Generally speaking, I think that the only activities that should be kept in private should be the ones that those involved think should be kept private or when it makes sense that no one but those involved could interrupt the scene. Inside buildings, caves, secluded locations, in a sailing ship, etcetera. Otherwise, keeping all RP in private chats is a good way to never get RP out in the world more than for casual scenes.
Of course, acting in public carries certain consequences (particularly, that you can be interrupted), but that's something you implicitly agree when RPing in /say.
I don't like this logic. First, you are telling Natalie that she doesn't get the ultimate say. But then you give the ultimate say to the other character, the one forcing the actiong on her. I could use this to justify anything:
"Ildur--if you're being forcibly killed and the other character disagrees with your OOC intent to survive--then you're killed."
Since roleplaying is a cooperative form of storytelling, it doesn't make sense for anyone to have the ultimate say by default on it unless it has been decided before (sort of stablishing a "Game Master" for the plot). Just as Natalie shouldn't decide by default what happens, so shouldn't anyone else. The RP ends when any of the involved individuals reject any idea of compromise more than "It goes how I say it goes". There's no option but to make a compromise and to discuss it OOCly. As Freelance has said, if no compromise is achieved, then you take your ball (your character) and walk away, for the RP has critically failed on its basic premise: cooperative storytelling.
EDIT: Oh, hey, Natalie is a ninja too! A ninja paladin. And I though we had enough with ninja pirates!
Of course, acting in public carries certain consequences (particularly, that you can be interrupted), but that's something you implicitly agree when RPing in /say.
R'ikve Niall Wrote:Natalie--if you're being forcibly arrested and the other character disagrees with your OOC intent to escape--then you're arrested.
I don't like this logic. First, you are telling Natalie that she doesn't get the ultimate say. But then you give the ultimate say to the other character, the one forcing the actiong on her. I could use this to justify anything:
"Ildur--if you're being forcibly killed and the other character disagrees with your OOC intent to survive--then you're killed."
Since roleplaying is a cooperative form of storytelling, it doesn't make sense for anyone to have the ultimate say by default on it unless it has been decided before (sort of stablishing a "Game Master" for the plot). Just as Natalie shouldn't decide by default what happens, so shouldn't anyone else. The RP ends when any of the involved individuals reject any idea of compromise more than "It goes how I say it goes". There's no option but to make a compromise and to discuss it OOCly. As Freelance has said, if no compromise is achieved, then you take your ball (your character) and walk away, for the RP has critically failed on its basic premise: cooperative storytelling.
EDIT: Oh, hey, Natalie is a ninja too! A ninja paladin. And I though we had enough with ninja pirates!
![[Image: DWv3oGi.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/DWv3oGi.jpg)
