+- 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: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! (/showthread.php?tid=3331)
Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Sarantali - 08-06-2013
Let us say you're RPing with a group and the idea is that you're all magical students learning your powers. Someone who is a great RPer and really nice OOC joins your group.
As RP goes on they're clearly running a story that doesn't quite fit in with the canon... or, their power level for what they can do is way higher than what the group is previously said to do. Maybe your group theme is a bunch of the best of the best magical students and they're playing a layabout who thumbs their nose at all IC authority ... including the teachers beyond a point which should get their PC kicked out.
Ostensibly you've talked to this player before and you've gotten the response of apology it's causin strife, but, "that's their character"
So we're to the next step: Should the group change to be able to accommodate their story, should they allow this one person to change the setting (they can get away with no authority even though other people cannot), or should the other person be asked to leave for not fitting the group?
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Eva - 08-06-2013
This may not be the answer you're looking for, but the situation resonates a certain chord that reminds me a great deal of my time spent with a previous linkshell whereby one of the leader was not particularly well-liked by most of the members and a lot of people were really reaching in order to explain why they were remaining under such an individual's leadership. In this particular situation I sort of injected myself into an almost liaison sort of role, hoping to serve as the sort of glue that kept everything together. This won't always be practical, but there were some very good reasons why this made sense in that situation. It's difficult to speak in abstracts, though I know a number of folks from 1.0 will know exactly whom I'm speaking of here.
If there's no way to kind of bridge that gap, or it would be extremely out of character to do so, I think each character involved also needs to make that decision for him- or herself. In the example you've given, if there's no way to bridge that gap, it seems like the character involved should probably be sort of asked to leave the group in-character (bolded for emphasis). I think this is one of those things where a little OOC /tell softly indicating that there's no hard feelings OOC but that it doesn't make sense for the sake of the RP scene to carry on when the newer participant isn't meshing well ICly for whatever reason. This could spurn some really interesting RP of its own, even. But there should remain that dividing line between what is IC and what is OOC and any bitterness about being ejected from the group should only be felt IC.
If this is an undesirable outcome for all, than I think there needs to be some OOC communication to sort of explain that there needs to be a point in the middle where both "sides" can meet in order for the event to go on smoothly and plausibly. Mind you, this is all only my opinion, fwiw.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - lady2beetle - 08-06-2013
I feel like... this is one of those things that really depends on the specific circumstance. On one hand, I reserve the right to determine who my character RPs with because it's her story. I may not tell others how to RP their character, but they also can't tell me how to RP mine - and that includes deciding if I want to RP with them.
I also feel like handling things ICly can often be best. If he's a layabout who doesn't have any respect for authority? What would the IC consequence be? He can easily be asked to leave the group for IC reasons. Power levels may be a bit tougher but it comes down to whether the person is actually godmodding or if you maybe have different views about how certain abilities work in the game. Either way, if their character isn't fitting into the story of your group, you have the right to tell them that they are a great RPer, but their story just doesn't fit.
That said! I also have a passion for creating characters that aren't molded for the group they are entering. Some might call me a special snowflake. I guess I don't see it that way. I see it from a biological perspective. Every organism (read: RP character)Â needs their own niche. Something that they are responsible for. In D&D, that can often mean that I want to fill a role that isn't being completely filled. In MMOs and RPs, it means I like my characters to have unique characteristics that aren't included elsewhere in the story. In short, having a single group of likeminded studious mages-in-the-making is boring. Having a group of characters with their own goals and themes and intentions that all interact differently - that's fun.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Magellan - 08-06-2013
They donn't belong there ICly, so remove them ICly.
I have been in many situations with my own character where everything is great OOCly, but my character simply doesn't fit ICly. He or she would have absolutely no reason to stick around long term. Rather than try to force the sitaution, I merely go along on my way. Feels like that is what needs to happen here.
Edit: Your poll seems to outline the difference between lite, medium, and haevy RP immersion. Once your group figures out which it wants to be, your decision should be easy =)
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Ildur - 08-06-2013
On the matter of power levels and clashing microcanons: Ussually, I'd recommend to try to merge both the group's microcanon and the player's microcanon into a single one. The only way to do this is to discuss it OOCly. The other way is for the participant to ignore the clashing parts of the microcanon during interaction, trying their best to avoid them coming up or handwaving them if they do.
However, you have mentioned that, in this case, the strifing character is acting in such a way that would mean he should get kicked in-character from the organization. This tells me this character isn't fit for the group in the first place. He should leave the organization in-character. OOCly, however, if everyone's fine with the player and the character keeping in touch, then there's no reason for him to stop interacting with the group completely.
