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

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 02:37 PM**

(09-21-2015, 02:29 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 02:26 PM)Mia Moui Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 08:47 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: I use present tense, because it's the only one that makes sense to me.

Future tense makes my eye twitch.

Edited to add: It's not common in LARPs ot tabletop games I have been a part of.

I don't know how off the rails this discussion has become as I write this but this might be an artifact of older players like myself. Â Way, way back I did table-top RP with a group and we used future tense so that any action might be countered.

My character would stagger back and fall. Â And the other player goes, "my character would try to catch you before you fell." Â And so forth.

This kind of thing made RP take forever (entire weekends) but there was no Internet so what else was there to do?

Present tense can be countered. You just have to leave openings for people to react instead if writing everything as a "done deal."

I'll admit I didn't get into gaming until after the internet came around, but I've pretty much always used present tense. In table top games, I simply say, "my character tries" or simply ask whether I can do something before doing it.

It used to be far more common that things simply evolved as they happened rather than stopping to have an OOC conversation. Â People in random situations certainly didn't leave openings for people to react. Â You said what you were doing and what your intentions will be. Â It was pretty straightforward, and required a lot less scripting.

Priorities may have shifted, but that used to certainly be why it was done. Â Many of us still do it today for much the same reason. Â Saying you "would" do everything is pretty extreme, but some of us still feel it's better to have the intended consequences on display in the future tense. Â It may not sound like a book, but the end result gets across a lot of the OOC hoopla within the actual post.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 02:45 PM**

(09-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: It was said much earlier in the thread, but I'd want ot bring it up again.

...when everything keeps getting stacked up if "would"s and "if"s, when does it end?

me: /em would trip on a banana peel and start sliding.
person2: /em would have actually moved that banana peel away, ensuring that Franz could not slip, should it have happened.
person3: /em would have moved the moved banana peel back, seeing how if person2 moved it, their evil plan to make Franz slide into the wall would be foiled.
person4: /em would have then attempted to try to once again move the banana peel to make sure that Franz is safe.
me: FRANZ IS UNSURE WHERE THIS BANANA PEEL IS ANYMORE BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP THINKING ABOUT MOVING IT.

To me, it looks like there is no accountability for actions on either side. Which is good and bad. If something is supposed to be left so open that literally anyone can interfere with it, nothing will ever get done unless someone finally takes action. Eventually, someone -has- to take an action that other people can react to. Otherwise, we end up in endless speculation.

Again, the form begins in the present tense with a future conditional. Â If everything is a conditional, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Â That's not necessarily what you're supposed to do. Â You write in contestable actions in the future conditional.

It's at your discretion to know what's contestable, and that used to be fairly logical. Â Nobody is going to stop you from eating a bagel, but someone will try to stop you from setting them on fire. Â Generally speaking, you only need to use that future conditional tense for a consequence of an action that you need to be apparent when you do something. Â Like if you were eating a bagel, no one cares. Â If you were eating someone else's bagel that you plucked from the table, that might be different and you might need to say, "....fully intending to consume it in front of him," in your post.

I didn't want to add this (again, I really dislike getting on people's cases or snickering behind their backs for how they write), but the idea of someone constantly performing contestable and conditional actions is a sign of someone really wanting attention. Â It's a bit attention-whorish; there's no reason to think someone is going to interrupt your stroll to the store unless you expect it so there's no reason to "would" anything there.

It's only an issue on contestable actions, where your character turns and intends to enter the store after having an argument outside. Â You want to leave it open for the person to stop you, yell after you, run after you, etc, but they need to know you will go inside the store unless interrupted.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 03:03 PM**

To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 03:07 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

FreelanceWizard · **09-21-2015, 03:13 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:07 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

That's just generally good advice. Smile

If you do, though, talking about it OOC is probably a good idea.

Aya · **09-21-2015, 03:17 PM**

(09-21-2015, 02:45 PM)Ignacius Wrote: ...you only need to use that future conditional tense for a consequence of an action that you need to be apparent when you do something.

Just going to say again: there is no need.Â You can.Â If you really want to. There are many other ways to express the same idea.

Hyakki · **09-21-2015, 03:20 PM**

Mamushi would wonder how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood.

The use of "would" is way too passive for my taste and there are better ways of expressing a possible future action without relying on that word.

Berrod Armstrong · **09-21-2015, 03:23 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:13 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:07 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

That's just generally good advice.

If you do, though, talking about it OOC is probably a good idea.

THIS. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. It is possible to talk to strangers OOCly and come to an agreement/compromise instead of doing tense gymnastics. Whether John Doe stabbed Berrod in the heart ten years ago or if he's woulding into the sun, a quick discussion between John and Berrod's players can make things flow well with each one sticking to their style/tense. If John and Berrod don't want to communicate, then...then they're not going to gain much by roleplaying with each other.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 03:23 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:17 PM)Aya Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 02:45 PM)Ignacius Wrote: ...you only need to use that future conditional tense for a consequence of an action that you need to be apparent when you do something.
Just going to say again... the is no need[/].Â You [b]can.Â If you really want to.
[/b]

To use the format we're talking about, that's the only time you would need to. Â I assume if you're not using this format, you aren't as worried about what would happen as the consequences unfold. Â Though I had thought we were speaking specifically about those using the system to use far more numerous conditional words than were necessary, I suppose it should be reiterated that if you are not using this system, then you are not subject to best practices using it.

