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

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 12:05 PM**

(08-21-2015, 11:56 AM)Intaki Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 11:39 AM)Ignacius Wrote: That depends, two isn't much of a sample size.
Very well, let us modify the scenario:

Scott's player wants to roleplay Scott as a witty character.

Over the course of one week, Scott's player roleplays with three separate groups of players.

Group 1: Abby, Brian, Jenny, Dean.

Group 2: Cecilia, AJ, Michael.

Group 3: Joseph, Irene, Kevin, Ian, James.

The impressions made by Scott's character are as follows:

Abby and Jenny thought Scott was clever. Brian and Dean thought he missed the mark a lot.

Cecilia and Michael were amused by Scott's antics. AJ was not impressed and thinks his character is wittier.

Joseph, Kevin, and Ian thought Scott was a riot and invited him to do a comedy routine at their weekly tavern RP event next week. Irene and James were irritated by Scott's humor and do not wish to RP with him again.

Given the above information is Scott a witty character?

Slightly above average (though probably enough to carry the character).

If we take all given opinions as a sample, we can say that he has thoroughly entertained over half of all three of his audiences, enough that only two people will refuse to ever RP with him again (which, given he is doing a comedy routine, seems to suggest that he might be witty, but might also be thoroughly offensive, making him Eorzean Frankie Boyle).

Overall, I'd say that, at the very least, Scott himself can pull it off. Â He seems to be putting out enough wit to be taken seriously as an in-game comedian and only three people in the sample believed, by the statement, he was flat. Â Scott the player might not be a comedian in real life (he may not be offensive enough to be entertaining), but he seems to be capable of carrying the character. Â At the very least, he wouldn't have to tell anyone he's playing a witty character, as in the OP. Â He's doing a fairly good job.

I'd be pretty pleased with that kind of ratio.

V'aleera · **08-21-2015, 12:45 PM**

So you would argue that the prime determinant of successful and well-played character is the approval of a plurality/majority?

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 12:57 PM**

(08-21-2015, 12:45 PM)Intaki Wrote: So you would argue that the prime determinant of successful and well-played character is the approval of a plurality/majority?

Not entirely, but certainly that's the bar for entry into subjective and comparative traits. Â Scott could actually be a TERRIBLY played character, he could only ever be used as a comedian but could then never grow or develop, as he's stunted. Â We don't know that from the scenario you painted.

However, the question of whether his character is "witty", yeah, that's up to the audience. Â It's like saying you're "funny". Â You can try to be funny, but it's up to the audience to decide if you're actually funny. Â Similarly, you can try to play a witty character, but it isn't up to you to say if the character is actually witty, that's a function of the audience. Â It's your responsibility as the player to get that across.

I certainly don't believe the opposite to be true. Â If one person thought Scott was funny out of 10 and most simply put him on ignore because his jokes aren't funny, not only is the character not "funny" no matter how much the player wants him to be, he's probably not funny because the player isn't really that funny.

And you know what, not everyone's funny. Â That's okay. Â But you can't fake laughs at a character who isn't funny just because you're told the character is a comedian and he's being played as funny.

Caspar · **08-21-2015, 01:06 PM**

(08-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:54 AM)Caspar Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 08:06 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you thenÂ discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever otherÂ faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone'sÂ witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieingÂ an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. Â It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! Â We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. Â The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out.

It happens all the time. Â There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. Â They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls.

And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. Â If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. Â However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around.

I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. Â This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. Â There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. Â If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. Â It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise.

Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions?

The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. Â And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. Â You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates.

There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. Â It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument.
That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me.

Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway.

Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. Â You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. Â If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. Â The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. Â "Just ignore them and move on."

Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Â Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. Â If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. Â And they'll be shunned by a larger mass.

And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Â Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. Â It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. Â This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar.

We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. Â It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it."

Melodramatic hyperbole aside, you could indeed look at it that way. Me, I'm just not self-important enough to think I am responsible for uplifting unskilled writers, and mind my own business. If they seem receptive or like how I play, I'll gladly go out of my way to help them, and like I said, I don't ignore any player who directly addresses my character when IC, period. (Unless the chat eats their post...) No player is entitled to continuous, involved story lines, but if they earnestly asked, I'd seriously consider it if I thought they could sharpen it up a little. But that's neither here nor there. I think all of this is immaterial, as its predicated on subjective assumptions. I am not the rp community, whatever that is. You definitely aren't. The RPC isn't, even. if other RP venues have taught me anything, it's that those who want to learn how to write better will do so, and those who don't still find people to play with regardless and can have entertaining stories of their own. I've seen people grow a lot by punching above their weight... If not discouraged from doing so by others in the first place. I feel somewhat sorry for your friend.

