+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Let's talk Godmoding (/showthread.php?tid=12883)
Let's talk Godmoding - Warren Castille - 08-06-2015
This got touched on in a Thread That Shan't Be Named and I wanted to see if we can flesh this out a little bit. Specifically, this line of dialogue:
Quote:I see that, personally, as imprinting one's own subjective suspension of disbelief onto someone else's character. That's godmodding.
That's a two-way street, though. Two people are fighting one another. One is super over the top, complete with Tekken-style air juggling. The other is a gritty, super-duper-realism fighter. Who should be deferring to who, exactly? There's two suspensions of disbelief going on here: The air-fighter believes that they're capable of flying combat, and the gritty person believes that's absurd.
So if the over-the-top style attempts to uppercut the gritty style into the sun, which result should be permitted? Does the gritty person godmode a result by only allowing themselves to be hit and nothing else? Does the over-the-top person godmode by forcing the other person to deal with cartoon physics?
Second point/question: If dice are involved, and these two go through the same thing, what should happen? If the over-the-top person wins the roll, is it godmoding to have the gritty person take the hit but not accentuate the giant reaction? If the gritty person wins the defense and choose to block, is it unfair of them to not go flying from the force of things?
Opinions? Thoughts? Work-arounds?
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Blue - 08-06-2015
I think the general etiquette when such incompatible forms of RP come to clash is to not try make one's point of view win over the other, and instead walk out, or just do one roll for who wins/who loses and then skip to the "after battle" part of RP.
Then again, it's something that has never happened to me.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Gone. - 08-06-2015
Start with plausibility, then attempt to meet your RP partner somewhere in the middle.
If that isn't possible, then split on amiable terms. Not everyone's style is going to mesh with the person next to them, you know?
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Sahja Elahka - 08-06-2015
This right here seems to be one of the most difficult factors of walk up RP.
Idea
Differ to the person's being challenged's rules. At that point if you don't like how they fight, don't fight them. And if its that big of a deal, you probably don't want to RP much with them anyway.
Alternatively the winner of the dice roll gets to factor in the physics of things, part of the risk you run with RP over the internet with randoms is dealing with people with different reality views.Â
Worst case scenario, agree to disagree and walk away. If you were involved in a story which caused the conflict, use it as a lesson for what should be communicated beforehand,
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - -no longer matters- - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 04:13 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: This got touched on in a Thread That Shan't Be Named and I wanted to see if we can flesh this out a little bit. Specifically, this line of dialogue:Are we talking strictly combat? I think the best work around is not fighting anyone until you've at least gotten to know them a little bit. There's nothing wrong with backing down from confrontation until you see if it's worth your time.
Quote:I see that, personally, as imprinting one's own subjective suspension of disbelief onto someone else's character. That's godmodding.
That's a two-way street, though. Two people are fighting one another. One is super over the top, complete with Tekken-style air juggling. The other is a gritty, super-duper-realism fighter. Who should be deferring to who, exactly? There's two suspensions of disbelief going on here: The air-fighter believes that they're capable of flying combat, and the gritty person believes that's absurd.
So if the over-the-top style attempts to uppercut the gritty style into the sun, which result should be permitted? Does the gritty person godmode a result by only allowing themselves to be hit and nothing else? Does the over-the-top person godmode by forcing the other person to deal with cartoon physics?
Second point/question: If dice are involved, and these two go through the same thing, what should happen? If the over-the-top person wins the roll, is it godmoding to have the gritty person take the hit but not accentuate the giant reaction? If the gritty person wins the defense and choose to block, is it unfair of them to not go flying from the force of things?
Opinions? Thoughts? Work-arounds?
If the matter comes into tournament combat, then it's up to the host to lay ground rules.
In any other area's really my first answer also applies.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Spethah - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 04:19 PM)hauntmedoitagain Wrote: Start with plausibility, then attempt to meet your RP partner somewhere in the middle.