Faye · **09-21-2015, 03:24 PM**

It's bad. Don't do it. Icky grammar. We're not telling the future here.

This also extends to combat RP (sorry to those who believe it's useful there, but it's really not).

Saying "She would punch him in the face" seems to A) imply that she would have done this had something not stopped her (see Kismet's "mauled by a bear" joke above for reference), or B) if we're going by the assumption that all the "woulds" of those who write in future tense are/will be completed actions, it can be interpreted as auto-hitting just as much as "She punched him in the face" or "She punches him in the face" could.

Instead, "She swung a closed fist toward his face in a punch." (Or "She swings," for those who prefer to use pretense tense.) There is not autohit or godmodding. There is no assumption the punch will hit. The swing, however, is now cemented as something that certainly did happen (or is happening, for present tense).

Editing to add:
Some people use it for variable conditions such as, "She swung a closed fist toward his face in a punch... if the punch hit its mark, she would then kick at his shin." This isn't the only way to write something like this, however, and is probably not even the best way. One option is to simply wait for the other role-player to respond to see if the punch hits, even if it makes the post shorter. Short posts aren't inherently bad. Combat posts with a character making several actions/attacks become messy and confusing at best, and annoying and god-moddy at worst.

The other alternative is posting something along the lines of, "She swung a closed fist toward his face in a punch... if the punch hit its mark, she then kicked at his shin." The variable is still there, without the "would." No more awkward tense switching mid-post. The sentence flows better, is shorter, and has less unnecessary clutter. The meaning is still the same and just as easy to understand.

Aya · **09-21-2015, 03:25 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:23 PM)Ignacius Wrote: I assume if you're not using this format, you aren't as worried about what would happen as the consequences unfold.

Que?Â Everything else you said makes sense, except that this is a writing style not a format.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 03:30 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:07 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

I know a thing or two about fighting strangers, or asking strangers to fight for other people's amusement. None of it comes down to picking apart their language to find loopholes and paint them into a corner to get them to lose.

-no longer matters- · **09-21-2015, 03:32 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:43 AM)Kage Wrote: I've finally decided to ask.

What is the reason why some roleplayers I've found are more likely to use future tense? In some or all of the cases, it's not even about compromising whether or not the other roleplayer they are interacting with will allow an action.

Sometimes it's just:

Quote:Kage Kiryuu would throw himself at the ground and then tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

Is this a common way to speak / roleplay in tabletop? Where does the future tense usage come from?

Edit: I've emphasized a point that has been brought up already. I know this. That's why I already mentioned it and now I've bolded it.

I've always saw it as a courtesy, and most cases the action may not go through do to a /random roll, and it gives the person you're imposing an action on a chance to react to it rather than saying.. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS YOU HAVE NO SAY!

Just how I always saw it at least.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 03:33 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:23 PM)Berrod Armstrong Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:13 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:07 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

That's just generally good advice.

If you do, though, talking about it OOC is probably a good idea.
THIS. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. It is possible to talk to strangers OOCly and come to an agreement/compromise instead of doing tense gymnastics. Whether John Doe stabbed Berrod in the heart ten years ago or if he's woulding into the sun, a quick discussion between John and Berrod's players can make things flow well with each one sticking to their style/tense. If John and Berrod don't want to communicate, then...then they're not going to gain much by roleplaying with each other.

That seems a bit harsh. Â I get along fine with plenty of people who started out trying to kill a character of mine for some reason, mostly without asking. Â I always found it somewhat... I don't know, unprofessional I guess is a good word, to seem to drop character as soon as conflict reared up and start making some kind of OOC script. Â I certainly didn't need it to get into trouble.

I mean, if my character, Heaven forbid, calls someone a rank amateur in the course of a conversation, and that character decides to take a swing at him, I'd feel it a bit rich at that point to then pause the whole scene to OOC out with the character how we were going to handle it. Â I prefer OOC to be the last refuge when things aren't working.

I'm more than willing to talk it out if someone really wants to, but I'd never assume I need to start making demands on how this combat should go or end up, especially since I might just as easily not end up in combat. Â Or that we'd end up in combat with something else. Â RP can go a million different ways, and I'd rather keep my options open on that front than to start locking up mechanics.

That may be different for other players, but I try to be flexible to keep the RP going as best I can so that we don't get bogged down in OOC. Â Again, that's a personal preference rather than a piece of practical advice; you all should know what you're capable of performing ICly as far as how to manipulate a scene. Â Still, I don't think it's good policy to say that people can't hash out combat ICly without predetermining it OOC without having anything to RP about.

The richness of your RP proliferates by the amount of people you can effectively RP with, I find.

Vyce · **09-21-2015, 03:37 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:13 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:07 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:03 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: To summarize: Make your actions display intent, but make sure you do it correctly otherwise its your fault for leaving things open to interpretation.

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

That's just generally good advice.

If you do, though, talking about it OOC is probably a good idea.

Nono. That's where the future conditional comes in. OOC communication isn't really needed unless youre going to do something potentially damaging or violating

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (12): « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Next » Jump to page:

The Usage of Future Tense

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