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

Verad · **10-04-2017, 04:03 PM**

(10-04-2017, 03:55 PM)ExAtomos Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 03:40 PM)Lydia Lightfoot Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 03:16 PM)ExAtomos Wrote: Emoting one's thoughts that are hyper-critical/rude of their RP partner. Has this been mentioned? (I'm not keen on RPing with folks who do the emoted thoughts thing, but that's just a writing style difference.) I've seen this in action and it was really horrible for all of us present since we just had to watch this person write this shit and no one was able to respond ICly.

That's the thing, right there - if someone's meant to be able to reply to it, then yeah, they definitely need to be given something to reply to. That said, emoting thoughts alongside actions can sometimes lend a tone to the action. Consider:

Franco gasped in surprise and ducked behind a pillar as he saw a contingent of Garleans come around the corner of the ruins.

...differs in tone from...

Franco gasped in surprise and ducked behind a pillar as he saw a contingent of Garleans come around the corner of the ruins. It was his youth in occupied Ala Mhigo all over again, and his mind raced in a battle of will to resist fleeing for his life as he'd done when a boy.

And of course, there's also internal posts which aren't actually meant for anyone to respond to at all, which could be said to be wholly unnecessary if that's the case, but in most novels you'll also find a lot of functionally-unnecessary inner monologue stuff which serves only to give the readers insight into the character.Â

Franco drew a swig from his mug of mead as he idly contemplated the old man at the bar who was flirting with his mom. Had he truly just said his name is Dick? Old though he may be, surely he wasn't unaware that he might be better off going by Rick or Richard, all things considered.

A post like that does nothing for anyone's RP - but nor is it meant to. Neither Dick nor Franco's mom were interacting with Franco, so he's done them no RP disservice by giving them a response to something which hasn't substance for them to react to. However, Franco's player did just give Dick and Franco's Mom's players some insight into his character, which isn't inherently bad.

True. But while it does give your RP partners more details, it is not something they would actually see icly. If your dude is hiding due to trauma, rather than from wrongdoing, how am I at that time able to tell the difference? If, however, you were to type something along the lines of: "Franco dashed behind the pillar at the sight of the oncoming Imperials. Sweat popped out on his forehead and he shook with fear. His eyes seemed to be unfocused, as though reliving nightmares of his past." All of this is stuff your RP partner can actually see ICly.

As she mentioned, the purpose is to give the player something to read rather than something to react to in an IC fashion. If you are of the opinion that if it can't be acted upon by a character in response, it shouldn't be there, then it will be inappropriate regardless of how directly or obliquely it's described.Â

Your own alternative would lead to objections on the grounds that it assumes an interpretation on the other player's behalf. I've seen that argued as inappropriate on these forums in the past, to the extent that even vague descriptors like "beautiful" shouldn't be used because every character will have a slightly different conception of beauty.

This has the unfortunate side-effect of annihilating most potential uses of dramatic irony in posts, but that's apparently a small price to pay for ensuring total player agency.

Aya · **10-04-2017, 04:07 PM**

(10-04-2017, 03:52 PM)Verad Wrote: "I'm writing a novel based on what happens to my character in roleplay."

As usual, Verad sets off his own Red Flags!!!

ExAtomos · **10-04-2017, 04:08 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:03 PM)Verad Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 03:55 PM)ExAtomos Wrote: True. But while it does give your RP partners more details, it is not something they would actually see icly. If your dude is hiding due to trauma, rather than from wrongdoing, how am I at that time able to tell the difference? If, however, you were to type something along the lines of: "Franco dashed behind the pillar at the sight of the oncoming Imperials. Sweat popped out on his forehead and he shook with fear. His eyes seemed to be unfocused, as though reliving nightmares of his past." All of this is stuff your RP partner can actually see ICly.