That's my approach to these kind of things. Kinda keeps things in the realm of not-over-the-top.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Sig - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 04:13 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: This got touched on in a Thread That Shan't Be Named and I wanted to see if we can flesh this out a little bit. Specifically, this line of dialogue:
Quote:I see that, personally, as imprinting one's own subjective suspension of disbelief onto someone else's character. That's godmodding.
That's a two-way street, though. Two people are fighting one another. One is super over the top, complete with Tekken-style air juggling. The other is a gritty, super-duper-realism fighter. Who should be deferring to who, exactly? There's two suspensions of disbelief going on here: The air-fighter believes that they're capable of flying combat, and the gritty person believes that's absurd.
So if the over-the-top style attempts to uppercut the gritty style into the sun, which result should be permitted? Does the gritty person godmode a result by only allowing themselves to be hit and nothing else? Does the over-the-top person godmode by forcing the other person to deal with cartoon physics?
Second point/question: If dice are involved, and these two go through the same thing, what should happen? If the over-the-top person wins the roll, is it godmoding to have the gritty person take the hit but not accentuate the giant reaction? If the gritty person wins the defense and choose to block, is it unfair of them to not go flying from the force of things?
Opinions? Thoughts? Work-arounds?
The fundamental problem here is that this type of god-modding is relative to the style of RP at hand. Â You're basically thrust into a dilemma where someone -has- to godmode to retain continuity with their character's roleplay norms and styles. Â This is sad because OOC disposition has clearly impacted the RP by this point. Â Â
If the roleplayers are skilled (and polite), they should recognize the dilemma and react accordingly by meeting somewhere in the middle. Â It is the least of all evils. SSJ 40K Goku should probably find some sort of plot device or motivation to tone his attacks down to a palatable level. Â Ser Gritty-Mc'ParryaLot should realize that he is fighting an agile, bouncy opponent and react accordingly by upping the intensity or turtleling to an appropriate level. Â The RP'ers must meet in the middle - or it's just going to be a lop-sided, boring e-peen fest, flopping between various levels of toxic denial. This applies with and without dice.Â
Ideally, RP'ers should not find themselves forced into this dilemma before a fight breaks out. Basic physics and assumptions should be plain and understood on the front end.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Virella - 08-06-2015
I generally don't do combat with people I do not know. Else, Virella, heck, she's a mage, a teleport IC far away from whoever is pestering her is easy enough
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Hammersmith - 08-06-2015
When I have to write a post that might be contested by a reaction?Â
I write it framed with what I'd like to happen, as well as an obvious out "If it happened it would X" or "If he got hands around Y, it wouldn't end well"
Keeps me from having to dictate how things are going to go for the other person while letting them take the direction I was aiming for if they feel so inclined, or to even work and twist with it.
I feel like the idea is to make the other person look good on a success, and to make the failure still have impact if they lose the roll, roll with consequences.
This doesn't work with a Bad Player, who tend to God Mod without Talking About It First.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Nebbs - 08-06-2015
As each player is bringing different versions of un-reality with them, they can just as easily take away different views on the outcomes.
This works when the outcomes are just different interpretations of the same thing. One sees their opponent punched to the moon, the other just sees them self knocked down.
If they disagree on the essence of the outcome then that is simply a disagreement.
If you want 3rd parties to interpret things.. then they get to decide on their own version of un-reality.
The only truth here is that there are as many truths as there are people involved.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Cato - 08-06-2015
I've never felt the urge to engage in combat role-play unless I know and trust the other individual(s) involved. I feel like it's the best compromise - since two role-players with vastly different role-playing styles and the urge to both 'win' are very rarely going to get along.