Still I think we've gotten lost in rhetoric though. I don't and never think you need to respond as the other rpers intends you to. I also don't blame people for not reacting to coercive rp like that. If they attempt to be witty or whatever subjective buzzword you want to apply, and fail, they can learn a lot from it, I think.

Dis · **08-21-2015, 01:10 PM**

(08-21-2015, 10:44 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: People who get offended when your "non-genius" character out-smarts them. I speak of those people.Â

I have a problem with the "non-genius" character outsmarts a genius theory.Â

Every character is capable of displaying a certain level of intelligence and wit, based on the player of said character being able to adequately display that intelligence.Â That said, people are also capable of playing characters who are 'less intelligent or knowledgeable' than they personally are about certain subjects.

As an audience, I can perceive a character to be more or less intelligent than they actually are.Â However, as a player, if I'm going out of my way to 'outstrip' a character who claims to be a genius when my character would clearly have no idea what this other character is talking about, that's akin to me trying to deliberately shut that individual down with OOC information.

A good example is my character Liviana.Â If someone was talking to Liviana, and the subject of aether suddenly came up in the conversation, despite the fact that I've read about the different types of aether, and the common methods of utilizing aether for magic in game, Liviana has no idea about the details of such.

Say that someone tells her that expelling aether from inside the body is the way to practice arcanima.Â I'm aware that the method they're talking about using isn't arcanima, but thaumaturgy.Â I know this, from past RP experience, and from reading while playing the game.Â

Liviana isn't a 'genius' when it comes to aether at all.Â And while I can send that player a tell saying, 'C'mon now, you know that's wrong," Liviana has to reply accordingly.Â She just does not know.Â I'm under no obligation to have my non-genius character comment on a subject that he or she knows absolutely nothing about.Â

A lot of cases of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character seem to boil down to that type of situation.Â

Character A says something to seem intelligent, even if Player A knows that the information they're giving is wrong, to try and impress Character B.
Character B corrects Character A, even if Character B is meant to be the less intelligent of the two on that subject matter, because Player B knows that what Character A said is wrong.

That isn't a case of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character, but instead one player using their character as a vehicle to tell the opposite player that they are in fact wrong and their character is not a genius.Â And while this isn't an 'absolute' example of any kind, that is hands down the most common example of a non-genius outsmarting a genius that I see portrayed in the RP community.

Caspar · **08-21-2015, 01:21 PM**

Isn't that sort of an extreme situation? It seemed like the example was based off of how inarticulate the player was. So the outsmarting had more to do with basic conversational skills. Though, I agree that seems like it would be a common blending problem.

Paradox · **08-21-2015, 01:22 PM**

The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

Quote:Say I were to play a mathematical genius who specializes in Chemistry, and as a player, I have never studied any chemistry or ever been any good at math. If a character like mine who was roleplayed by someone who actually had talent in that area were to engage in a discussion/debate... I'd be ICly crushed. No matter how much I use google, I could never play my character as being better at mathematics than them because I, as a player, lack the mental faculties. I am intellectually inferior to the other player, and no matter how much I claim my character is a genius, ICly, my character will be crushed.

What you're speaking about however, is not truly intelligence or wit in its own regard. That is also training and knowledge, which is not the same thing. You can have a 'talent' for math and learning math based subjects, but you still have to learn it. And that has to do with study, not just one's level of wittiness or smarts. You specifically addressed this as about wit, and originally intelligence. The situation you are referring to now has little to do with wit at all, but the difference in experience on a subject. You present being always bad at math with someone who has talent at math. Which is fine, but even someone with talent at math or someone who has bad ability with math can still both learn math. Indeed, you (in the example) will learn slower than the talented individual, but it isn't beyond your scope. And that's the crux of this isn't it?