It can also be handwaved with other reasons. For example, maybe he brings some very useful set of skills to the group that cannot be easily replaced. Or maybe his lack of respect for authority is not seen as a deal breaker by the authorities theirselves.
The way I'd handle it is to approach him in-character first. Then, if the character doesn't agree to change ways, talk with the player OOCly about ways that will not break character for anyone. If he insists that his character would never change his actions, not even for the sake of staying in the group (as in, respecting the authorities but not really), then an in-character kicking is probably the best way to mantain internal consistency.
As an example: I had a character joining a group and then be immediately kicked afterwards for doing something the group's leaders disliked (trying to run away with an asset, which in some ways was also a kidnapping...but details!). ICly, she was not part of the group anymore after the fact. But OOCly, she was still part of the guild and still interacted with their members whenever it made sense for her to do so.
So I guess that, in conclusion, the troublesome character in your case should be kicked ICly. Then, if the players agree, they can still interact with him and, perhaps, even include him in the story as an out-of-group character.
lady2beetle Wrote:That said! I also have a passion for creating characters that aren't molded for the group they are entering. Some might call me a special snowflake.
Special snowflakeness (yay for made-up words!) is very dependant on your roleplaying circle, the personal story of the character and the circumstances of whatever traits make her special. Having a special ability or unique trait doesn't necessarily mean your character is a special snowflake. Having a lot of special abilities that nobody else seem to have, though, will place you at the edge of special snowflakeness.
For example, a character who is a master battlemage who can also teleport himself and an undefinite number of others across long distances without previous preparation or posterior fatigue is a special snowflake. However, your roleplaying circle might be okay with that. He might also be an important character for the story, and his teleportation skills are actually needed for it to move forward (for whatever reason). Let's not forget about the circumstances: maybe his magical expertise is dependant upon a powerful artifact that, if taken away, would make him into a complete and useless wimp.
It's, at the end, a matter of balance. Sadly, there's no mathematical formula for it (though I have seen people trying to stick to no more than 3 special traits for their characters, which is as far as math will help us here), and there's a great deal of common sense involved.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - FreelanceWizard - 08-06-2013
As someone who's run an academy-style guild (a mutant school, no less, in CoH) and will have apprentices in the Ivory Tower, I have some thoughts here -- though they're largely what others have said.
A character that doesn't fit the concept of the organization but is otherwise not an issue OOC -- i.e., doesn't godmode, plays nice with other people, isn't using undisclosed powers, etc. -- should be subject to the rule of IC Actions Equal IC Consequences. So, given the examples, the IC leadership should approach the character, let him know that he's not meeting expectations, and that he needs to either straighten up or see himself out. Back in CoH, we had a fair number of slacker students, overachievers, students of questionable mental or moral capacity, and such. The vast majorty of them weren't highly disruptive IC all the time; being disruptive IC some of the time is fine.
Part of the trick of being in charge IC was deciding how to balance IC consequences with others' desires for their character. Sometimes it helped to consider the consequences a story arc and talk to the player OOC about the impending doom and how it might be averted in a way that produces character growth. Other times, we'd have to "softball" consequences to basically give IC warnings, then see what happened.You'll note I mentioned "undisclosed powers." One of the important parts of the application process, I think, is determining if the character will be a good fit. If a character is wildly overpowered compared to the rest of the group and that's a problem for the theme (for instance, you're all students of magic and this guy's an archmage), that should come out in the application process and both parties can go their separate ways. What's problematic is when someone has powers or character elements (multiple personalities, royal blood, etc.) that they don't disclose during this process. In that instance, the OOC leadership has to get involved and figure out how to handle the situation. Sometimes, that means the character has to leave; sometimes, it just means the character needs to have their abilities scaled back or the dial turned down on their mental instabilities.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Pells - 08-06-2013
I don't believe there is one best way to handle any and all situation, ever. That said, I would personally prefer to handle clashes OOCly, as that has in my experience been the better way to avoid hurt feelings. Finding an IC way to deal with it is even better, and can often be negotiated for OOCly.
There are instances where a character type, while fun, just doesn't mesh well with specific groups. It happens. But nobody should be forced to adjust or compromise their character concepts to fit another's--neither the group nor the outlier. I feel that it would be best to just admit they aren't a good fit, and ask them to move on.
