RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

V'aleera · **06-28-2015, 02:40 PM**

I believe OOC achievement has no bearing on the capabilities of any character. At the absolute most it can serve as a very loose measuring stick for how much in-game lore the player has been exposed to first hand, but even that is an unreliable metric given alts and the fact that most lore can be found online as well as the possibility of a player leveling before gaining an interest in lore or RP.

Addison · **06-28-2015, 02:44 PM**

(06-28-2015, 02:22 PM)Glioca Sargonnai Wrote: The two have nothingÂ to do with one another.

Maybe for you, but for me they certainly overlap in some regards, especially since the arena in question is that of a video game. Not your dining room table during your private D&D campaign where you are the end-all solution to what the rules are.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. And I'd appreciate in the future if you didn't address such posts with such a sarcastic undertone. Just because we differ in opinion doesn't mean you have to talk down to me. Thank you.

Dis · **06-28-2015, 02:49 PM**

If you saw that as me talking down to you, I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I said. Â But it beggars the point. Â

If I can be level 60 and play a weak character, why can't I be level 1 and play a strong character? Â Isn't that a bit of a double standard on the part of the RPer? Â

"You have to be game strong to be RP strong."

Don't you then have to be game weak to be RP weak? Â And I don't mean hiding your level, I mean genuinely a weak character, whose player leveled them up solely for certain gear because they like the styles, or because they enjoy the PvE aspect of the game, but don't want their in-game level to reflect in their RP?

Also, Kellach, what about on an alt? Â If I play an alt whose slain a primal, I do know how the fights went, because I did them on my main, and re-watched the cutscene numerous times. Â Does that experience count for nothing for that character, if I happen to not want to level that character past a certain level before I start RPing with them?

And considering the level cap has increased, does that mean I have to be 60 in all of my classes to be strong as those things? Â Is 50 no longer sufficient because that's no longer end game? Â Where do we stop counting OOC achievement as part of our writing exercises power level? Â Do I have to level Culinarian to 60 before Glioca continues making food? Â What about Weaving? Â

There's an inherent problem in considering power level in a game where certain elements of the game achievement changes based on things like expansions, patches, and hotfixes.

Addison · **06-28-2015, 03:01 PM**

(06-28-2015, 02:49 PM)Glioca Sargonnai Wrote: If you saw that as me talking down to you, I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I said. Â But it beggars the point. Â

If I can be level 60 and play a weak character, why can't I be level 1 and play a strong character? Â Isn't that a bit of a double standard on the part of the RPer? Â

"You have to be game strong to be RP strong."

Don't you then have to be game weak to be RP weak? Â And I don't mean hiding your level, I mean genuinely a weak character, whose player leveled them up solely for certain gear because they like the styles, or because they enjoy the PvE aspect of the game, but don't want their in-game level to reflect in their RP?

Also, Kellach, what about on an alt? Â If I play an alt whose slain a primal, I do know how the fights went, because I did them on my main, and rewatched the cutscene numerous times. Â Does that experience count for nothing for that character, if I happen to not want to level that character past a certain level before I start RPing with them?

Points bolded are what I'm addressing:

1) To put it plainly, because 'weak' characters aren't special snowflakes. They are average. They're the everyday people we should be associating with, but aren't, because everyone wants to play the special snowflake. If you want to play the special snowflake, great! But what makes you special? What sets your character apart from the hundreds of other roleplayers playing special snowflakes?

When has anyone asked a 'weak' person to back up their claims that they're a bad mage? Or an inexperienced swordsman? Or a terrible cook?

We're not called upon to prove a negative.

2) Even though this was addressed to Kellach: To me, that sounds a lot like metagaming.

V'aleera · **06-28-2015, 03:08 PM**

(06-28-2015, 03:01 PM)Addison Wrote: To put it plainly, because 'weak' characters aren't special snowflakes.

I would beg to differ, but before going further down that path I'd first ask that you explicitly outline what constitutes a special snowflake.

Paradox · **06-28-2015, 03:16 PM**

The entire term 'special snowflake' has always smacked of elitism to me, or an unreasonable and irrational judgment on someone's character for having a special feature, a little more power, or something different or down a path that most tow-the-line Rpers don't like to play or see played. I've generally only heard the term used in a snide or judging fashion, so I actually tend to avoid people that call people's characters or players such things, and avoid roleplaying with them because they already have their judgment or idea of what you are before they get to know you. The minute 'edgy' or 'special snowflake' comes out of anyone's mouth, that basically tells me they've already cast their die of what they think of your character idea. But that's also a bit off topic. Regardless, once someone makes that judgment against you or your character, good luck proving them wrong.