As she mentioned, the purpose is to give the player something to read rather than something to react to in an IC fashion. If you are of the opinion that if it can't be acted upon by a character in response, it shouldn't be there, then it will be inappropriate regardless of how directly or obliquely it's described.Â

Your own alternative would lead to objections on the grounds that it assumes an interpretation on the other player's behalf. I've seen that argued as inappropriate on these forums in the past, to the extent that even vague descriptors like "beautiful" shouldn't be used because every character will have a slightly different conception of beauty.

This has the unfortunate side-effect of annihilating most potential uses of dramatic irony in posts, but that's apparently a small price to pay for ensuring total player agency.

Aha, so at this point it's just differing RP styles regarding the use of description in emotes.

I'll still hold that insulting someone via internal monologue is a bad thing.

Charce · **10-04-2017, 04:10 PM**

For my, it's always mostly been about the separation of IC and OOC. There's been a number of people now I had to dump because that line was crossed. And it wasn't just someone developing romantic feelings for me. I had my character call another character an idiot and that person felt personally insulted that my character said that to them.Â
Also...not respecting OOC boundaries is another thing. Like I know someone who had to deal with not feeling comfortable about something happening ICly and the person got mad at them for that.

Intentional meta-gaming is a HUGE pet peeve of mine...accidentally remembering something said OOCly as IC is one thing. But like...controlling my character, consistently using OOCly known info, etc. It's just...bleh

Another thing that actually kind of annoys me, just because I'm so OCD about scheduling my time, is setting up a time to RP and it constantly being deferred or "Ten more minutes" for hours until ten more minutes becomes the next day and that becomes the next week, etc. Like...unable to keep plans made with you and I'm not talking about for IRL reasons. I'm talking about they decide to RP with someone else instead or decide that POTD is what they are gonna do instead. I'm also not talking about it happening like one time. But consistently blowing you off...I donno. I feel like my time is more valuable than to wait around for someone else constantly?

Another reason I became iffy about someone was because of their attitude OOCly...like bad mouthing my friends to me as though I would casually side with them?? Also like...if you're a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, etc, etc, etc piece of crap OOCly, I'll drop you like a sack of bricks off the side of a mountain.

Another personal thing would also be not feeling like a person is matching the effort I'm putting in to something? I am a paragraph RPer. I can post 6-8 posts no problem (and none of it is internal thoughts). For most situations, I cut it down to two-to-four when it's one-on-one unless I KNOW the person I'm RPing with is up for that kind of other RP. But when it's one-on-one and I'm seriously trying, typing up those two-to-four posts and giving a person a lot to work with and I get like a two word response...it's not something I want to put up with.

I know some people have things against becoming friendly with their RP partners OOCly and consider that a red flag, but I think it helps to be at least amicable/on talking terms with them. You gotta plot and at least be agreeable with them, right? If you both are friends OOCly, it makes working through RP a lot easier than someone you treat like a stranger. I wouldn't call that mixing OOC and IC even. Most of my RP partners are set up to be enemies even. I've found that being friends or at least friendly with those people makes discussing and working through potential problems or roadblocks in RP a lot easier.

Quick Edit: One thing I'd also add is people who put in their LFRP posts stuff like "looking for a relationship." But that's also just me...people who do this tend to be the types of OOCly get too attached/possessive and/or are RPing for different reasons than myself. Pre-planned romance is hella boring in my opinion :/

Verad · **10-04-2017, 04:13 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:07 PM)Aya Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 03:52 PM)Verad Wrote: "I'm writing a novel based on what happens to my character in roleplay."
As usual, Verad sets off his own Red Flags!!!

That's more of an accident of RP, I'm not trying to get it published! I haven't run into this in a while, but pre-FF14 I would run into at least one or two poor souls a year who were convinced the imitative adventures of their character in an intellectual property they didn't own would make for the next fantasy bestseller. Some even claimed to have a publisher, apparently unaware that a vanity press didn't count.

(10-04-2017, 04:08 PM)ExAtomos Wrote: Aha, so at this point it's just differing RP styles regarding the use of description in emotes.