In the example given, I'd have a talk with the individual, and mention that he doesn't really fit in with the group's goals and ideals. If they reply with the 'sorry but this is my character' line, then by all means--have the slacker character ICly be flunked out or suspended. Or if the character is overpowered: they've obviously progressed past the scope of the class, and should be graduated.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Sarantali - 08-06-2013
(08-06-2013, 01:45 PM)lady2beetle Wrote: I feel like... this is one of those things that really depends on the specific circumstance. On one hand, I reserve the right to determine who my character RPs with because it's her story. I may not tell others how to RP their character, but they also can't tell me how to RP mine - and that includes deciding if I want to RP with them.
I also feel like handling things ICly can often be best. If he's a layabout who doesn't have any respect for authority? What would the IC consequence be? He can easily be asked to leave the group for IC reasons. Power levels may be a bit tougher but it comes down to whether the person is actually godmodding or if you maybe have different views about how certain abilities work in the game. Either way, if their character isn't fitting into the story of your group, you have the right to tell them that they are a great RPer, but their story just doesn't fit.
That said! I also have a passion for creating characters that aren't molded for the group they are entering. Some might call me a special snowflake. I guess I don't see it that way. I see it from a biological perspective. Every organism (read: RP character)Â needs their own niche. Something that they are responsible for. In D&D, that can often mean that I want to fill a role that isn't being completely filled. In MMOs and RPs, it means I like my characters to have unique characteristics that aren't included elsewhere in the story. In short, having a single group of likeminded studious mages-in-the-making is boring. Having a group of characters with their own goals and themes and intentions that all interact differently - that's fun.
They're a layabout with no respect for authority. You go through the IC consequences and they RP them as if they do not matter or as if they ICly got out of them. It comes down to a strange form of godmoding wherein it's "personality godmodding" in a way -- "Oh sure you punished me and took away all these privileges but I don't care and no one can tell me how to react" -- essentially stopping any IC ability to effect the situation.
I am not necessarily talking about making characters without niches. In fact, I think careful group management CREATES more niches than it destroys. If you have someone who's trying to play a bit of the rebel then someone refusing all authority means that a person can't realistically play a bit of a rebel (who's going to notice someone cutting a class once in a while in the face of someone who routinely tells the teachers to shove it? If someone is a little sad and scared from being away at home and someone else is frequently suicidal then RP tends to gravitate towards those stronger flavors as being higher priority)
Having a single minded group of likeminded studious mages could be boring. But, having one off the walls wacky person means that other people ALSO have to go off the walls and be bigger and "SHOUT" their character for attention in the face of so much loud stuff happening... or get ignored in the group as other stuff happens to people around them.
(08-06-2013, 01:54 PM)Magellan Wrote: They donn't belong there ICly, so remove them ICly.
I have been in many situations with my own character where everything is great OOCly, but my character simply doesn't fit ICly. He or she would have absolutely no reason to stick around long term. Rather than try to force the sitaution, I merely go along on my way. Feels like that is what needs to happen here.
Edit: Your poll seems to outline the difference between lite, medium, and haevy RP immersion. Once your group figures out which it wants to be, your decision should be easy =)
My poll was meant to show more the difference between RP being about myself and my character as a priority, RP being about my group and how we interact as a priority, and RP being about my peers and how we interact as a priority. ^_^; Not that any of them are wrong to do but they do change how you see the world and expectations for what the world should give or not give.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Ildur - 08-06-2013
(08-06-2013, 05:19 PM)Koren Wrote: They're a layabout with no respect for authority. You go through the IC consequences and they RP them as if they do not matter or as if they ICly got out of them. It comes down to a strange form of godmoding wherein it's "personality godmodding" in a way -- "Oh sure you punished me and took away all these privileges but I don't care and no one can tell me how to react" -- essentially stopping any IC ability to effect the situation.
By not acknowledging the IC consequences of his IC actions, he's straight up godmodding. Nothing strange about it.
You just have to OOCly point out that their character actions are not coherent or consistent witht the frame of the group and that they have to either start acting properly (ie. not ignoring IC consequences, or trying to come with something Icly reasonable as to why he's ignoring them) or that they better leave.
Sure, nobody can tell him how to react. But he can't tell anyone else how to react, either. And kicking him out ICly or OOCly is a very valid reaction since he's being disruptive and god-mody, I'd say.
Quote:I am not necessarily talking about making characters without niches. In fact, I think careful group management CREATES more niches than it destroys. If you have someone who's trying to play a bit of the rebel then someone refusing all authority means that a person can't realistically play a bit of a rebel (who's going to notice someone cutting a class once in a while in the face of someone who routinely tells the teachers to shove it? If someone is a little sad and scared from being away at home and someone else is frequently suicidal then RP tends to gravitate towards those stronger flavors as being higher priority)
In my experience, excesively dramatic characters (like the hypotethical suicide here) get often ignored or brushed aside. Players who make those characters just to call attention are rather unsubtle about it, so it's easy to detect them.