I've become very good at identifying which role-players I'll click with and which I won't based on gut instinct alone. I imagine I'm not alone in that regard - and it's precisely why I avoid the route of role-playing with anyone and everybody that stumbles across my path.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Tumensuns - 08-06-2015
If it's in a tournament, it's up to the host to lay down ground rules before hand. If this is random RP, I'd more than likely dissolve the session and leave because I ground roleplay on the basis of reality as per the universe the roleplay is taking place in. I'm not going to give up my values on this to appease anybody, and my experiences with this is the person who believes they can punch me into the sun tends to not want to talk it over, so it's not really worth the effort and time.
If this was a Dragonball Z MMO, then being thrown into the sun is possible, but this is Eorzea, and that level of super strength has not been seen or recorded by the games lore standards. If they want to call me a godmoder because I don't believe in their denial of the reality of the universe, then I have no problem calling them a godmoder for breaking it, but it's all very moot because I simply leave them be so they can continue doing whatever they want, but it doesn't have to involve me.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Warren Castille - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 04:56 PM)Tumensuns Wrote: If it's in a tournament, it's up to the host to lay down ground rules before hand. If this is random RP, I'd more than likely dissolve the session and leave because I ground roleplay on the basis of reality as per the universe the roleplay is taking place in. I'm not going to give up my values on this to appease anybody, and my experiences with this is the person who believes they can punch me into the sun tends to not want to talk it over, so it's not really worth the effort and time.
If this was a Dragonball Z MMO, then being thrown into the sun is possible, but this is Eorzea, and that level of super strength has not been seen or recorded by the games lore standards. If they want to call me a godmoder because I don't believe in their denial of the reality of the universe, then I have no problem calling them a godmoder for breaking it, but it's all very moot because I simply leave them be so they can continue doing whatever they want, but it doesn't have to involve me.
The trouble with XIV, though, is that we DO have some examples of this sort of thing. 2.55 ending cutscenes feature full-on environmental destruction, and the Hildebrand questline features a number of superhuman feats.
Not that I don't feel the same way as you do, but these are frequently the counterpoint to "realism" being invoked.
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Verad - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 04:38 PM)Nebbs Wrote: As each player is bringing different versions of un-reality with them, they can just as easily take away different views on the outcomes.
This works when the outcomes are just different interpretations of the same thing. One sees their opponent punched to the moon, the other just sees them self knocked down.
If they disagree on the essence of the outcome then that is simply a disagreement.
If you want 3rd parties to interpret things.. then they get to decide on their own version of un-reality.
The only truth here is that there are as many truths as there are people involved.
This works only insofar as actions occur within a vacuum, affecting only the two parties involved. As soon as the actions are implied to have a larger impact on the setting, it becomes more difficult to justify.
It's also really bog-standard criticisms of early empiricism mixed with a bit of solipsism, and feels a bit Philosophy 101. How do we really know our actions have an impact, you know? Man?
RE: Let's talk Godmoding - Nebbs - 08-06-2015
(08-06-2015, 05:23 PM)Verad Wrote:(08-06-2015, 04:38 PM)Nebbs Wrote: As each player is bringing different versions of un-reality with them, they can just as easily take away different views on the outcomes.
This works when the outcomes are just different interpretations of the same thing. One sees their opponent punched to the moon, the other just sees them self knocked down.
If they disagree on the essence of the outcome then that is simply a disagreement.
If you want 3rd parties to interpret things.. then they get to decide on their own version of un-reality.
The only truth here is that there are as many truths as there are people involved.
This works only insofar as actions occur within a vacuum, affecting only the two parties involved. As soon as the actions are implied to have a larger impact on the setting, it becomes more difficult to justify.
It's also really bog-standard criticisms of early empiricism mixed with a bit of solipsism, and feels a bit Philosophy 101. How do we really know our actions have an impact, you know? Man?
Nod..nod. Yep, that's muchly what I said.Â
It seems to me that if you want consensus not starting with realism vs godmodding would seem sensible. You need to have some common ground that all will accept and that would bound the validity of interactions. The closer the RP styles the larger this common ground can be, and will hold until someone does something the other(s) can't accept.