I keep hearing the idea of something 'beyond your limits', but it seems like the idea that someone can push their limits and learn what they need to isn't even present. Everyone has basically said 'if a person isn't smart enough they can never act like they are'. I'm sorry, no. I'm quite smart on paper myself so they say and no, I'm not bragging or anything of the sort, but conversely I'm not a great social talker by nature in real life because I'm shy. I have people anxieties in crowds. Never have been great face to face. I however, learned to fake it. I can smile and pretend I'm good at engaging in witty conversation. And my character tends to actually be a lot more suave than I am because I don't have to actually be near someone when my character talks. I'm moderate at math, and I have memory problems that hinder me in learning. I've had to re-learn some subjects multiple times because of it. But I'm not dumb or even not 'witty' just because I don't meet someone else's high standards of what is and isn't witty. Can someone be more trained than me in something? Absolutely. But that has no reflection on my character versus yours. This entire subject basically comes down to a few people's standards of what they consider a gate pass to playing a certain type of character. And I'm sorry, but again, no. It is judgmental form the get go, whether you use levity at the beginning or not to say in all caps you're not judging.

Quote:I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

If I play a genius character but I myself am not a genius in that area, it is not the player's place to make any kind of stand against that character. If the character lacks something because the player can't back it up, roleplay will sort it out. And that's how it should be. But arguing if someone not smart can play someone smart; that itself is dissonance. My character is interacting with your character. If your character has no knowledge of the subject, even if you do, your knowledge is irrelevant because roleplaying is not about what you know. If my genius character misses a few details and that ruins your immersion and joy of roleplaying with me, then I am genuinely sorry that your immersion is so shallow. But the entire so-called debate is basically thinly-veiled judgment on what you and others have decided is and isn't witty or not, and whether something is beyond someone's limits. Limits are not as cut and dry as some are making out, and the fact that that's the prevalent opinion to not do something 'beyond your limits', it makes me a little sad at the state of creativity and willingness to learn and teach exists in the community. Roleplaying is about being something you are not in real life. If you can't do this exactly, continue learning. There's too much of this nonsense about if you aren't smart enough, don't play x. I propose the inverse. If you are not experienced enough. DO play x. This will cause you to learn, to go out of your box, to become 'wittier' or 'smarter'. Ignacius says know your limits. I say push beyond them. I say learn as you go along and the experience becomes real. And for those that say it can't be done, you are incorrect. I've done it myself.

The entire passive-aggressive stance of 'I never said I was one to judge wit, however..' is patently offensive. You are judging by the statement itself. Someone who can't roleplay a trait by your standards. Not everyone has the same standards of roleplay. Who properly roleplays what is not for anyone to say regardless of what you know. We're not talking about someone who shoots fire form their eyes and lightning bolts form their arse. People want to play something they are not in roleplay. It is for fun, it is not to prove they are or are not smart or witty enough for you to enjoy it. If you don't think they're witty enough, that is your failing, not theirs. They could be genuinely trying. But if the first thing someone sees is 'they're obviously not smart enough to pull this off', then that someone should not be roleplaying. Judging leads to negative feelings. If you think I'm not smart enough to play a genius, then that's your business. But if your character wouldn't know one chemical from another IC, and you OOC are a professional chemist and you dislike that my chemistry genius is wrong on a few things..well. I hate to put it this way, but too damn bad. The entire subject you put forth is truly about OOC/IC dissonance, and playing with someone who isn't what they present their character as, not wit or intelligence. It's basically saying 'I can tell this person doesn't know what they're talking about IC because the player doesn't know it, so because I do even though my character wouldn't know the first thing about it, they're upsetting me personally and that bothers me'.

We play characters different to ourselves. Not everyone who's written a genius is a genius. I'm willing to bet that authors who have written experts on subjects had no expertise in the subject themselves and did something called research. Which a lot of people who want to play these types of characters do. I do so myself. Between research and bullshit, you can do a lot of things with a character to make them appear experienced or witty or more intelligent, even if you haven't studied it yourself as thoroughly as a real expert. But honestly, when you post a subject with the word 'dumb' in it for any reason, whether it's to spark debate or rant, or for any other reason, prepare yourself for what can come of it. Because whether you mean to or not, you're insulting or judging somebody passively. Reading this honestly watching the 'no you can't do it' crowd being back patted while the ones that say you can are basically deconstructed entirely has left me shaking my head.

But, in any case, if we must get back to the subject. Can it be done? Yes. Absolutely. It isn't always foolproof, but it can be done with research and bullshit. Is it hard to do with people trying to shove their own personal knowledge ooc on you if they don't think your character or you live up to it and apparently this is a reason for your character to be discredited despite it really not being their place? Yes. Absolutely. And that's all I have to add on the matter.

V'aleera · **08-21-2015, 01:25 PM**

(08-21-2015, 12:57 PM)Ignacius Wrote: If one person thought Scott was funny out of 10 and most simply put him on ignore because his jokes aren't funny, not only is the character not "funny" no matter how much the player wants him to be, he's probably not funny because the player isn't really that funny.

