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

FreelanceWizard · **08-29-2015, 12:36 PM**

(08-29-2015, 11:44 AM)Oli! Wrote: I still can't really see this as valid. People are free to do what they want in a public location. Additionally, one of the central unspoken tenets of any RP community is the idea that you don't have to RP with anyone that you don't want to. This would be in violation of that tenet.

If you were to walk up to a group of friends playing Monopoly in the park, ask if you can play, and then get denied, you can't say, "well this park is a clearly public location, and you must therefore let me play Monopoly with you." Similarly, if someone has their Ferrari parked in a street, you can't say "you have to let me drive your car, because you parked it in a public location." They're using private property in an open spot. Having someone play Monopoly with you, or driving your car when you don't want them to isn't a consequence of being where you are. Yes, you might be able to avoidÂ these unwanted advances if you parked your Ferrari in a garage, or played Monopoly in your living room, but you also don't have to acceptÂ these advances just because you're in a public place. Just because something is out in the open doesn't mean that you are automatically allowed to partake in it.

In the context of this game, the Public Area is The Game, and the Private Property is Your Roleplay. Just as I am free to play Monopoly in the park with my friends and exclude people if I wish, other people are free to Roleplay in public with their friends and exclude people if they want to. It is even possible to turn the Consequences theme on its head, and say that if you decide to try and get involved in things that other people are doing, then you have to accept them excluding you as a consequence for your actions.

I also don't think that the concept of IC Consequence Avoidance applies here anyway, because they are not asking for anything; if I were to sit out in a bench in Ul'dah ICly, and someone Roleplays sniping my character and killing them without my approval, with their reasoning being "well, that's the consequence of sitting on a park bench in an area without security," I think that everyone here would be willing to agree that that would be at least slightly unreasonable. It's the same thing with Private Roleplay; if some people just sit out in the middle of a place talking about something, and someone comes over and tries to join, then I don't think it could be seen as Consequence Avoidance for them to say, "actually this is just between us, sorry."

It would be different if the scenario was such that they didÂ ask for it, such as making it public and then making it private later, or giving someone permission to overhear them and deciding against it later, but those are both instances in which the Roleplay is no longer private, and therefore does not apply to the circumstances that we're discussing.

As far as turning people into an audience goes, I don't think that this is so at all. No one is forcing anyone else to do nothing but watch, and you are entirely within your rights to leave, roleplay around them, pretend they're there anyway, pretend they're not there, use them as barstools, or whatever else you may fancy.

I reject the idea that RP is inherently private property at all times. RP in public is public; you are making it clear by your presence in public and your RP there that you are, indeed, an RPer, that your character exists, and that they're in this location. You have a right not to RP with someone, certainly, but you do not have the right to preemptively declare that the conversation you're having in the middle of the Quicksand (to use an example) is private and that no one else can overhear it or interact with you. That's bad form, and it interferes with another central tenet of RP, which is that anyone can play if they're willing to make an effort. Don't we hold ourselves out as an open, welcoming group of people? Don't we try to engage others?

It is, to me, extremely bad form for an RPer to engage in RP in a public location, then OOCly tell a person "You can't participate" or to simply ignore them outright. I'm not saying you must RP with them to any great extent. What I am saying is that you, as an RPer, owe them as a matter of proper decorum the recognition of their existence ICly. If you don't want them there, you can make that extremely clear ICly. This is a perfect example of ICA = ICC, actually. The IC action is talking in public. The IC reaction can be someone reacting to that. That reaction itself can get a reaction, and so it goes. The problem is when, instead of there being an IC reaction, the first party throws a tell at them (going OOC) to say, "Sorry, private scene, get lost."

I think the difference we have is that I consider the very presence of a character in a public location to be an automatic consent to social interaction. The IC action is being somewhere; a reasonable IC consequence is people interacting with you. If you don't want to give that automatic consent, the world is full of places where you can go where it's unlikely anyone will run into you and it's generally understood that the scene defaults to private.

I suppose, then, we'll have to agree to disagree, since we appear to have different conceptions of auto-consent and ICA = ICC.