Dis · **06-28-2015, 03:20 PM**

The term special snowflake is very derogatory to players who want a unique concept instead of a cookie cutter NPC type, and I find it rather insulting that people keep throwing it around like using the term toward someone else makes them somehow a better player. Â

Just because someone doesn't want to be an everyman doesn't make them a special snowflake. Â Not every character has to be an everyman. Â Everyman characters, yes, they can be fun when done well, I have a few myself, but playing that, all the time, every day, is like slice of life RP. Â To a lot of players, it's boring as hell. Â

If I want to deal with slice of life, I'll log off the game and go live my real life. Â I play an MMO for the same reason I RP - the fantastic, the things that can't be done in real life, the things that are interesting, or intriguing, interacting with people who are unique and different. Â You could consider anyone who is beyond moderately skilled to be a special snowflake, because those aren't the status quo type of character. Â The status quo are characters who are ordinary, and maybe they have rich personalities and backgrounds, but they're still the status quo. Â That's why they're the everyman. Â And I do enjoy interacting with characters like that. Â

But it should be myÂ choice to play something like that. Â Players shouldn't have it shoved down their throat that 'You either play this type of character or you're a special snowflake and that's bad.' Â It does nothing but try to punish people who want to be creative and inventive. Â It makes them feel like garbage for trying to play something beyond the everyman. Â It's why I never use that word, even when describing the most god-moddy character in existence.

And why is that considered metagaming? Â Does this mean that every Ishgard player who hasn't yet reached Ishgard can't say anything about the current state of the City-State, despite the fact they're from Ishgard, just because they're not there in the MSQ? Â The MSQ doesn't reflect your character being from Ishgard. Â Or Ul'dah, or Gridania, or Limsa Lominsa. Â In all of the quests, you're from somewhere far away, and no one knows where, you just happened to end up in those places on a wagon drawn by Chocobo. Â You're a visitor. Â Those places aren't your home, or point of origin. Â

So by that logic, you can't play someone from any of those city-states. Â Because your MSQ/side-quests say you're not from there. Â Again, there are inherent flaws with making the OOC mechanics and MSQ an integral part of RP. Â Namely that one was not made to fit into the other.

Addison · **06-28-2015, 03:31 PM**

My use of the term "special snowflake" was in no way derogatory nor was it elitist. But that's your opinion, and I'll respect it, the way I've always respected peoples' views on this topic.

I could spend all day arguing debating this topic, but I'll leave the thread with this quote:

"When everyone is super, then no one is."

Paradox · **06-28-2015, 03:33 PM**

Fair enough. Then it's safe to say we all just each have our views. Not a whole lot more to be said at this point.Â Let us each game on, in our own way.

Spethah · **06-28-2015, 03:43 PM**

I honestly don't think it matters at all.Â

I mean seriously, not everyone has the time to level up an alt to the EXACT point their character needs to be to express their power and knowledge. If that's the case I need SE to make a unleveling system because Septh isn't a level 60 Astrologian and she doesn't even know anything in regards to the storyline of Astrologian. It simply does not work out given a lot of character circumstances. Septha has been an astrologian for a long time, using the basis of FF: Tactics and the 2.0 known Ishgardian Astrology lore. There would be no way to "level" a character with that background. It's impossible.Â

That said though, if you're one of those people that make their character and base it of what they've done in the MSQ and their job's storyline then I guess it WOULD make sense that they would be near that level and have actually experienced it in game. That said though, such roleplay to see is a little...special snowflake for the lack of a better term and I'm not fond of that ultra uniqueness.

As for the "What sets your character apart from the hundreds of other roleplayers playing special snowflakes?"Â question, it's all based on the actual roleplay. Some dragoons might fight differently to others, some knights prefer to use a counter combat style or maybe use a shield as a weapon instead. Some mages have learned to cast magic through singular commands with their grimoires or maybe they're capable of seeing things that lesser aetherically attuned folk cannot. It doesn't have to be an absolutely solid thing that is in game and shows, because roleplay is about creating things through words. You do not have to be a level 60 character to look strong if you can do that at level 30 or 40. If you can use the power of descriptions, you can make a person look like an omnipotent god-like being (though I wouldn't reccommend that, I'm sure the lorelords would lob your hands of if you tried.)

Edgar · **06-28-2015, 03:44 PM**

(06-28-2015, 03:31 PM)Addison Wrote: My use of the term "special snowflake" was in no way derogatory nor was it elitist. But that's your opinion, and I'll respect it, the way I've always respected peoples' views on this topic.

I could spend all day arguing debating this topic, but I'll leave the thread with this quote:

"When everyone is super, then no one is."

"I'm fairly sure I can still deflect bullets with my pecs despite the sea of other people classified as super..."

KitKat · **06-28-2015, 03:50 PM**

I only read through a few pages of this so forgive me if my question has been asked.

To those of you who equate class level to character power level, do you also agree that the only things your characters should be capable of doing are the skills you earn during the level up process? Or do you allow yourselves to make up abilities in roleplay? Because I feel that if you're going to base your character's perception on the game's mechanics, then the game's mechanics should be the limit of your character's skill.

