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

Korinth · **09-21-2015, 04:08 PM**

I'd just like to add, since I haven't seen it here yet. You can take away character agency just as easily with future tense as with Present and Past tense. I see examples of it in some RP at the Grindstone on occasion.

Example:

Rodney would make ready to swing his axe at Steve, if the blow hit, it would sever him in two.

Using future tense in this way restricts your opponents ability to decide how a blow would hit them, and is perhaps the most annoying use of future tense I see in RP. Your tense and writing isn't what matters in RP, your intent to allow your opponent to respond freely is.

Kage · **09-21-2015, 04:09 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:06 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: On topic, 'would' is being made into a mountain from a mole hill. You might find you have a lower blood pressure should one stop worrying about such silly things. I guess there are two types of people: those who are bothered by it and those who really can't be bothered to care.

It's exactly the sort of people who aren't going to get worked up over it who don't post in threads like these. Thought I would speak up for those sort of people, at least.

TL;DR: It's not a big deal unless you make it one. Also I have never played or seen 'tense gymnastics' and have only seen 'would' be used like 3 times in the past 6 months.

Shruuug

You assume that the attempt at answering curiosity is a matter of really caring or getting worked up over it. Seeking knowledge for something one does not understand does not mean that one is getting worked up over it.

I've come to the part of the conclusion that there is no real "origin" but I am now curious as why people -do- prefer it for combat or otherwise roleplay.

Val · **09-21-2015, 04:13 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:02 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:45 PM)Ignacius Wrote: First, most of us aren't randomly attacking anyone; most of us deserve being attacked at some point in the course of the RP. Â Second, it doesn't necessarily require OOC communication if you've got an understanding of how this works. Â That's originally why it became the de facto standard. Â I mean, you may find you have to drop to OOC for every conflict, but dealing with anyone else particularly well schooled in how this works, I rarely have had to over the last decade or so.

No, you really should communicate OOC before attacking someone you don't know. Â Because while something may be the "defacto standard" to you, it is most likely not the "defacto standard" to anyone else.

Yahoo RP and its text-based kin died a long time ago. Â Many RPers you will encounter today will tell you that their first RP was in WoW, or even in FFXIV. Â They aren't familiar with that format/writing style/whatever you want to call it. Â So yes, you do need to communicate with them to prevent unnecessary drama.

Lia pls I'm still here ;-;

Just posting to say that I agree that communication is key. In fact, I find it to be not only extending a courtesy, but necessary to allow a fight to play out. You don't have to plan the entire battle/whatever, but just letting the person know you're open to communication about the attacks/whatever may allow the person to feel more at ease with the situation itself.

As for asking someone before you strike, I think it should be done. I don't like it. I don't really enjoy the idea that it ruins a sense of dynamic RP by letting someone know what's going to happen, but I can see it as a necessity. Some people have things going on/don't have time/aren't interested in the exchange, and as such shouldn't have things forced on them that they don't want to do.

As Lia said, that kind of stuff was well and good "back in the day," and personally I'm still okay with it. But now? It's not very-well accepted and that should be considered as well. Either that or form a group/linkshell/way to distinguish people that don't mind so you don't have to worry about it.

Aya · **09-21-2015, 04:14 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:06 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: TL;DR: It's not a big deal unless you make it one. Also I have never played or seen 'tense gymnastics' and have only seen 'would' be used like 3 times in the past 6 months.

I think the only deal here is the idea that if you don't use "would" you are not being interactive enough.Â I actually found the conversation really educational.Â I did not understand the purpose or origin of the style before, and always thought it was just done in an effort to sound fancy.Â I'm happy to know that it has, at its root, an effort to be polite.Â I still don't care for it, but its never effected my roleplay and never will.Â I just don't care for this effort to try to dig down and claim that not following a particular style indicates that you are not willing to allow as much interaction and so on.Â That all depends on the RPer herself not on her style of writing.

Edit: I also understand that some actions warrant very clearly being spelled out as intent rather than result, and agree that this is an effective style for presenting that sense of things, but it is hardly exclusively so :-X

LiadansWhisper · **09-21-2015, 04:16 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:13 PM)Val Wrote: Lia pls I'm still here ;-;

I know bby.

Quote:Just posting to say that I agree that communication is key. In fact, I find it to be not only extending a courtesy, but necessary to allow a fight to play out. You don't have to plan the entire battle/whatever, but just letting the person know you're open to communication about the attacks/whatever may allow the person to feel more at ease with the situation itself.

As for asking someone before you strike, I think it should be done. I don't like it. I don't really enjoy the idea that it ruins a sense of dynamic RP by letting someone know what's going to happen, but I can see it as a necessity. Some people have things going on/don't have time/aren't interested in the exchange, and as such shouldn't have things forced on them that they don't want to do.

As Lia said, that kind of stuff was well and good "back in the day," and personally I'm still okay with it. But now? It's not very-well accepted and that should be considered as well. Either that or form a group/linkshell/way to distinguish people that don't mind so you don't have to worry about it.

Some people will just roll with the punches. Â Other people will completely freak out and cause a massive volcano of drama. Â I'm allergic to the latter, so I'd prefer just to smooth things out OOC before I start swinging.

Flickering Ember · **09-21-2015, 04:16 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:09 PM)Kage Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:06 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: On topic, 'would' is being made into a mountain from a mole hill. You might find you have a lower blood pressure should one stop worrying about such silly things. I guess there are two types of people: those who are bothered by it and those who really can't be bothered to care.

It's exactly the sort of people who aren't going to get worked up over it who don't post in threads like these. Thought I would speak up for those sort of people, at least.