This seems rather arbitrary.

If nine people don't think Scott is witty, but one person does think Scott is witty, then the only conclusion we can reach is that Scott is witty (but only to a certain segment of the population).

You can not simply accept the opinion of the majority as fact simply because the majority hold that opinion. You most certainly can not do so in a subjective realm such as humor or wit.

McBeefâ„¢ · **08-21-2015, 01:34 PM**

(08-21-2015, 01:25 PM)Intaki Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 12:57 PM)Ignacius Wrote: If one person thought Scott was funny out of 10 and most simply put him on ignore because his jokes aren't funny, not only is the character not "funny" no matter how much the player wants him to be, he's probably not funny because the player isn't really that funny.
This seems rather arbitrary.

If nine people don't think Scott is witty, but one person does think Scott is witty, then the only conclusion we can reach is that Scott is witty (but only to a certain segment of the population).

You can not simply accept the opinion of the majority as fact simply because the majority hold that opinion. You most certainly can not do so in a subjective realm such as humor or wit.

I bet 9/10 people would tell you that a book like 'Catch-22' isn't funny. That doesn't mean its not.Â

As Val says, it's all subjective.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 01:37 PM**

(08-21-2015, 01:06 PM)Caspar Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:54 AM)Caspar Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:43 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:28 AM)Diskwrite Wrote: It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor.

You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you thenÂ discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism.

It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this."

So this raises a number of questions, which include:

1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty?
2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly?

You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever otherÂ faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question?

But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here.

Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here?

But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't.

This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community.

As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it.

It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone'sÂ witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be.

When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieingÂ an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be.

The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun.

Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community.

Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so.

Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. Â It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! Â We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. Â The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out.

It happens all the time. Â There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. Â They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls.

And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. Â If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. Â However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around.

I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. Â This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. Â There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. Â If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. Â It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise.

Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions?

The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. Â And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. Â You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates.

There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. Â It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument.
That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me.

Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway.

Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. Â You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. Â If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. Â The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. Â "Just ignore them and move on."

Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Â Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. Â If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. Â And they'll be shunned by a larger mass.

And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Â Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. Â It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. Â This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar.

We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. Â It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it."
Melodramatic hyperbole aside, you could indeed look at it that way. Me, I'm just not self-important enough to think I am responsible for uplifting unskilled writers, and mind my own business. If they seem receptive or like how I play, I'll gladly go out of my way to help them, and like I said, I don't ignore any player who directly addresses my character when IC, period. (Unless the chat eats their post...) No player is entitled to continuous, involved story lines, but if they earnestly asked, I'd seriously consider it if I thought they could sharpen it up a little. But that's neither here nor there. I think all of this is immaterial, as its predicated on subjective assumptions. I am not the rp community, whatever that is. You definitely aren't. The RPC isn't, even. if other RP venues have taught me anything, it's that those who want to learn how to write better will do so, and those who don't still find people to play with regardless and can have entertaining stories of their own. I've seen people grow a lot by punching above their weight... If not discouraged from doing so by others in the first place. I feel somewhat sorry for your friend.

However, that's the problem. Â You are, very outright, saying that it's not your business and you won't offer help if someone doesn't ask. Â That's your right, you are not responsible for helping anyone. Â However, you did say that you're not going to go out of your way to help, in your case for your modesty's sake and because you don't feel people will listen. Â And yet you feel sorry for my friend, because she was frozen out of RP for punching above her weight, but because I told her what everyone said behind her back.

Which simultaneously made you exactly the sort of issue she was facing, none of the eventual solution she received, and yet ironically also pitying the help she got. Â All for perfectly acceptable and well-meaning reasons; you're not a bad person and you're trying to be as polite as possible.

But man do most people who punch above their weight get sawed off quickly at the knees. Â Not by advice telling them to definitely cut back and to build the character, not the result, but by people who say nothing, freezing people out of RP without explanation with the assumption that, once people see they're being frozen out, they'll ask someone to improve as a writer (in this case, beyond their own cognitive ability).

I'm not sure how else I can explain that this is, while seemingly the best course of action, extremely unhelpful. Â Most people, when they start, want to play Mary Sue and part of that is punching FAR above their weight somewhere. Â Most people who pick it up fall right back out because no one in our multitude tends to step up to teach, but we're all willing, as a group, to ignore them.