For my own opinion, I think that character level doesn't matter and I have all the old jobs/crafts/gatherers at 50, and will have everything at 60 eventually. I level them just to have clothes to wear. If you want to be level 10 and roleplay a hardened veteran, that's fine by me. Sell it to me IC, not OOC.

Naunet · **06-28-2015, 04:18 PM**

(06-28-2015, 03:01 PM)Addison Wrote: 2) Even though this was addressed to Kellach: To me, that sounds a lot like metagaming.

Metagaming involves taking IC knowledge that you gained either OOC or on another character and applying it to a different character's knowledge despite that character never having been involved.

I suppose in the strictest sense, when you are equating everything your player character does in gameplay as an experience IC, that... might be metagaming. But I've honestly never heard the term applied in such a way. Most roleplayers I've engaged with have a pretty healthy separation of gameplay time and RP time.

I have no trouble believing some OOC level 20 character saying they helped defeat a primal, so long as it isn't done in a way that suggests otherwise poor RP etiquette (which is a really subjective thing).

Flickering Ember · **06-28-2015, 04:34 PM**

(06-28-2015, 03:08 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(06-28-2015, 03:01 PM)Addison Wrote: To put it plainly, because 'weak' characters aren't special snowflakes.
I would beg to differ, but before going further down that path I'd first ask that you explicitly outline what constitutes a special snowflake.

(06-28-2015, 03:31 PM)Addison Wrote: My use of the term "special snowflake" was in no way derogatory nor was it elitist. But that's your opinion, and I'll respect it, the way I've always respected peoples' views on this topic.

I could spend all day arguing debating this topic, but I'll leave the thread with this quote:

"When everyone is super, then no one is."

I, too, was hoping for some sort of explanation of what makes a character a 'special snowflake'. Though, at this point, regardless of your intentions 'special snowflake' is already a derogatory term. A single person does not make the meaning, rather words are born and take shape from the community they spring up from.

I find it admirable that you respect others' views. If you'd like to use language and words that aren't seen as 'derogatory' and 'elitist' then I would recommend to anyone reading to coin a new term or phrase. Different words can end up meaning the same thing but they will always have different connotations. ' Special snowflake'in this case is a negative one and there's no way getting around it.

Though, we might be approaching a need for a new thread at this point. On the subject of special snowflakes though and how they relate to the thread--I suppose being powerful in RP is something of a commodity. It is easily a very desirable aspect to have in a RP character. Being a 'badass' is a trait that seemingly almost every RPer strives for in a character. We have gritty badasses, adorable badasses, unassuming badasses, femme fatale badasses, survival badasses.Â

As Addison notes, it's harder for people's characters to feel competent when everyone is quite capable. This reaches all the way back to the earliest instances of roleplaying: Chiefs and Indians. Or some other variation. Everyone wants to be a chief.

But then how do we get to decide who gets to be a chief? According to this thread, I guess you have to be high-level. Despite the fact that you face your first primal by the time you're level 20.

A desire for more every day characters is so high in demand but so few in number that even those who dislike special snowflakes hold powerful characters themselves. I wonder if the qualifications to be a 'special snowflake' are particularly high considering I've only run into a grand total of 2 completely normal characters in my entire year and a half on this server.

It's a competition amongst role players that seems to be born from mistrust. We've all had negative encounters to some degree and we don't want repeats of those. When I look back on this thread I feel like the need to attach roleplay with levels isn't done to keep OOC and IC mechanics together, but as an act of mistrust. We don't want to be burned again, essentially. That's just my impression anyway.

It's also a competition that I like to stay out of. Because it IS a competition and that's not what role-play should be about. My solution is to just never get into combat with other players' characters or to keep that number of RPer vs. RPer type RPs as low as possible. It's worked for me.

Reth · **06-28-2015, 10:19 PM**

Unfortunately I am also of the opinion that OOC achievement should at least loosely connect with the IC power and backstory, it at least helps a little bit with immersion to be noticable

And equally as bad is the fact in the back of my mind it has really stopped me from diving into Roleplay in this game. My character concept is meant to be an aging, retired warrior of great prestige, and though I've leveled to 25 and leveled armor smithing enough to make a set of plate armor, it's nowhere near enough to content myself with the backstory I created for him.

Now if this was my main character - no problem - I'd keep leveling him, but I'm one of those people who has a main on another server and came to Balmung for RP. As a full time worker with a partner who takes up most of my weekend I don't have the time to dedicate to leveling up another character, and that really kills my motivation to RP at all.

My fault, I know, I'm just having a whinge. Love a good whinge.

Poll: How important is OOC level/Achievement? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Not important at all.	55.56%	60	55.56%
Somewhat important.	37.04%	40	37.04%
Very important.	7.41%	8	7.41%
Total		108 vote(s)	100%

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (19): « Previous 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 19 Next » Jump to page:

How important is OOC achievement when playing a powerful character ICly?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes