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

Gegenji · **09-21-2015, 09:49 AM**

I'm still of the mind that folks shouldn't have to worry overmuch about the tense as long as the base concept gets across. RP is, in my mind, supposed to be fun and interactive and enjoyable for all those involved. If you get too wound up on the minor details like proper tense usage and punctuation and all that, then I feel that detracts from the enjoyment.

If someone wants to imply an unknown by using a future tense, is that really such a bad thing? Is anyone's RP really stymied by someone saying that they would pull out a book rather than just pulling the book out? Events may be "happening" so that present tense is the "correct" tense to be in, but is that really a big deal?

There is obviously a difference between

1.) Doug ate the bagel
2.) Doug is eating the bagel; and
3.) Doug would eat the bagel

But, as has been shown, each one can be interrupted in some fashion. Even if it requires, in a sense, a mild bit of "retconning" for the sake of RP. Doug may have ate the bagel, but if someone states that "a couple bites in" or "just as his teeth break its crisp surface" they are still acknowledging that Doug was in the act of eating the bagel and is attempting to have something happen during it. A sort of forcing into a present tense (or even future, if it kept him from eating the bagel at all) that effectively changes the flow of events, if you will, for the sake of RP.

And if Doug's player doesn't mind that someone has interrupted his eating of his bagel, regardless of the tense it was presented in, is there any harm?

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 09:49 AM**

(09-21-2015, 08:44 AM)Kage Wrote: I'm really just hoping someone knows where it's really common and might give me a better understanding. Do you think it's common in LARP? Tabletop? Certain regions??

The last time I asked someone about why they roleplayed x way I got chewed out >.> When I literally just asked them "I'm curious and pretty new. Why do you do ___?"

Like I explained, in interactive roleplay (both tabletop and active; whether that's a book game, game, or instant messenger), the common form is that it's written in the present tense and conditionals are written in the future tense.

For example, the past tense, past conditional:

Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head.

Doesn't work because it immediately implies Ignacius didn't cut his head off, which we (technically speaking) don't know yet (the sentence is in the past tense, action is in the present, and reaction is in the future).

The same example in full present is:

Ignacius draws his sword and tries to cut off Ziggy's head.

This works better, but still makes no sense if you actually cut off Ziggy's head. Â The operation on "try" makes it conditional without using a word like "would", but necessarily implies that Ziggy's head doesn't get cut off (in which case, he wouldn't be trying, he'd be doing).

Worse, this implies after reaction. Â If Ziggy is somehow dodging out of the way after Ignacius draws his sword, he's probably not going to make it. Â Ziggy, if he can, is going to GTFO before Ignacius is finished drawing his sword. Â A lot is happening there. Â However, according to the sentence, Ziggy is now reacting to Ignacius's attempt to cut off his head. Â Even if he is no longer there, even if he has his own sword out, even if his own sword is moving to cut off Ignacius's arm, by this point, Ignacius is locked into his action. Â No matter how ridiculous, the present action can't be changed. Â He is trying to cut off Ziggy's head whether Ziggy is there, his head is available, or not.

So the correct form implies the conditional future tense (and even in the previous example, we assume the future tense is implied by the verb "try"):

Ignacius draws his sword and would try to cut off Ziggy's head.

Or, more commonly:

Ignacius draws his sword and swings, intending to cut off Ziggy's head.

This has the benefit of being in the correct tense and implying a conditional future action. Â That way, if Ziggy happens to not have his head in front of Ignacius's sword, he can move or abort the action. Â He can make sure he moves to try to cut off Ziggy's head, or stop swinging even if his daughter jumps in front of Ziggy asking Ignacius to spare him (unlikely).

I hope that helps. Â It's a lot different from writing a short story. Â People can go one way or the other, but the most common is to RP in the present and set actions conditionally in the future if you feel they'll be contested (to avoid having your action "locked").

Coatleque · **09-21-2015, 10:00 AM**

There is a world of difference between your character eating a bagel vs your character trying to force the bagel down someone else's throat. You are confusing what you think is 'future' tense with what is really just one-sided present tense.

'would try to' is the same as 'attempts to' which are both present tense happening now, but can be altered by the other party's actions.

Caspar · **09-21-2015, 10:18 AM**

I figure leaving most attempted actions open ended in present tense is enough. Once you've written that, then you can write the projected hypothetical result, or better, write it after you've succeeded...

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 10:18 AM**

(09-21-2015, 09:49 AM)Gegenji Wrote: I'm still of the mind that folks shouldn't have to worry overmuch about the tense as long as the base concept gets across. RP is, in my mind, supposed to be fun and interactive and enjoyable for all those involved. If you get too wound up on the minor details like proper tense usage and punctuation and all that, then I feel that detracts from the enjoyment.

