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

Aduu Avagnar · **08-20-2015, 06:46 PM**

(08-20-2015, 06:42 PM)Edda Wrote:
(08-20-2015, 05:14 PM)Nako Wrote: I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or inteligent.

(08-20-2015, 06:09 PM)Nako Wrote: And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

(08-20-2015, 06:31 PM)Nako Wrote: I cannot see how what I wrote was contrary to what I wrote at the begining.... In the first one I state that you are limited by what they can write. Which is the same point I made in the second quote of mine.....

Either you are not getting your point across, or you are contradicting yourself. While both posts support your belief that one is limited by their roleplaying ability, the following thoughts are rather contrasting. I have little personal interest in your explanation - this post is merely for the sake of yourself and the rest of the thread.

Thank you. And I don't see them as contrasting. You do not have to be inteligent to portray an inteligent person. As long as you can display it in your writing (read, get the intent across) then you can successfully do it. You are only limited by your writing.

If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing = You simply need to get across what your intent is.

Worded differently intent is the same.... If you cannot get the intent across, then you are not displaying wit or inteligence through the writing.....

Warren Castille · **08-20-2015, 06:54 PM**

There's a world of difference between someone telling a funny joke at the moment and someone posting "/em tells a funny joke relative to the moment."

Sure, the second one works. It'll get real old after a bit, though.

Edda · **08-20-2015, 06:58 PM**

(08-20-2015, 06:46 PM)Nako Wrote: Thank you. And I don't see them as contrasting. You do not have to be inteligent to portray an inteligent person. As long as you can display it in your writing (read, get the intent across) then you can successfully do it. You are only limited by your writing.

If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing = You simply need to get across what your intent is.

Worded differently intent is the same.... If you cannot get the intent across, then you are not displaying wit or inteligence through the writing.....

This is true every once and a while. Maybe. But like Warren said, not really. It's a huge difference, and that line of thinking doesn't only apply to roleplay either.

If you cannot cook a good burger through your cooking skills = You simply need to get across that you intended to cook a good burger.

If you cannot make another good three Star Wars movies through your directing ability = You simply need to get across your intent of making three more good Star Wars movies.

Oscare · **08-20-2015, 07:01 PM**

There's a fine line between constantly cheesing it with "X does Y action easily!" and actual effort. If you make the attempt, and at least try, I feel like there deserves to at least be credit on the OOC level. Sure the occasional "X explains Y in a relatively simplistic manner" works once if what you're trying to do is so obscenely difficult to comprehend that even masters at the subject can't even explain it, sure. But if you're doing that every time, it just loses touch and it's quite frankly not exciting or stimulating for anyone involved. Effort -- even if you're wrong -- gets you a long way! It's a fantasy game too on top of that, so there's always the "Even if it's wrong, let's pretend it works anyway!"

I also want to add: Of course, you can claim whatever you want about your character, but ICly characters will react however they wish to. So even if your character is smart, characters are still free to behave as if your character is too dumb to even breathe. But that's personalities and attitudes taking into effect, which is the core of roleplay anyway. Just wanted to draw the line of you can accept that OOC your character is smart, but that doesn't necessarily mean ICly characters have to believe it.

Warren Castille · **08-20-2015, 07:04 PM**

To be blunter: There's a lot of difference between a night of having fun, interactive roleplay and someone telling you it was a fun night and that they entertained you.

Aduu Avagnar · **08-20-2015, 07:05 PM**

I believe that's a rather simplistic, and extreme example of what I intended, so lets try that again.

I am not a master thaumaturge. I cannot cast magic, nor do I know how to do it. Because its magic that does not exist in this world. However, I can portray my character as being inteligent in it.

Nako'li closes his eyes and digs deep within the internal wellspring of his aether. Drawing it through the focus in his staff he forms a glowing orb of fire, which he proceeds to throw at Warren.

vs

Nako'li concentrates on the aether within himself and casts a fireball at Warren.

or

Thaumaturgy is the act of contemplating on the internal, and using the power within oneself to manifest aether as an outside force.

vs

Thaumaturgy draws on ones internal aether.

Edda · **08-20-2015, 07:11 PM**

A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

Aduu Avagnar · **08-20-2015, 07:16 PM**

(08-20-2015, 07:11 PM)Edda Wrote: A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

That was my point. Even someone using a simpler use of language can get across IC inteligence. The point was gotten across in both versions.