It's a difficult balancing act, but it does mean telling people who get frustrated that no one's receiving their "witty" character as witty probably because the things they say just weren't that intelligent. Â We're all passively fine in our role as gatekeepers, but we're usually uncomfortable taking up an individual role as educators. Â We're a lot more comfortable watching people drown on dry land.

I mean, by the logic I'm reading, we're not even comfortable talking about personal limits even though we're perfectly fine telling each other that if someone's not fun to RP with, we can burn them out.

Now, it might not sound appealing in the short term pointing out that someone might not be able to write enough wit, intelligence, or charisma into their character and they might want to back it off a bit, but in the long term, it's likely to keep people around as RPers instead of having them blame the entire audience and leave. Â And if someone can't be witty because they simply cannot write good responses, that's probably outside their scope.

I really understand where the intent comes from, but it's really not as helpful to tell someone who isn't witty that they're totally fine instead of telling them that, you know, it's really not a personal deficiency to fall short of Mark Twain. Â These people aren't bad because they bit off more than they'd ever be able to chew once or twice, they likely write something else quite a bit better. Â You never hear about this when someone plays a schizophrenic and fails to be accurate or recognizable; it's rare someone encourages them to keep going with it regardless of how bad or offensive it is.

It is true that people can try to write far above their ability and fail, and it's also true that most other players will, when someone's annoying them this way, freeze them out. Â And it's likewise true that few people will tell someone that the latter is related to the former for fear of hurting their feelings.

Oli! · **08-21-2015, 01:40 PM**

Outside of just saying that a character Said a Witty Thing, the answer would be No, if you're not capable of constructing something that is witty.

This assumes some sort of absolute wittiness, but the same thing is true for all facets of a character, like it or not.

You could debate whether or not things are truly witty, or truly smart, or whatever else, of course. But whatever you personally define as witty / smart / whatever trait you want, is only achievable if you, too, are capable of constructing that behind the keyboard. You can always state narratively that your character says Something if you can't make them say that yourself, however, though writing-wise, this will fall flat for most people even if the character would be true to themselves regardless.

An easy way to see this would be to play a character that is a mathematician, as they work in a field which does have a sort of absolute correctness in most cases. If you can't do the math that your character is supposed to be doing, then it's very clear that you can't "play" a mathematician. Sure, you could get people that are mathematicians to help you out, or vaguely say that they are Doing Math, but if you are incapable of grasping or understanding that facet of a character, then you won't be able to play them to the fullest extent of their characterization.

So, individual reflections on what is or isn't reflective of various traits on a specific level aside, this is the answer to your question.

LadyRochester · **08-21-2015, 01:41 PM**

(08-21-2015, 01:10 PM)Glioca Sargonnai Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 10:44 AM)LadyRochester Wrote: People who get offended when your "non-genius" character out-smarts them. I speak of those people.Â

I have a problem with the "non-genius" character outsmarts a genius theory.Â

Every character is capable of displaying a certain level of intelligence and wit, based on the player of said character being able to adequately display that intelligence.Â That said, people are also capable of playing characters who are 'less intelligent or knowledgeable' than they personally are about certain subjects.

As an audience, I can perceive a character to be more or less intelligent than they actually are.Â However, as a player, if I'm going out of my way to 'outstrip' a character who claims to be a genius when my character would clearly have no idea what this other character is talking about, that's akin to me trying to deliberately shut that individual down with OOC information.

A good example is my character Liviana.Â If someone was talking to Liviana, and the subject of aether suddenly came up in the conversation, despite the fact that I've read about the different types of aether, and the common methods of utilizing aether for magic in game, Liviana has no idea about the details of such.

Say that someone tells her that expelling aether from inside the body is the way to practice arcanima.Â I'm aware that the method they're talking about using isn't arcanima, but thaumaturgy.Â I know this, from past RP experience, and from reading while playing the game.Â

Liviana isn't a 'genius' when it comes to aether at all.Â And while I can send that player a tell saying, 'C'mon now, you know that's wrong," Liviana has to reply accordingly.Â She just does not know.Â I'm under no obligation to have my non-genius character comment on a subject that he or she knows absolutely nothing about.Â

A lot of cases of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character seem to boil down to that type of situation.Â

Character A says something to seem intelligent, even if Player A knows that the information they're giving is wrong, to try and impress Character B.
Character B corrects Character A, even if Character B is meant to be the less intelligent of the two on that subject matter, because Player B knows that what Character A said is wrong.