I'll still hold that insulting someone via internal monologue is a bad thing.

Agreed on that. I remember that, back in the dark days of AOL, players would have entire narrative comment strings acting as a separate, quasi-OOC conversation in emotes mostly about gossiping and insulting other characters. It was ridiculous then and ridiculous now.

Kage · **10-04-2017, 04:14 PM**

I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.

Kieron Lohengrin · **10-04-2017, 04:20 PM**

- people who make excessive ooc backtalk and sniping while something ic is happening

- people who unilaterally end long-term storylines or relationships without consulting or informing other players involved for their input

- people who don't know how to use private chats for ostensibly private plots, something even erpers figured out ages ago

- people who expect you to know or care who they are, or expect you to acknowledge their plagues and city devastation and whatnot that actually isn't reflected ingame

drama queens, basically

***Maril*** · **10-04-2017, 04:26 PM**

For me, the biggest red flag is when IC interaction is taken to the OOC sphere and used to generate a problem or uncomfortable situation. This could be people pulling the "I have a crush on you because your character is nice" to metagaming, emoting in "me/you-form" and assuming that because a character dislikes yours, then the player does too. All three of them will lead me stepping away from the roleplay, wrapping it up or otherwise find a way to move on that is respectful but firm. Another red flag is if people end up in drama-llama situations a lot and do not visibly handle it well, and it's simply because I don't have any interest in getting dragged into anything drama.Â

I've become a touch careful with people who put an emphasis on finding one solid "RP partner" (I really dislike the word, overall, but that's another rabble) - It ties in with the IC/OOC bleeding, especially if a person is obsessed with finding a roleplay partner that they can have a character relationship with, I simply end up questioning if they're not just out to fill an OOC need. Secondly, because I've seen and heard of so many stories where this kind of roleplayer turns abusive, needlessly controlling or a good combination of both - leaving their "partner" with low self-esteem and guilt for not being able to meet the roleplay needs of the abusive person. It's a kind of thing that's bad in a simple friendship too, but can really be amplified in the roleplay world. Thirdly, and this is sort of a style-issue as well, but personally I wouldn't want to become someone's only source of roleplay, or end up in a situation where I can't RP or play the game without the other being around and always being involved. It's not a big red flag, but it could (especially if anything of the abusive-type-traits show up) be a smaller red flag.Â

Otherwise it's all down to style differences, but I wont include those since that doesn't really belong in this topic.

Charce · **10-04-2017, 04:28 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.

I'm curious why you think that is powerplaying in RP?
If I am doing non-roll combat that was plotted OOCly with both people agreeing on the outcome, I give options for attacks and openings by denoting things with "would" or "would try to" since I can't control what the other person is doing with their character.

Warren Castille · **10-04-2017, 04:43 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:28 PM)Charce Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.
I'm curious why you think that is powerplaying in RP?
If I am doing non-roll combat that was plotted OOCly with both people agreeing on the outcome, I give options for attacks and openings by denoting things with "would" or "would try to" since I can't control what the other person is doing with their character.

Counterpoint: Does "/em would..." actually add anything to a post that couldn't be conveyed otherwise? There is a difference between painting intentions and using "would" as a means for it.

Concession: I see regular events and "/em would" is one of the things that always pricks my immersion bubble.

Charce · **10-04-2017, 04:46 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:43 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:28 PM)Charce Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.
I'm curious why you think that is powerplaying in RP?
If I am doing non-roll combat that was plotted OOCly with both people agreeing on the outcome, I give options for attacks and openings by denoting things with "would" or "would try to" since I can't control what the other person is doing with their character.

Counterpoint: Does "/em would..." actually add anything to a post that couldn't be conveyed otherwise? There is a difference between painting intentions and using "would" as a means for it.

Concession: I see regular events and "/em would" is one of the things that always pricks my immersion bubble.

I think it's most appropriate in situations when you are attempting something that needs to be countered via rolls or in open combat. "Would try to"/ "would attempt to."