Warren Castille · **08-20-2015, 07:20 PM**

(08-20-2015, 07:16 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote:
(08-20-2015, 07:11 PM)Edda Wrote: A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.
That was my point. The writing styles are different, yet the point is gotten across.

Intelligence =/= combat expertise. Edda's point is that going in-depth about your lore-safe fireball doesn't relay anything about the character in question. The OP was changed to discuss being "witty" and to me, that means quick-thinking or clever.

You have to know how to tell a joke or make a swift, humorous observation or have a rapier, scathing comeback to someone harassing you in order to roleplay the same thing. We're not discussing people being able to believably show effort when summoning a spell, we're discussing people who've allegedly read every book in Eorzea being unable to properly compose a sentence, or someone who's stated as being intimidating not knowing at all how to properly insult someone, or someone who's labeled as a criminal mastermind walking headlong into traps or being outsmarted by "lesser" intelligences.

Playing down is easy. Playing up is a skill in and of itself.

Dis · **08-21-2015, 04:33 AM**

I tend to subscribe to the school of 'fake it till you make it'.Â When I first started RPing when I was younger (11-13ish), I wasn't as witty or as intelligent as my characters were.Â So I pretended.Â I faked it, I looked up witty conversations, I copied what I'd read in books, and tried to insert it appropriately.Â

And eventually I started not having to rely on outside sources to do the work for me.Â You can pretend until its a skill you develop.Â And it is a skill you can develop.Â Trust me, mimic something enough, it starts to rub off on you and you begin to learn the appropriate way to formulate responses that are just the right combination of scathe, snark, and intelligence to be seen as 'witty'.

Intent is important, though.Â And I've RP'd with people who aren't 'as intelligent', but who played characters that way.Â And while I acknowledged to them as another RPer that they could try and make x or y changes to make their character seem wittier, or referred them to resources I'd used, my character acknowledged their character, until my character had a legitimate reason to doubt them based on interacting with them.

It doesn't take much to not be a judgmental snob when someone is trying to portray something that they're not good at.Â Just a bit of patience and offering to help them get to where they want to be.

LadyRochester · **08-21-2015, 08:06 AM**

(08-20-2015, 06:29 PM)GloryRhodes Wrote: Page 6 Thread Summary:

Question posed: Should a person that is mentally deficient be allowed to roleplay a person of intelligence, or is their implicit stupidity too egregious a flaw to allow such behavior?

For the question: Wit is an inherent ability which cannot be faked and which must be presented in detail in order for it to be taken seriously. Â The deficient cannot do this therefore their attempts are invalid and disruptive.

Against the question: People, despite any deficiency should be allowed to do as they wish, and there are methods for faking wit which must be considered before dismissal.

Uncomfortable assumptions:Â The posters for assume that they are not mentally deficient, and that their judgement of others to be less intelligent than they is reliable. Â The posters against suppose that the mentally deficient do not have the responsibility to be accepted, but rather that the intelligent have the responsibility to be accepting.

Unanswered questions:Â

What is the definition of "dumb"?

What is the definition of "witty"?

Who is qualified to pass judgement as to what is acceptable and what is not?

When judgement is passed, who is the gatekeeper to prevent such behavior?

Why is the posed question important, and whose opinion determines the value of the discussion posed?

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 a trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this.

Wit implies someone can come up with relatively sharp responses quickly, it implies someone can offer insightful assessment in a discussion without having to whip out google. Wit, unlike knowledge, is purely reactionary. "Dumb", on the other hand, stands for people who are stubborn, slow, illogical, and in a constant struggle to see from the other's perspective. Mind you, idiocy does not mean ignorance. An intelligent person can quickly come up with an insightful response, while the "dumb" counterpart will take longer and likely only offer a weak assessment. Sure, you could argue we don't truly know what the player does during the few minutes they take to respond, but if a player lacks the intelligence to come up with an insightful response, the response will be lacking for a character they claim is a "Genius".

Mind you, this is rare. People can often pull off these characters, but not if they lack the mental faculties. Say, player #1 and player #2 are arguing. Player #1 is someone who is perceived as "dumb" by the public OOCily. Now, these two are engaged in a heated debate ICly.