Anyway, I'm a bit confused by this paragraph. Are you trying to say that some character concepts cannot be played out if there's someone troublesome, because the troublesome one will call more attention than that other character concept?
And by troublesome we mean someone who is godmodding to some extent to ignore IC consequences. In which case the group should talk to him OOCly about the character and then decide if he ever had a place in the group.
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Magellan - 08-06-2013
I tend to define lite/medium/heavy as this:
Lite: anything goes. Consequences do not matter because the whole point is just to socialize and RP for fun. Scenes don't have to include continuity. Lite RP is akin to running skits in an acting class; there isn't a whole lot of accountability because the story isn't the point, the act of RPing is the point.
Medium: Medium is that strange hybrid of trying to make things matter, while at the same time being inclusive to all. You try to tell stories together, but are willing to flex and bend quite a bit when others step out of bounds. Because at the end of the day, its just a game.
Heavy: everything matters. The story is the point. Those you invite to participate must adhere to it, or it spoils the fun for all. The storytelling is the reason everyone is there, and to defy the etablished rules means your character shouldn't be there. They don't belong. They are being disruptive.
It sounds like your person isn't doing a 'strange mode' of godmoding, they are flat out godmoding. Their character is impervious to the rules that everyone else is, cannot be bothered to work appropriately within the provided storyline, and are there for their own gain, without truly caring for the others around him/her. They want their character to be 'cool', and therefore unable to be overpowered.
I've run into this in the past, and have promptly said no thanks and walked away from it. You might explain to them that the purpose of your group is realistic storytelling, in which every action must matter and must have consequences, or else it spoils it for everyone else. Tell them they need to respect this with the way they play their character, or that character is no longer welcome in the group.
Hope that helps and good luck. Its never fun to have to try and manage these situations :/
RE: Setting v. Character - Round One... Fight! - Valtiere - 08-06-2013
(08-06-2013, 01:32 PM)Koren Wrote: So we're to the next step: Should the group change to be able to accommodate their story, should they allow this one person to change the setting (they can get away with no authority even though other people cannot), or should the other person be asked to leave for not fitting the group?
My answer to this varies depending on my position within the group. I prefer to avoid conflict, so if I am one of the people being affected by it but not the leader or in any other position to make that kind of decision, and it got bad enough I would simply let my character leave when he/she would naturally do so; taking myself out of the equation rather than continuing on with a situation that my character wouldn't choose to be in. I've been in a situation like this a few years ago and ended up with my character changing in ways she shouldn't have in order to remain within the group (who I'd been rping with for a long, long time) after a new person joined and her character refused to play by the rules and never, ever suffered any IC consequences. I don't believe people should feel that they have to change their characters personality or choices in order to prevent further conflict like that when the other party refuses to give. I am now more inclined to find another group of people to RP with, whilst maintaining contact with the old, than try and force my own character to remain where she obviously wouldn't.
If I were running the guild then I would rather the character who doesn't fit be asked to leave than to expect the rest of the group (which may be quite substantial) to accept changes being thrust on them in order to suit this one person, or expect them to turn a blind eye to the obvious rule-flaunting or lack of ic-consequences. While its really hard to say to someone "I'm sorry, this isn't working, you have to go" is it really fair to allow one person's character to force others to change theirs in order to justify staying, or push other ic changes on the group/guild in order to allow the rules to be broken without consequence?
I am a believer that IC actions should equal IC consequences, and if the character or their player won't accept that, then maybe that group isn't the best place for them.
I'd rather see an amicable parting of ways then just ignore the problem which could then fester into something worse. There's no reason why an IC clash has to lead to OOC drama (though sadly it often seems to), and there's no reason why a person who's character doesn't fit the group can't still RP with them anyway in other ways or times.
One final point: I think this is something the leadership of the group or guild in question needs to be willing to come forward and make a stand on. In my situation, no-one was willing to make the decision to enact any IC consequences and things were just left to roll forward. OOC discussions just led to the usual excuse of 'that’s just how he is' and the character was allowed to stay. This led to more confrontations between characters, and finally pushed myself and others into having to come up with creative reasons for our own characters to remain in the situation - because without that they would simply have walked out. In a group with an established member base and an established story etc I don't believe this is very fair.
I hope this doesn't give people the wrong impression though. I'm not against RPing with new people, I think that IC conflict is good and can be quite fun, and I have a lot of patience when it comes to things like this, but if it is causing drama and runs the risk of spilling over from IC to OOC then decisions need to be made.