If someone wants to imply an unknown by using a future tense, is that really such a bad thing? Is anyone's RP really stymied by someone saying that they would pull out a book rather than just pulling the book out? Events may be "happening" so that present tense is the "correct" tense to be in, but is that really a big deal?

There is obviously a difference between

1.) Doug ate the bagel
2.) Doug is eating the bagel; and
3.) Doug would eat the bagel

But, as has been shown, each one can be interrupted in some fashion. Even if it requires, in a sense, a mild bit of "retconning" for the sake of RP. Doug may have ate the bagel, but if someone states that "a couple bites in" or "just as his teeth break its crisp surface" they are still acknowledging that Doug was in the act of eating the bagel and is attempting to have something happen during it. A sort of forcing into a present tense (or even future, if it kept him from eating the bagel at all) that effectively changes the flow of events, if you will, for the sake of RP.

And if Doug's player doesn't mind that someone has interrupted his eating of his bagel, regardless of the tense it was presented in, is there any harm?

In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference. Â Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

This format was originally created for freestyle RP on IMs and forums. Â Tabletop games tend to have systems for combat, and in fact, some of these made it over (some well-structured threads had dice emulators, DMs, etc.). Â Freestyle open RP didn't have that. Â There was a mechanical version on IMs called quicktype (where someone would declare an action, an impartial third party would type a nine word sentence, then both players would try to type it as fast as possible; least mistakes won, ties were settled by who posted faster).

However, the de facto standard of freestyle RP combat was the "tactical checkmate". Â In it, essentially, people declared actions and reactions until someone couldn't weasel their way out of getting hit (if it stretched too far, people could call a tactical checkmate, because you can't bend your back completely over without some serious backstory, for example). Â And for tactical checkmate combat (and later, for pretty much everything) the present tense with future conditional was the way you learned to type.

In that example I gave above, action locking was usually what got you killed. Â Ziggy could draw his sword and cut at Ignacius's elbow as he stepped to the side. Â If Ignacius is trying to cut off Ziggy's head, he has no exit, he is still trying to cut off Ziggy's head even if Ziggy is about to dismember him.

That's why there's so many "woulds" and future conditional verbs in a lot of old-school RPer's styles, even though that's not seen in many novels or short stories. Â An RPer, especially in some kind of contested action, tends to set a future conditional on a present action, saying Ignacius is drawing his sword and swinging, with the intention of hitting Ziggy's head if it's still in the area. Â However, in that wording, the swing can change and meet Ziggy's sword instead of Ziggy's head as soon as Ignacius reacts to the situation.

Tactical checkmating is still the de facto standard today if your character gets in a dust up with another character and it wasn't planned. Â However, FFXIV has a lot more DMs and dice rolls just in the community. Â The population is, at this point, getting a bit young to the point where some maybe started RPing in games instead of forum threads and IMers, so they've grown up with the tools around them.

In short, it's not necessary for any action (and most people don't care too much), but grammar suddenly can become a big deal if someone decides to take a swing at you and you don't have a dice setup beforehand.

That, and it's good RP courtesy, if such a thing exists anymore, to leave any contested action available for future reaction. Â If your character grabs a bottle of wine and pours it, trying to fill someone's cup, that person can't cover the cup and say no thank you. Â If your character begins to tip the bottle, intending to fill it (notably here, intending to fill it in the future, making it a conditional future tense), your character can stop before he pours wine all over her hand and the table.

Ludivine Goultard · **09-21-2015, 10:18 AM**

I've stuck with present tense simply because the game's default emotes use present tense.Â

e.g. /dance

Ludivine Goultard dances. (or) Ludivine Goultard dances with [x]

I've been told by professional writers and published authors in person that there's nothing wrong with using one tense or the other, just so long as you are consistent. Sometimes people just have their own way of emoting.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 10:21 AM**

Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

Dante Abigor · **09-21-2015, 10:24 AM**

I personally believe it started in combat oriented Rp, where players did not want to seem like they were forcing a sequence by extending the hand of God into the Rp, and then out of habit it started bleeding into all of their rp like a nervous twitch.

I didnt start doing it myself until I saw it done repeatedly, since usually you can write around things in a way so that its open ended without stating the full effect of what happens. Lately thought it is somewhat harder not to do it, since I see like....almost everyone I rp with do it.

But yes, I think at this point its just a cautious form of Rping so that the "GOD MODE" finger isnt pointed at someone like a really bad day in Salem.