(As a side note, your example of being shot by a sniper is actually an issue of consent and escalation of consent, and part of that is that you can't do something to someone's character that's greater than what they've agreed to. Taking someone out because they were sitting on a park bench with no other story elements involved is a blatant violation of any plausible concept of consent.)

Oli! · **08-29-2015, 01:00 PM**

(08-29-2015, 12:36 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:
(08-29-2015, 11:44 AM)Oli! Wrote: I still can't really see this as valid. People are free to do what they want in a public location. Additionally, one of the central unspoken tenets of any RP community is the idea that you don't have to RP with anyone that you don't want to. This would be in violation of that tenet.

If you were to walk up to a group of friends playing Monopoly in the park, ask if you can play, and then get denied, you can't say, "well this park is a clearly public location, and you must therefore let me play Monopoly with you." Similarly, if someone has their Ferrari parked in a street, you can't say "you have to let me drive your car, because you parked it in a public location." They're using private property in an open spot. Having someone play Monopoly with you, or driving your car when you don't want them to isn't a consequence of being where you are. Yes, you might be able to avoidÂ these unwanted advances if you parked your Ferrari in a garage, or played Monopoly in your living room, but you also don't have to acceptÂ these advances just because you're in a public place. Just because something is out in the open doesn't mean that you are automatically allowed to partake in it.

In the context of this game, the Public Area is The Game, and the Private Property is Your Roleplay. Just as I am free to play Monopoly in the park with my friends and exclude people if I wish, other people are free to Roleplay in public with their friends and exclude people if they want to. It is even possible to turn the Consequences theme on its head, and say that if you decide to try and get involved in things that other people are doing, then you have to accept them excluding you as a consequence for your actions.

I also don't think that the concept of IC Consequence Avoidance applies here anyway, because they are not asking for anything; if I were to sit out in a bench in Ul'dah ICly, and someone Roleplays sniping my character and killing them without my approval, with their reasoning being "well, that's the consequence of sitting on a park bench in an area without security," I think that everyone here would be willing to agree that that would be at least slightly unreasonable. It's the same thing with Private Roleplay; if some people just sit out in the middle of a place talking about something, and someone comes over and tries to join, then I don't think it could be seen as Consequence Avoidance for them to say, "actually this is just between us, sorry."

It would be different if the scenario was such that they didÂ ask for it, such as making it public and then making it private later, or giving someone permission to overhear them and deciding against it later, but those are both instances in which the Roleplay is no longer private, and therefore does not apply to the circumstances that we're discussing.

As far as turning people into an audience goes, I don't think that this is so at all. No one is forcing anyone else to do nothing but watch, and you are entirely within your rights to leave, roleplay around them, pretend they're there anyway, pretend they're not there, use them as barstools, or whatever else you may fancy.

I reject the idea that RP is inherently private property at all times. RP in public is public; you are making it clear by your presence in public and your RP there that you are, indeed, an RPer, that your character exists, and that they're in this location. You have a right not to RP with someone, certainly, but you do not have the right to preemptively declare that the conversation you're having in the middle of the Quicksand (to use an example) is private and that no one else can overhear it or interact with you. That's bad form, and it interferes with another central tenet of RP, which is that anyone can play if they're willing to make an effort. Don't we hold ourselves out as an open, welcoming group of people? Don't we try to engage others?

It is, to me, extremely bad form for an RPer to engage in RP in a public location, then OOCly tell a person "You can't participate" or to simply ignore them outright. I'm not saying you must RP with them to any great extent. What I am saying is that you, as an RPer, owe them as a matter of proper decorum the recognition of their existence ICly. If you don't want them there, you can make that extremely clear ICly. This is a perfect example of ICA = ICC, actually. The IC action is talking in public. The IC reaction can be someone reacting to that. That reaction itself can get a reaction, and so it goes. The problem is when, instead of there being an IC reaction, the first party throws a tell at them (going OOC) to say, "Sorry, private scene, get lost."

I think the difference we have is that I consider the very presence of a character in a public location to be an automatic consent to social interaction. The IC action is being somewhere; a reasonable IC consequence is people interacting with you. If you don't want to give that automatic consent, the world is full of places where you can go where it's unlikely anyone will run into you and it's generally understood that the scene defaults to private.