I wouldn't call that a red flag in RP for someone is potentially problematic? It's just a personal preference.

Kage · **10-04-2017, 04:51 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:28 PM)Charce Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.
I'm curious why you think that is powerplaying in RP?
If I am doing non-roll combat that was plotted OOCly with both people agreeing on the outcome, I give options for attacks and openings by denoting things with "would" or "would try to" since I can't control what the other person is doing with their character.

Most of the time I see this, the people are always attempting to one-up the other instead of actually worrying about honest god-modding.

Or it is "Rose would say, "Hello!" in which the case is more of a preference. As I said, it tends to be the former which just tells me that it's not going to be fun and there is no give and take. It's just a contest of "I teleported behind you!"

Lydia Lightfoot · **10-04-2017, 04:52 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:13 PM)Verad Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:08 PM)ExAtomos Wrote: Aha, so at this point it's just differing RP styles regarding the use of description in emotes.

I'll still hold that insulting someone via internal monologue is a bad thing.

Agreed on that. I remember that, back in the dark days of AOL, players would have entire narrative comment strings acting as a separate, quasi-OOC conversation in emotes mostly about gossiping and insulting other characters. It was ridiculous then and ridiculous now.

Oh! Yes, it wasn't clear in my post, but the assumption I was running in the example was that Franco, Franco's mom, and Dick are all being written by players who are friends (and thus the comment regarding Dick's name would be received by them as good-natured ribbing rather than genuine instigation). That'd definitely be inappropriate among strangers.

Lydia Lightfoot · **10-04-2017, 04:56 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.

Agreed x1,000. I've seen some players do this in darned near every post, and I've even sometimes tried to explain to them that it's flat-out grammatically incorrect unless there's something preventing them from doing it and they're including a subsequent explanation of what happened instead.

Franco would verbalize his thoughts regarding Dick's choice of nickname, but his mom really did seem to like the old fellow, and thus he merely sat with his mug and watched the pair with an expression of passive disapproval.

Even then, though it's technically correct, it's awkward phrasing compared to:

Franco opted not to verbalize his thoughts regarding Dick's choice of nickname since his mom really did seem to like the old fellow, and instead heÂ merely sat with his mug and watched the pair with an expression of passive disapproval.

Charce · **10-04-2017, 04:57 PM**

(10-04-2017, 04:51 PM)Kage Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:28 PM)Charce Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 04:14 PM)Kage Wrote: I would say I dislike people who over gratuitously use 'would' in their roleplay as they tend to be more interested in power play than actual roleplay and having fun.
I'm curious why you think that is powerplaying in RP?
If I am doing non-roll combat that was plotted OOCly with both people agreeing on the outcome, I give options for attacks and openings by denoting things with "would" or "would try to" since I can't control what the other person is doing with their character.
Most of the time I see this, the people are always attempting to one-up the other instead of actually worrying about honest god-modding.

Or it is "Rose would say, "Hello!" in which the case is more of a preference. As I said, it tends to be the former which just tells me that it's not going to be fun and there is no give and take. It's just a contest of "I teleported behind you!"

Ah, I see.
Yeah. I guess in that case it could be annoying. My characters aren't really meant to be combat characters, but it's strange to me when someone's character is constantly trying to be like...one-upping your own constantly? Like...
/em waves hello, and sits down.
/em would do aggressive thing.
/em is some calm thing...
/em would do an even more aggressive thing.
/em still some calm thing...
/em would do an EVEN MORE aggressive thing.

Like...pushing that sort of "would try to" constantly for no good reason is weird. It kind of gives off the thing that that person doesn't know how to RP anything but one-upping everyone they interact with, even when the situation doesn't call for it. Also, in that case I'd rather they just god mod instead of constantly try to intimidate my character :/ Let me have a reason to pull the plug sooner xPP

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (10): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next » Jump to page:

[Discussion] Red Flags in RP/RP Partners?

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