Gegenji · **09-21-2015, 10:26 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:18 AM)Ignacius Wrote: In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference. Â Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

Understandable, but Kage made a point to mention that this was a curiosity on people using future tense and indefinite statements outside of a combat situation. Such as Doug and his bagel.

Obviously, if it's a combat or any manner of conflict situation, it's "better" for someone to leave an action open-ended to allow the other person or persons involved to react or even interrupt what is being done. Using a future tense - or a present/past tense that does not implicitly imply success - is recommended and even encouraged in these sorts of situations.

The matter at hand is when people are using it for mundane things. Again, such as Doug and his bagel. And, since it's such a small thing that will likely have little to no impact on whatever RP may or may not come from it... I would say that the tense used with Doug and his bagel is irrelevant in the grand scheme as things. Just as long as the message that Doug has a bagel and his current goal of eating it is understood.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 10:27 AM**

It only sounds like an issue if you're in it to win instead of telling an interesting story. The whole concept of trying to write someone into a corner with a "tactical checkmate" reeks of AOL speed-posting bullshit from 1997.

I've always felt someone should give as good as they get. If you randomly get into a fight with a stranger and they're completely no-selling reasonable attack posts because they're just that good, they're not trying to have a dramatic scene, they're trying to measure their dick in public.

My memories of that era are not fond.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 10:29 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:21 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character. Â And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct. Â I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner. Â What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off. Â Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense. Â It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine. Â Then all this is meaningless, literally everything. Â You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation. Â If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company. Â Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 10:31 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:26 AM)Gegenji Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 10:18 AM)Ignacius Wrote: In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference. Â Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

Understandable, but Kage made a point to mention that this was a curiosity on people using future tense and indefinite statements outside of a combat situation. Such as Doug and his bagel.

Obviously, if it's a combat or any manner of conflict situation, it's "better" for someone to leave an action open-ended to allow the other person or persons involved to react or even interrupt what is being done. Using a future tense - or a present/past tense that does not implicitly imply success - is recommended and even encouraged in these sorts of situations.

The matter at hand is when people are using it for mundane things. Again, such as Doug and his bagel. And, since it's such a small thing that will likely have little to no impact on whatever RP may or may not come from it... I would say that the tense used with Doug and his bagel is irrelevant in the grand scheme as things. Just as long as the message that Doug has a bagel and his current goal of eating it is understood.

Which is fine, but Kage's original post example is not eating a bagel. Â His example is correct in use for contested combat. Â I figured that's why he was asking. Â I highly doubt he's having lunch interrupted so often that he needs to make his bagel consumption subject to tactical checkmating.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 10:32 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:29 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 10:21 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character. Â And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct. Â I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner. Â What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off. Â Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense. Â It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine. Â Then all this is meaningless, literally everything. Â You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation. Â If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company. Â Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 10:37 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:27 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: It only sounds like an issue if you're in it to win instead of telling an interesting story. The whole concept of trying to write someone into a corner with a "tactical checkmate" reeks of AOL speed-posting bullshit from 1997.

I've always felt someone should give as good as they get. If you randomly get into a fight with a stranger and they're completely no-selling reasonable attack posts because they're just that good, they're not trying to have a dramatic scene, they're trying to measure their dick in public.

My memories of that era are not fond.

Well, I've RPed effectively across all those eras. Â And yes, we had open RP and, yes, that meant combat with strangers. Â We can debate "interesting stories" all we'd like, but a stranger in combat, whether for narrative purposes or not, is a part of any RP where I'm carrying a sword. Â You may not be fond of the era, but I both RPed effectively and told interesting stories as I went.

I'm simply relating where the format came from and why it exists as per Kage's request. Â I'm not passing judgement on you for disliking it or attempting to stir up your unpleasant memories.

However, despite where you were and how you RPed, I can say that quite a few bits of narrative combat arose during RP sessions and we effectively handled it via tactical checkmating. Â And, should an altercation arise where grammatical tense is suddenly important, you can't always pull the narrative to a screeching halt to negotiate a neutral party and dice rules. Â Tactical checkmating still exists whenever a stranger has a reason to not like you.

And, in the end, that's where the live RP format comes from. Â We didn't often write in a past-tense narrative format and that was the reason.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 10:39 AM**

(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 10:29 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 10:21 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character. Â And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct. Â I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner. Â What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off. Â Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense. Â It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine. Â Then all this is meaningless, literally everything. Â You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation. Â If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company. Â Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (12): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Next » Jump to page:

The Usage of Future Tense

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