Hydaelyn Role-Players

(08-21-2015, 08:55 AM)Nebbs Wrote: [ -> ]"The deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball."

I think there is a danger of stereotyping players and layering on assumptions. The best way is to RP and see what happens. If you asuume other players have limitations then you will likely miss out on some great RP.

RP is an active thing. As most of you are in the non genious camp. Should I assume you can't RP a genious and better still not even have a valid view on the fact that you think you can? Clearly not.

I couldn't play a character convincingly above my intelligence any more than I can play a character above my personal ability of charm.  Genius, like charisma, is relative.  Even if you take, as gospel, the idea that someone can play a character that is somewhat smarter than they are personally, another person who is actually smarter in real life is simply going to be able to do donuts around that character.

That's a problem if you're trying to dictate to the audience that the character is a genius.  I might be able to pull it off if I'm one of the more intelligent players in the room.  However, if I'm the least intelligent person in the room, there's going to come a moment where it becomes blindingly obvious that my character isn't actually that smart.

At issue is whether people who are in no way possessed of a comparative mental trait can dictate perception, and they can't.  They can try, but they will, eventually, come to be known as the character who thinks he's smarter than he is, only because the player thinks the character is smarter than he can reasonably make him appear.

You can make a character appear as intelligent as you possibly can, but in extended open conversations, that's the kind of thing that becomes blindingly obvious.  You can't reasonably expect everyone you're trying to convince of your character's wit just take your word for it when they can clearly see through his dialogue that he doesn't have any.

Ignacious and Nero,

I thank you both for providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the "Your opinion offends me" spectrum. Bravo. I didn't phrase things correctly, but my point was pretty much to spark a discussion regarding what the player claims their character is, and what the audience truly sees.

If a player cannot properly portray intelligence, no mater how intelligent their character is claimed to be, others will perceive them as dumb. It's tough, but no matter how much you claim your character is a genius, if you cannot properly portray that due to your OOC limitations, you won't be taken seriously as a so-called genius.

(08-21-2015, 09:14 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: [ -> ]Ignacious and Nero,

I thank you both for providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the "Your opinion offends me" spectrum. Bravo. I didn't phrase things correctly, but my point was pretty much to spark a discussion regarding what the player claims their character is, and what the audience truly sees.

If a player cannot properly portray intelligence, no mater how intelligent their character is claimed to be, others will perceive them as dumb. It's tough, but no matter how much you claim your character is a genius, if you cannot properly portray that due to your OOC limitations, you won't be taken seriously as a so-called genius.

People can be a little sensitive, but it comes from a good place.  People don't want to tell a player that he's definitely punching above his weight, and his "witty" comments are just annoying people.  Unfortunately, I think most people get that across by just ignoring and blisting the person.

You'd be amazed how many "trolls" are actually trying to RP and just failing at it because they don't understand the human interaction side of it.

I think, sometimes, what's lost is that RP isn't just personal liberation, it's performance art.  The pinnacle of RP isn't how you write your character, but how well you advance the greater social narrative.  Unfortunately, that means that people who aren't well schooled in the art of performance find themselves at a disadvantage without having a clue why.  The person you're talking about in the OP probably saw NOTHING wrong with his portrayal.  You're probably not the only person finding yourself noticing the deficiency.  At least you had enough of a crisis of conscience to come here to ask about it.  Most people either write the player off as a jerk and blist him or they try to cater to him, making the problem worse.

Perception by the other players drives their characters' interaction, and that's incredibly important in RP.  The most popular characters to RP with aren't necessarily the best or most interesting, they're the ones that are the most fun to interact with.  That means knowing what limits you can push and when you're just stepping over your capability and driving people away.  Unfortunately, playing a "smart" player is playing with fire, and it's risky because if you can't pull it off, it becomes very glaring.

More unfortunately, the most common advice in this situation that other players give is to discount the audience.  Which is fine, but it's not going to make playing with your character any more pleasant.

Better advice is to try not to play to the standard, but play the traits.  If they make the standard, more the better, but at least your character comes off as you're capable, not obviously more than you're capable.

(08-21-2015, 08:06 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: [ -> ]I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Well, I do agree that if you're incapable of writing well, you can't convince anyone 100% of what it is you're describing, though again I don't think that has anything to do with intellect. That goes for a lot of things though, not just genius, and I think a newer rper ought not to be castigated for their lesser vocabulary or writing skill. I think if enough effort is evident on the part of the other player, it's courteous to at least give them the benefit of the doubt, even if telling is less effective than showing. I figure people should be allowed to play things they're not, even if they end up being less than stellar at it from my view. I find the whole "punching above your level" stinks of elitism, but if you're going to separate base competency from writing ability, sure, descriptive skill can and will tinge people's opinion of your character. It's the tacitly approved blending that most people on here are generally comfortable with. You write dumb, so I will act as though your character is dumb. There's really nothing that can be done about that, I guess, and no amount of dictating what others do will be successful in stopping that. Nor is it a good thing to try and force others to think of your character a certain way, for sure.