Unless player #1 has the intelligence to come up with insightful responses OOCily, he cannot portray that ICly, because it takes OOC effort to support your character's claims. Player #1 will be crushed by any other character played by a more "intelligent" player. So, the point is, player#1 would fail to say anything intelligent to back up the claim that their character is "a genius".

I believe in the multiple-intelligence theory, where some people are more proficient in some areas than other. I believe that someone who is terrible at math can still be extremely socially or linguistically intelligent. Intelligence is a difficult concept to grasp when the possibilities are so vast. However, I speak of cases where one person would be obviously inferior in every area to their character. You can be intelligent and not witty, however, it doesn't work the other way around.

Someone truly "dumb" is difficult to find, everyone has a gift of sorts, however, I speak of the very specific case where someone tries to play a character that vastly exceeds their mental capability.Â

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. This is an extreme case, but people seem to struggle to grasp the concept.

This is not a personal insult to anyone (despite the fact quite a few have tried to do so in this thread.)

Cute poem, by the way. Displays your maturity like a charm.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 08:44 AM**

(08-20-2015, 07:11 PM)Edda Wrote: A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

No, I don't think it's a miscommunication, it's just a contextual problem. Â There are two opinions here.

1. Â The perception of wit is a function of the audience, its portrayal the responsibility of the writer.

2. Â The perception of wit is the responsibility of the audience, its portrayal is the function of the writer.

I'm certainly of opinion 1. Â If a player's character is not witty, but we are told that the character is witty, I do not believe that it is endemic on the other players to make something which is not in keeping with the character to be true.

For example, I cannot tell any other player that my character is funny. Â I can tell jokes as my character, and I can certainly say my character tells a lot of jokes. Â I can make those jokes as funny as I possibly can. Â I can even make many other people think my character is funny if I'm good at those. Â But I cannot force those players, or their characters, to laugh because I said, "My character is funny." Â Therefore, my character is as funny as I'm capable of being. Â My characters are not able to be any funnier than I am.

It's the same here. Â A person can feasibly say their character has a great deal of knowledge they don't have. Â They can do their best to act intelligent or witty. Â They can try their best to come up with witty remarks or to perform fast and complex on-the-spot problem solving. Â And we, as players and characters, might remark highly on the character's intelligence and call them a genius. Â But a character isn't intelligent because we're told they are, especially if the player isn't themselves intelligent. Â Therefore, a character cannot actually be any more intelligent than the player. Â There's simply a limit.

Now, many here are postulating that, if someone says their character is intelligent, we need to take that as gospel no matter how unintelligent the character is (despite the intention of the writer). Â I simply don't think that's either rational or even necessarily reasonable in an open setting. Â Maybe if you're around a tabletop with your friends, people can cut you slack and give you the benefit of the doubt. Â However, we're not under any compunction, as players, to have to pretend something bland or insipid is witty and insightful. Â That is the responsibility of the writer, and are titles we bestow as the audience.

And that means some people will have limits, and it's best to know them. Â It certainly shouldn't be the responsibility of the audience to react according to the players' demand rather than the players' performance.

***Nero*** · **08-21-2015, 08:51 AM**

The arguments being put forth in this thread, particularly the ones attempting to quantify wit and intellect, are more or less completely meaningless because what the question is essentially asking is: "Can people force you to perceive their character a certain way?"

And the answer is no. I think everyone would agree that the answer is no. Unless it's a D&D campaign where the attributes of a character are tracked and informed (e.g. Roll a lore check, score a natural 20, "With staggering speed, your character deciphers the runes effortlessly. This language seems similar to what you know of Ancient Whatsit, and the structure is odd, but you feel that you obtain the complete accurate meaning of the ancient tablet nonetheless"), then no one can force others to perceive their character a certain way.

Regardless of whether or not the player is intelligent, the player cannot force other characters to perceive their character as intelligent.

An intelligent character may be viewed by other characters as dumb. A dumb character may be viewed by other characters as the flowering genius of the era.

If other characters don't perceive your character as the way you want your character to be perceived, then the problem is not the other characters but the portayal--again, one cannot force others to perceive their characters or writing a certain way.

One example being put forth is the idea of conveyance; the difference between "<x> does <intelligent action y> with incredible comfort and skill" and "<x> performs <description of the action itself and thought process>. One is telling. The other is showing.