That isn't a case of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character, but instead one player using their character as a vehicle to tell the opposite player that they are in fact wrong and their character is not a genius.Â And while this isn't an 'absolute' example of any kind, that is hands down the most common example of a non-genius outsmarting a genius that I see portrayed in the RP community.

That's taking OOC IC. That's an entirely different matter. I have characters who are completely ignorant about things I know in the game, that's not the point.

My point was criticizing people who OOCily brag about their character's intelligence and wit, only to say something shockingly stupid when they hop in IC. Say, you are playing a "genius" character, yes? My character is not a genius. They get into a discussion.

Your character says something stupid along the lines of "Cats are reptiles."

... Just because you OOCily claim your character is a genius does not mean everything they say will be intelligent, it does not mean people will perceive them as such. If your character says cats are reptiles, my character will argue against them because of COMMON SENSE.

Common sense is not a rare feature for a character.

Just because you tell me your character is an absolute genius does not mean my character will clap their hands and cheer whenever they announce cats are reptiles. Because that's stupid. Why would anyone dumb down THEIR character so that your seems like a "genius"?

Are you telling me that if a "genius" character approaches mine, says cats are reptiles, my character should nod and say: "WHOA! Really!? I thought cats were fish!" Simply because I don't promote my character as smarter or as smart as theirs?

You can't force the idea that a character is a genius unless you manage to keep intelligent conversation flowing. If you say stupid shit, no matter how "amazingly intelligent" you claim your character is, it simply isn't going to be received well.

Caspar · **08-21-2015, 01:45 PM**

Ignacius I think you should read what I'm writing a little more carefully. You're inferring actions I don't take. I moderated a forum like this; I'm no stranger to helping others write better. I was as honest as you were. But where you aim to put someone in their place, I augmented them, because Rp isn't acting to me but group writing, and the group element means you help others achieve the story they want to write as well as your own. We're not performance artists.

LadyRochester · **08-21-2015, 01:52 PM**

(08-21-2015, 01:22 PM)A'rklonn Sargonnai Wrote: The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

Yes, I will admit that I bit off more than I could chew when it came to the initial phrasing. And while I can see from your perspective and I think intelligence can easily be improved, I still think a character is more defined by how others perceive them, not how the player itself intends to play them.

To some, my character is highly intelligent, to others, she's a cowardly idiot who hides behind others like a mouse. If someone icly or oocily thinks my character is stupid, I will not scoff at them and say "BUT SHE'S A GENIUS." At best, I'll ask them why and improve based on their criticism. You cannot force others to think your character is funny or witty because they are highly subjective and flexible concepts, but if nobody ever laughs at your jokes and you get angry because of that, it's your problem. You're not improving. People are too sensitive about criticism. I get annoyed at roleplayers who claim their characters are highly intelligent, and then proceed to do stupid things expecting no-one to rise an eyebrow.

I phrased things incorrectly and presented myself as a judge for intelligence-Something I am not. I am, however, someone who gets deeply annoyed when there's a huge IC/OOC dissonance when it comes to the perception of a character.

Caspar · **08-21-2015, 01:57 PM**

(08-21-2015, 01:52 PM)LadyRochester Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 01:22 PM)A'rklonn Sargonnai Wrote: The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

Yes, I will admit that I bit off more than I could chew when it came to the initial phrasing. And while I can see from your perspective and I think intelligence can easily be improved, I still think a character is more defined by how others perceive them, not how the player itself intends to play them.

To some, my character is highly intelligent, to others, she's a cowardly idiot who hides behind others like a mouse. If someone icly or oocily thinks my character is stupid, I will not scoff at them and say "BUT SHE'S A GENIUS." At best, I'll ask them why and improve based on their criticism. You cannot force others to think your character is funny or witty because they are highly subjective and flexible concepts, but if nobody ever laughs at your jokes and you get angry because of that, it's your problem. You're not improving. People are too sensitive about criticism. I get annoyed at roleplayers who claim their characters are highly intelligent, and then proceed to do stupid things expecting no-one to rise an eyebrow.

I phrased things incorrectly and presented myself as a judge for intelligence-Something I am not. I am, however, someone who gets deeply annoyed when there's a huge IC/OOC dissonance when it comes to the perception of a character.

That's definitely a frustration I can understand. I can't really tell someone "don't judge" on that note either. Sometimes it just unconsciously happens. Personally I think it's better if that sort of advice is broadcasted ooc, but in ic terms, a character ought to react the way they would to anyone who said something stupid, and the player never really enters the picture.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (13): « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next » Jump to page:

"Witty" characters, can they be roleplayed by the dumb?

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