(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 08:06 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: [ -> ]I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions.  It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT!  We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP.  The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out.

It happens all the time.  There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off.  They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls.

And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance.  If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative.  However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around.

I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted.  This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution.  There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty.  If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along.  It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise.

Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions?

The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored.  And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them.  You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates.

There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that.  It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument.

(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

You're missing my point. I explained different standards of intelligence and their variables. I was speaking of specific examples where a person tries to push the idea their character is intelligent, without being able to back it up because they can't roleplay it. It's not the player who determines how intelligent their characters are, but the audience who perceives them.

If you tell me your character is a "genius" and then you proceed to rp them as bumbling idiots who never do much but talk about how smart they are (without ever really proving it) There's a dissonance. Intelligence is relative to who sees it in RP, but people should not be offended if people fail to see their characters as what they claim they are.

I said "CAN" not "SHOULD" Hence why it's open for discussion. The phrasing in the title is clear. I asked about their capability, not if they should or should not be allowed.

I see no harm in people trying to roleplay witty characters, I, however, do see harm when people try to shove their "character" down my throat when I can't quite agree with how they role play their concept. People who get offended when your "non-genius" character out-smarts them. I speak of those people. 

Others have offered good feedback on the discussion, I simply thanked those two individuals for not resorting to personal insults others encouraged.

(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 08:06 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: [ -> ]I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions.  It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT!  We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP.  The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out.

It happens all the time.  There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off.  They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls.

And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance.  If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative.  However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around.

I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted.  This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution.  There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty.  If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along.  It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise.

Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions?

The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored.  And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them.  You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates.

There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that.  It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument.

That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me.

Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway. Or alternatively, I don't treat them like an idiot and instead play along, demonstrating to them through play how to show and not tell. Sure, you're not obligated to put up with it, but I'm also not sure doing the opposite is a "duty" of every right-minded rper or whatever.

(08-21-2015, 10:54 AM)Caspar Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 08:06 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: [ -> ]I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions.  It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT!  We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP.  The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out.

It happens all the time.  There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off.  They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls.

And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance.  If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative.  However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around.

I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted.  This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution.  There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty.  If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along.  It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise.

Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions?

The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored.  And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them.  You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates.

There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that.  It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument.

That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me.

Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway.

Part of your statement bolded for emphasis.  You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying.  If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them.  The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up.  "Just ignore them and move on."

Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement.  Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem.  If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn.  And they'll be shunned by a larger mass.

And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast.  Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react.  It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection.  This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar.

We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way.  It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it."

(08-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]Part of your statement bolded for emphasis.  You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying.  If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them.  The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up.  "Just ignore them and move on."

Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement.  Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem.  If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn.  And they'll be shunned by a larger mass.

And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast.  Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react.  It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection.  This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar.

We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way.  It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it."

How do you identify and differentiate between what is someone's 'limit' and what is just the product of a lack of research or understanding?

* Lays two cents on the discussion jar *

I don't personally believe in quantitative intelligence, so I don't think anyone's dumb, or smart. They simply know and has more experience and affinity in one area and another. That being said, I personally feel sometimes we have more difficulty playing a certain role than others, due to how we are as a roleplayer, and our own experiences as tastes. I, for example, can't really do long-worded characters, or villains, because English isn't my first language, so it has a lot of hiccups, and that I get really paranoid about overdoing when I do villains. This is character roles I simply don't feel comfortable playing.

Can someone that isn't witty play a witty character? I believe frankly that yes, with effort you can pull something good. Early characters are always weird, Quki used to be such a snowflake when I first envisioned her, but with the experience I got roleplaying, I finally got her in a mold I like, so that's great. So, after a while, you learn. So I guess my answer is yes, if you do want you can; might take more effort than normal, but no pain no gain.

(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly

Scenario:

There are three players, each roleplaying a character: Abby, Brian, and Scott.

All three characters are in a conversation. Scott's player wants to play Scott as a witty character and attempts to do so. Abby and Brian are his audience.

The RP concludes and all players go their separate ways. 

Abby's player thought Scott was an amusing and witty character.

Brian's player thought Scott really missed the mark and was kind of dumb.

Given the above information, is Scott a witty character?

(08-21-2015, 11:15 AM)Kaiz Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]Part of your statement bolded for emphasis.  You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying.  If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them.  The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up.  "Just ignore them and move on."

Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement.  Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem.  If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn.  And they'll be shunned by a larger mass.

And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast.  Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react.  It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection.  This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar.

We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way.  It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it."

How do you identify and differentiate between what is someone's 'limit' and what is just the product of a lack of research or understanding?

Generally speaking, if you're talking about research, you're talking about knowledge, which isn't a function of intelligence.  Now, a lack of research is one thing that can get aggravating, but that's a pretty forceful display of ignorance (like when someone says they're playing a jeweler, you are a jeweler, you correct them about a fundamental problem with the way gems are set, and the person tells you that you don't know what you're talking about and ignore it).

