove what I'm saying, I don't think there's any need.... well, that and the old Outlaws site was been taken down a few years ago due to inactivity.     Anyway, I admit that I take damage too easily, but to me, standing there all day going blow for blow and constantly missing, blocking, causing teeny-tiny scratches, and hand-waving reasonable damage with illogical and unbelievable excuses is not my idea of letting the story progress or of being competitive for that matter. Perhaps this is something that Mishka, Phenha, Suno and Amso enjoy, perhaps they see this as epic and bad-ass or something. I really don't know. If they do, then that's fantastic; you have finally found your crowd. Maybe it's me - perhaps I don't really like combat RP all that much or I have a strange idea of what combat RP should be like.