I suppose, then, we'll have to agree to disagree, since we appear to have different conceptions of auto-consent and ICA = ICC.

(As a side note, your example of being shot by a sniper is actually an issue of consent and escalation of consent, and part of that is that you can't do something to someone's character that's greater than what they've agreed to. Taking someone out because they were sitting on a park bench with no other story elements involved is a blatant violation of any plausible concept of consent.)

The thing though is that opinions on what is or is not good form is not the same thing as what is or is not another player's Right. There are several things in my own argument that I disagree with in terms of personal philosophy, but I argue them because they're the way that things are. I actually agree that it's Bad Form, but that doesn't mean that it's not a Right that someone has. It's within my Rights not to clean my apartment before I have friends over, but it's still Bad Form, simultaneously. Is it my civil right not to bathe for a whole year if I don't want to? Yes. Is it Bad Form not to bathe for a whole year? Also yes.

There is nothing stopping a person from walking into the Quicksand, sitting down, and then having an RP that people are excluded from through ignoring their surroundings. There is no way to force them to acknowledge you, or force them to leave. Those are not options that are available or enforceable to us, therefore making their choice something that cannot be outlawed or otherwise made illegal by any given party, therefore a Right.

We may not like it. I, in fact, do not like it. However, I, or anyone else, cannot stop them from doing such, and it is not prohibited by The Game. It is therefore something that other people are allowed to do if they wish, regardless of our individual stances on the matter.

Edgar · **08-29-2015, 01:01 PM**

This is why I ask for and give context in OOC, and ask before I do something if it is okay to do so. It's (not so) common courtesy.

Lydia Lightfoot · **08-29-2015, 01:17 PM**

Just to throw my two gil into the whole "can you / should you randomly interact with others that you see being IC"... Yes, yes you should, in my opinion. It's already been stated that if you're in public, you're in public. That seems like a "period, end of discussion" sort of obvious point.Â

The main rebuttal to that, "but what if they don't have anywhere private they could go" is moot - nothing prevents them from setting up Skype, using email, or even private messages here on this forum. I know lots of people over various MMOs that I've played who do that for scenes where they really want privacy. Do you have you use your imagination 100% for the scenery, etc? Duh. Obviously. But if we're totally fair there, most people do that in-game, too. They'll emote about something going on during the scene that isn't represented by the polygons and avatars (usually because it can't be, because we can't edit the game world to suit the whims of our RP).

It's like the real world - if two people want to have a heated argument, and they do it in their home, then they're probably fine to have that argument. If they do it at a shopping mall, there's a chance that a passer-by may interject their opinion, or a possibility someone may misunderstand the context of the argument or the hostility level and things could get taken an unanticipated direction.

This unpredictability is part of the fun of RP, and it can also be a neat way to acquire some new IC friends (or antagonists).

All of this, though, does fall under the usual umbrella of "be respectful to other players OOCly". If you try to interact with them and they ask you OOCly, "Hey, I know we're out in public and everything, but we have kinda limited time and it's really important to our story that this part of it goes as-intended, could we maybe hook up for random RP another day instead of right now?", then hey, be cool to them and let them do their thing.

tl;dr - My opinion is that there's no need to ever specify you're open to walk-up RP. If you're IC in public, you're open to it. A polite OOC request for privacy should be respected, but privacy-in-public shouldn't be considered a default condition.

Oli! · **08-29-2015, 01:27 PM**

(08-29-2015, 01:17 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: The main rebuttal to that, "but what if they don't have anywhere private they could go" is moot - nothing prevents them from setting up Skype, using email, or even private messages here on this forum. I know lots of people over various MMOs that I've played who do that for scenes where they really want privacy...

...It's like the real world - if two people want to have a heated argument, and they do it in their home, then they're probably fine to have that argument. If they do it at a shopping mall, there's a chance that a passer-by may interject their opinion, or a possibility someone may misunderstand the context of the argument or the hostility level and things could get taken an unanticipated direction.

tl;dr - My opinion is that there's no need to ever specify you're open to walk-up RP. If you're IC in public, you're open to it. A polite OOC request for privacy should be respected, but privacy-in-public shouldn't be considered a default condition.