The limit of "wit" is generally an issue of dissonance.  As pertains to the OP, we're talking about someone having to tell someone their character is a genius or witty.  That's a very significant problem, when the player has one view of their character and the audience (the other players) have another.  If you're talking about the limit, it's the point you're playing your character as a genius but all the problems are solved by the thug in your group because you can't actually solve them.  Or when you have the worst comebacks in the group but you want your character to be "witty".  That just can't be washed over by metagaming in the idea that your character is what you can't manage.

Now, most experienced RPers learn not to play to the result, you play the traits.  Smart RPers don't even let the limit become an issue.  You say your character is sarcastic, vocal, biting, defensive, nerdy, insensitive, etc.  You end up with a character that makes nasty responses.  They're as witty as you are, but you aren't aiming at "witty", you're aiming at a certain tone of character.  Then the audience can discern whether your character is "witty" or not.

At the very least, people won't have the issue of having to deal with someone playing an "intelligent" character that isn't intelligent, but a "knowledgeable" and possibly "arrogant" character.  If they sound intelligent, so much the better, but you can't force the issue.

So the limit is very much personal.  Generally speaking, you shouldn't write a character you yourself can't personally carry out, but that is very much something you track by asking for and honestly receiving the feedback from other players.  You don't dictate the reaction and call all feedback hateful.  That's the responsibility of the community, to be respectful but honest so people aren't just being frozen out without being given a chance to know why.

The problem is that most people don't know their own limit, and if they're to the point they're ordering you to receive the character as a genius, they aren't generally in a receptive mood.  But is the statement that you can't really play a character wittier than you true?  Sure, your character can't be wittier than you can write (obviously, your character is only the sum of the reaction to what you write).

And if you just aren't snappy, you don't have to be.  It is okay to not be a genius and to therefore not play one.  It's fine, and we shouldn't treat people like not having that mental acuity is a disability, it's just a character trait.  Your engineer or mage isn't in any way hurt by the character not being a genius, in fact you tend to have more respect for the guy who worked hard and became great rather than the guy for whom it came naturally.

But if you really push the character beyond your limits, you're biting off more than you can chew.  Your genius will lose a ton of arguments and lose credibility IC, and soon OOC if you demand that the genius be recognized regardless.

(08-21-2015, 11:28 AM)Intaki Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly

Scenario:

There are three players, each roleplaying a character: Abby, Brian, and Scott.

All three characters are in a conversation. Scott's player wants to play Scott as a witty character and attempts to do so. Abby and Brian are his audience.

The RP concludes and all players go their separate ways. 

Abby's player thought Scott was an amusing and witty character.

Brian's player thought Scott really missed the mark and was kind of dumb.

Given the above information, is Scott a witty character?

That depends, two isn't much of a sample size.  More important would be if Brian's player is likely to RP with Scott again.  Because if Scott was so off the mark with Brian that he never wants to see him again, and Abby's willing to play with him, we have a major problem whenever Brian and Scott are forced to cohabit.  Because if Brian suddenly starts biting back and embarrasses Scott in public because Brian, himself, is wittier, OOC drama is likely.

And the OP is even more explicit.  We're talking about Brian thinking Scott missed the mark, and then having (presumably Scott, but maybe even Abby) saying, "The character is witty, and just because the player isn't really doesn't mean you can treat him like a moron in character or out of character."

Unfortunately, Brian is most likely to tell Abby what he thinks and to avoid Scott, but neither is likely to tell Scott what they think.  And if far more people agree with Brian, Scott is likely to find himself isolated and not have any idea why people are avoiding him.  If no one told him they found him flat and/or offensive, and his reliance on that trait is a constant throbbing pain in his performance, he's probably trucking along not having any clue why people find him flat or offensive.  He's likely to blame Brian and his ilk for not getting it.

This tends to happen a lot more with charisma in play, but I've seen it happen with wit as well.  I've even seen this happen when someone not only wasn't witty or particularly intelligent, but also couldn't type well.  Well-meaning player punching far above her weight, and she didn't know why people tended to avoid her until I tried to gently break it to her.  Luckily, that ended a bit better of a story, she slightly modified the character to not rely so much on being a smart-ass.  Without the smart, the character is just an ass.

(08-21-2015, 11:39 AM)Ignacius Wrote: [ -> ]That depends, two isn't much of a sample size.

Very well, let us modify the scenario:

Scott's player wants to roleplay Scott as a witty character.

Over the course of one week, Scott's player roleplays with three separate groups of players.

Group 1: Abby, Brian, Jenny, Dean.

Group 2: Cecilia, AJ, Michael.

Group 3: Joseph, Irene, Kevin, Ian, James.

The impressions made by Scott's character are as follows:

Abby and Jenny thought Scott was clever. Brian and Dean thought he missed the mark a lot.

Cecilia and Michael were amused by Scott's antics. AJ was not impressed and thinks his character is wittier.

Joseph, Kevin, and Ian thought Scott was a riot and invited him to do a comedy routine at their weekly tavern RP event next week. Irene and James were irritated by Scott's humor and do not wish to RP with him again.

Given the above information is Scott a witty character?