In this situation, the question changes. The question becomes "Does telling someone about a character's attributes substitute for showing them?" And you'll get varying answers, but really what it comes down to is whether or not the audience is willing to tolerate lazy writing. I can of course simply "tell" you that my character is Picasso, Mozart, and Ice JJ Fish rolled into one amazing artistic package, and your character may respond to it by reacting as if they'd met an incredible visionary, but how the player behind the other character responds is up to them.

If they're willing to roll with it, then they proceed as normal.

If they're not really okay with being told rather than shown, then their character can react accordingly.

Attempting to force perceptions on other is, as a general rule, a bad time. Perceptions of characters or situations are made by their portayals, and if you can't convince the audience of a certain trait or attribute, or if they're not willing to roll with being told but not shown, then you're pretty much out of luck.

Nebbs · **08-21-2015, 08:55 AM**

"The deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball."

I think there is a danger of stereotyping players and layering on assumptions. The best way is to RP and see what happens. If you asuume other players have limitations then you will likely miss out on some great RP.

RP is an active thing. As most of you are in the non genious camp. Should I assume you can't RP a genious and better still not even have a valid view on the fact that you think you can? Clearly not.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 08:57 AM**

(08-21-2015, 08:51 AM)Nero Wrote: The arguments being put forth in this thread, particularly the ones attempting to quantify wit and intellect, are more or less completely meaningless because what the question is essentially asking is: "Can people force you to perceive their character a certain way?"

And the answer is no. I think everyone would agree that the answer is no. Unless it's a D&D campaign where the attributes of a character are tracked and informed (e.g. Roll a lore check, score a natural 20, "With staggering speed, your character deciphers the runes effortlessly. This language seems similar to what you know of Ancient Whatsit, and the structure is odd, but you feel that you obtain the complete accurate meaning of the ancient tablet nonetheless"), then no one can force others to perceive their character a certain way.

Regardless of whether or not the player is intelligent, the player cannot force other characters to perceive their character as intelligent.

An intelligent character may be viewed as other characters as dumb. A dumb character may be viewed as other characters as the flowering genius of the era.

If other characters don't perceive your character as the way you want your character to be perceived, then the problem is not the other characters but the portayal--again, one cannot force others to perceive their characters or writing a certain way.

One example being put forth is the idea of conveyance; the difference between "<x> does <intelligent action y> with incredible comfort and skill" is different between "<x> rapidly flipped the disks on this Towers of Hanoi puzzle with certainty of the solution". One is telling. The other is showing.

In this situation, the question changes. The question becomes "Does telling someone about a character's attributes substitute for showing them?" And you'll get varying answers, but really what it comes down to is whether or not the audience is willing to tolerate lazy writing. I can of course simply "tell" you that my character is Picasso, Mozart, and Ice JJ Fish rolled into one amazing artistic package, and your character may respond to it by reacting as if they'd met an incredible visionary, but how the player behind the other character responds is up to them.

If they're willing to roll with it, then they proceed as normal.

If they're not really okay with being told rather than shown, then their character can react accordingly.

Attempting to force perceptions on other is, as a general rule, a bad time. Perceptions of characters or situations are made by their portayals, and if you can't convince the audience of a certain trait or attribute, or if they're not willing to roll with being told but not shown, then you're pretty much out of luck.

It's also worth noting that knowledge and intelligence are very different things. Â You can be of average or below average intelligence and have plenty of hard-fought knowledge. Â You simply needed to work harder to gain it, and you may not be able to apply it as quickly as other naturally gifted people. Â Likewise, you can be extremely intelligent and simply lack knowledge.

We all know someone like this. Â The guy who seemed to be capable of anything and actually accomplished nothing.

I think that, in addition to what's being said here (which I agree with), it's important to state what intelligence, wit, etc. actually are. Â You can be a perfectly good engineer, even a highly effective innovator, without being intelligent. Â As someone who works with a lot of engineers, I can say that there are plenty of highly intelligent people that I wouldn't trust to calculate the structure in my shed. Â Even if it takes an "unintelligent" engineer twice as long, I'd rather it be done right.

So no one's saying that players who aren't personally very intelligent can't play highly skilledÂ or capableÂ characters, but there is a limit to how much of a genius they seem to the rest of us. Â And that can't be dictated. Â If it takes them a few days to come up with a good solution (or a good comeback) then they simply aren't going to be able to play a character that seems intelligent. Â And there's no real way to force that to happen.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (13): « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 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