This is not the main rebuttal.

The main rebuttal is that you can't make them acknowledge you. And you can't. There's nothing that anyone can do to make an RP public unless the other party is willing to play along. AllÂ RP is about playing along.

Again, I agree that if you're in public, you should be in public. But when it's down to the line, you're only in public if you decide to acknowledge other people coming up to you. If you don't, then you might as well not be.

In the real world, you can ignore people that come up to you and offer their piece. It's the same thing in RP, where it is in fact even easier to ignore someone. Someone can punch you in meatspace, but in RP, that punch isn't happening unless you want it to. If a party doesn't acknowledge anything happening around them, then functionally, they're not public at all, and there's no way to force them to be public either.

Hyakki · **08-29-2015, 01:54 PM**

(08-29-2015, 01:17 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: The main rebuttal to that, "but what if they don't have anywhere private they could go" is moot - nothing prevents them from setting up Skype, using email, or even private messages here on this forum. I know lots of people over various MMOs that I've played who do that for scenes where they really want privacy. Do you have you use your imagination 100% for the scenery, etc? Duh. Obviously. But if we're totally fair there, most people do that in-game, too. They'll emote about something going on during the scene that isn't represented by the polygons and avatars (usually because it can't be, because we can't edit the game world to suit the whims of our RP).

Some people play on console and outside alternatives like skype or forums aren't available to them or an option they're comfortable with. With those options and imagination why roleplay within the game at all?

Do you people feel entitled to crash parties held in public parks too? If they really want to make it private they can hold it at home or rent a private venue, right? With creative use of decorations and a little imagination it would be just like the park.

If you are turned away politely, accept it and move on. Its a big server, someone else would surely be happy to include you.

Cato · **08-29-2015, 02:40 PM**

I get the impression that there's more to this story than is being put forward. Call me cynical but whenever there's drama in a role-playing community I've found that it's almost always a two way thing.

It could very well be a misunderstanding or a matter of unintentional offence - but I'm not quite sure we'll be able to discuss it in full since there's only one side showing up to put forward their account of what has happened.

Besides, if everybody came to this forum to make a thread each time someone rubbed them the wrong way in-game then...the forum would be full of nothing but complaint threads. Learning to filter out problematic role-players/people you can't compromise with is a skill that every role-player needs to learn in my opinion.

It should be no secret that many role-players are not compatible with each other/prone to drama, bitching and bickering. What matters is identifying those you will get along with and cutting your losses when you stumble across those that you won't get along with.

Much like in the real world, I suppose.

Flashhelix · **08-29-2015, 02:59 PM**

Roleplayer entitlement is absolutely out of control.

Edda · **08-29-2015, 03:21 PM**

When it comes to roleplay, and even situations in real life, there is really only one clear answer: Don't. In no way is it ever acceptable to just waltz up to anyone you have had no prior interaction with and engage them in any way, shape, or form. It is rude and disrespectful. Even so much as emoting your character's annoyance or interest in the conversation between two friends is highly inconsiderate and should be avoided at all costs.

As anyone who knows me can tell you, I recently removed the "walk-ups welcome" blurb in my search info, and I would encourage any and all roleplayers to do the same. If someone is roleplaying publicly, that does not give you the right to engage them if they are a complete stranger. If I have a need to introduce my character to someone new, then I will arrange for it to be done so through an existing, mutual contact, just like how ever other normal person meets new people in real life.

For more information on the issues regarding engaging strangers in any way, please refer to this article. Though it is written for IRL purposes, I think it can be applied to roleplay as well.

Lydia Lightfoot · **08-29-2015, 03:31 PM**

(08-29-2015, 01:27 PM)Oli! Wrote: This is not the main rebuttal.

The main rebuttal is that you can't make them acknowledge you. And you can't. There's nothing that anyone can do to make an RP public unless the other party is willing to play along. AllÂ RP is about playing along.

You can't force them to acknowledge you, that's true. But there are consequences to a lack of acknowledgement. Consider a hypothetical example of this:

Bob and Jane are characters in RP in the Quicksand. They're having an argument in which Bob is clearly being antagonistic in the scene and Jane is being victimized. As you probably can anticipate, a number of characters observing the situation are readying themselves to "white knight", and one such character, Frank, approaches and emotes suggesting to Bob that he cool it and maybe they all get a drink and calm down. Bob and Jane don't react, and Bob goes to smack Jane in the face. Frank emotes reaching out in an attempt to intercept or block the smack to prevent it from connecting. Bob and Jane don't react, and Jane takes the hit, falling backwards, and Bob draws his sword. Frank emotes another attempt to intervene by drawing his own weapon and positioning his avatar in between Bob and Jane's, while trying to tell Bob to stand down. Bob and Jane continue to not react to Frank.

Now then. Is your statement true, that Frank can't force Bob and Jane to react to him? Sure. But, are Bob and Jane's players being rude by playing out their scene in a public space and failing to acknowledge the existence of the public? Yes. For their behavior, other players in the area will probably conclude that Bob is godmoding by not acknowledging Frank, and a large portion of those players may decide to write off Bob and Jane as roleplayers due to their anti-social behavior.

More to the point, inability to force Bob and Jane to "play along" doesn't mean that refusal is polite or justifiable, nor does it magically mean they aren't in public. Many roleplayers play with a mind to the realism of the social environment, which means that unless a plausible reason ICly is presented for why Bob and Jane couldn't be interacted with, they're fair game.

Oli! · **08-29-2015, 03:40 PM**

(08-29-2015, 03:31 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: Now then. Is your statement true, that Frank can't force Bob and Jane to react to him? Sure. But, are Bob and Jane's players being rude by playing out their scene in a public space and failing to acknowledge the existence of the public? Yes. For their behavior, other players in the area will probably conclude that Bob is godmoding by not acknowledging Frank, and a large portion of those players may decide to write off Bob and Jane as roleplayers due to their anti-social behavior.

More to the point, inability to force Bob and Jane to "play along" doesn't mean that refusal is polite or justifiable, nor does it magically mean they aren't in public. Many roleplayers play with a mind to the realism of the social environment, which means that unless a plausible reason ICly is presented for why Bob and Jane couldn't be interacted with, they're fair game.

Yes, they're being rude. We agree. But it's still their right to be rude, which is what is being argued.

The point about them being not in public means that the scene that they had planned will continue along the same lines as it would have if no one saw it; as a result, regardless of where they would have played it out, it would have stayed the same, blurring the lines of Public and Private from their standpoint and rendering them unnecessary.

Yes, they might be "fair game" in the mind of those interacting with them, but as far as actualÂ interaction goes, they're notÂ fair game, because nothing can be done to them. Therein lies the disconnect between what people's opinions of what should be fair game are, and what actually isÂ fair game in practice.

Those players may write those people off, but unless this is something that the two players find undesirable, that doesn't actually make it a consequence. It's entirely possible that those two players won't care, or otherwise find it rude that everyone else is intruding; as a result, they might also desire to write the rest of those watching off as well. A Consequence, when referred to in the negative light, is squarely within the confines of subjectivity.

Again, just because someone is Being Rude by not interacting with someone, does not meanÂ that they are not within their Rights to do whatever it is that they're doing. Personal Opinions are not Law; sometimes the two can intersect, or work in tandem with one another, but they are not the same.

Again, I would rather that people be available to interact with all the time in public, but that's not something that is always true, or something that I can enforce. I also personally believe that it's not worth writing people off because they decided that they want to do something on their own.

As an aside, it's important to note that the people in your scenario did not state that they were having a private scene when others attempted to intervene. Although it is a bit of a tangent from the actual argument, if they were to have stated something along the lines of, "sorry, this RP is off-limits, we're doing something on our own," then that could put the entire scenario in a very different light, even if everything else proceeds in the same way.

Lydia Lightfoot · **08-29-2015, 03:41 PM**

(08-29-2015, 01:54 PM)Mamushi Wrote: Some people play on console and outside alternatives like skype or forums aren't available to them or an option they're comfortable with. With those options and imagination why roleplay within the game at all?

Do you people feel entitled to crash parties held in public parks too? If they really want to make it private they can hold it at home or rent a private venue, right? With creative use of decorations and a little imagination it would be just like the park.

If you are turned away politely, accept it and move on. Its a big server, someone else would surely be happy to include you.

I find it hard to believe that someone might own a gaming console but have literally no other access to the internet, but let's say there's someone like that. What prevents them from taking their scene to tells, or to party chat? Nothing does.

If there's an event going on in a public park it's a public event. That is a public park. It's paid for by the public. I am a part of the public. I pay taxes which pay for the park. Similarly, I pay a monthly fee for access to a video game in which the domains we can wander are also public (except when they explicitly aren't, such as private chambers). Similar to my comment regarding OOC request, were I to see something interesting going on in a public park and wander up inquiring cheerfully what the occasion is, and I were given a polite request to leave them be, then I'd surely do so. Civility goes a long way. On the other hand, if one of the adults there stomped over to me and screamed at the top of his lungs, "YOU DON'T BELONG HERE GTFO YOU WHORE", there's no chance I'm going to merely obey that. Rood.

On the last note we agree - if you see someone doing RP in public and you try to interact and they politely decline by tell, hey, cool. Absolutely move on. Like I just said a second ago, civility. That doesn't mean you never attempt to walk up to people doing public RP, though. And it doesn't mean you should have to send a tell and beg them to let you interact with them like they're the owners of the zone and you're not allowed to RP in the same breathing space they're occupying. No. We all pay the fee, we all have an equal right to RP there - by default. A nice request to give them some space, though, does wonders.

Lydia Lightfoot · **08-29-2015, 03:47 PM**

(08-29-2015, 03:40 PM)Oli! Wrote: As an aside, it's important to note that the people in your scenario did not state that they were having a private scene when others attempted to intervene. Although it is a bit of a tangent from the actual argument, if they were to have stated something along the lines of, "sorry, this RP is off-limits, we're doing something on our own," then that could put the entire scenario in a very different light, even if everything else proceeds in the same way.

That right there is the line between polite and rude - returning to the example, when Frank made his initial post, if Bob or Jane replied OOCly, "((Hey Frank, sorry to do this to you man, but in the context of the scene we're playing we're intending this to be an after-hours moment when the Quicksand happens to be closed, so for the sake of the scene we can't accept outside interaction.))" then that's being polite. Outright not acknowledging Frank's existence is what made it rude.

On the other hand, Frank (and everyone else in the area) would then be justified in saying "((Is it possible that you guys might consider taking that RP to party chat or tells? People who walk in after this moment won't have seen your explanation and may attempt to interact with you two, and that could get frustrating for you both, whereas taking the RP to party chat or tells just makes it look like you're two silent avatars as far as any newcomers would be concerned, so they'd have no reason to try to intervene in anything and your scene could progress uninterrupted.))"

Which, to be frank (hah), is really what they should've done to begin with if their scene absolutely couldn't withstand the possibility of interference.

Jana · **08-29-2015, 03:49 PM**

(08-29-2015, 10:36 AM)Oli! Wrote: While yes, not doing it in public is the easiest solution at first glance, the problem arises of where to have it in the first place.

Party chat or tells, even in the middle of the Quicksand, have been used for private RP since there was RP in the game. If people wanna RP in /say and get pissy when people enter their range and reply, they should have considered it beforehand.

Oli! · **08-29-2015, 03:55 PM**

(08-29-2015, 03:49 PM)Jana Wrote:
(08-29-2015, 10:36 AM)Oli! Wrote: While yes, not doing it in public is the easiest solution at first glance, the problem arises of where to have it in the first place.

Party chat or tells, even in the middle of the Quicksand, have been used for private RP since there was RP in the game. If people wanna RP in /say and get pissy when people enter their range and reply, they should have considered it beforehand.

Right now, I don't think we're dealing with individual reactions to intrusion; these can range anywhere from being angry, to not caring at all, so they don't really have that much gravity except for in specific circumstances; the argument is more geared to whether or not people are allowed to have private conversations in /say, which they are, because there's no way to actually stopÂ them from doing so.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (4): « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

Edited Title; Public Space OOC/IC issue~

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