TL;DR: It's not a big deal unless you make it one. Also I have never played or seen 'tense gymnastics' and have only seen 'would' be used like 3 times in the past 6 months.

Shruuug
You assume that the attempt at answering curiosity is a matter of really caring or getting worked up over it. Seeking knowledge for something one does not understand does not mean that one is getting worked up over it.

I've come to the part of the conclusion that there is no real "origin" but I am now curious as why people -do- prefer it for combat or otherwise roleplay.

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 04:17 PM**

(09-21-2015, 03:53 PM)Berrod Armstrong Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:33 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(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: 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.
On the note of seeming unprofessional...I can't really be bothered with anything close to the pretense of being professional when I'm sitting in my boxers** playing pretend on the internet. I do agree that the last part of my statement -is- a bit harsh, because I too, have met a few strangers and bounced off good fight scenes with them without OOC communication. I attribute that, however, to how open I tend to be regarding the other player's writing, and my love for rolling with the punches (and getting my character bloodied).Â

Regarding 'pausing a scene ooc' -- it's not a movie, it's not running and then STOP. There's always a pause between posts, and if part of that pause involves me whispering the other guy to ask if his punch is coming faster than my character's position affords him to block, then so be it! It can only help the scene for me, not harm it. If the other person reacts unfavorably to this, then I know that this is someone I don't want to invest any time in.Â

I don't make demands on how the combat should go. I don't script anything (most times...! Sometimes there's an idea another roleplayer and I are bursting to deal with and we plan and play). I simply clarify things that may or may not happen, sometimes ask what the other player would like to see, and at times ask their permission to allow this to happen. I have done roleplay combat with a few of people on here, they know how it goes, and I would like to think that it's a very comfortable process (when undertaken) that only results in a clearer, more enjoyable depiction of conflict/combat. Nothing's locked up. Everything is open. Communication is not a sudden lockdown onto one path. It's just...communication! It can serve many purposes.

I do not think it's mandatory at all for people to have to work things out OOC rather than hash it out IC. I do that, a lot! However, I believe if someone is -incapable- of or unwilling to do so when the need arises, then there's a problem.Â

If the richness of my RP proliferates by the amount of people I can effectively RP with, I think that what I've been saying and doing has some definite merit!

I do understand the quoted view on things (and can relate to it on some level), but as it works one way, so does it work the other. It's always good to be open to the idea of having to communicate with a stranger instead of wrestling with prose. Your characters may be fighting, but as writers you're supposed to be working together to build a scene that is enjoyable for you both. Sometimes that may involve working with each other's odd tense preferences!Â

Sometimes. In the end, to each his own, always.

**Berrod's player usually sits in a towel because he is lazy trash who doesn't like to get dressed when he's at home

Certainly that, and a lot of what I'm saying comes from two very distinct points:

1. Â I'm a relatively old and involved active-format RPer. Â This stuff was ground into my head at 13 in a Dragonstrike chronicle being played on a BBS (which dates me).

2. Â Also at a young age, I started running the RP. Â My personal style doing this is to run it from a character, adding outbound elements from the perspective of within the group. Â I ran my YIM thread probably between 15 and 16, and that's colored a lot of my perception.

I was counted on, pretty early, to be the guy that made sure everyone had fun. Â So I've got a pretty wide breadth of RP styles in my background at the same time I've also had to be able to adapt to new players and make them feel welcome.

At the same time, whenever I had to go OOC to explain something, the flow of RP would simply crash. Â Things can't move forward when you're working things out. Â So it's always behooved me to be descriptive and outline future consequences for actions even in cases where others might not warrant it. Â For me, it was a way to also provide description. Â Swinging a sword with the intent to cut off someone's head is a lot different than swinging a sword at shoulder height, of course. Â So for me, it's been so deeply ingrained in my style and is so natural for what I do that it feels strange not to do it.

In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good. Â You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs. Â I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side. Â That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write. Â It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like. Â People get a very distinct picture.

And I know professionalism isn't the best word for it, but it's the best I can come up with. Â I pride myself on the RP experiences people who play with me get and, for better or worse, I take it very seriously. Â On the plus side, it's meant I've got a lot of experience working things out in-character that even ten years ago I'd have worked out OOC. Â I can provide people ways out, talk them out of combat, give them ways to stop injured and not kill them, made them feel camaraderie, all without stopping the RP flow. Â I mean, I might be on my computer in my pajamas, but it's kind of the same feeling you get when you're tanking a primal and everyone in the party points out how good you did.

Of course, you'll get more props as a good RPer than a good party tank...

I always prefer the method that causes the least stops. Â I can ask or tell the other character what I need to, or I can include that in the original post, and I tend to opt for the latter. Â Given my background, that works well for me and seems to elicit the most enjoyment from whoever I'm playing with. Â I feel like if you're OOC bouncing ideas off each other and executing them, that's RP for the benefit mostly of everyone else. Â If I give the person enough to work with on my end that he has fun, that's also RP for the benefit of him.

It's personal opinion at this point, of course, but I've always used the format because I think it's more fun for the other player to bounce things off of without having to plan.

I wouldn't recommend the format for that reason, though. Â You have to manage a lot of scenes to camouflage DMing like that without godmodding. Â I like the effect, though. Â It feels more like giving the other person things to do and getting them back rather than doing a lot of interior planning.

I've done both, and I feel like that the IC method can make one of the most tense and sometimes un-enjoyable parts of random RP, character-on-character combat, feel fun, free-flowing, and satisfying for the actual participants. Â I dislike how most character combat turns into a knot-in-the-pit-of-your-stomach confrontations, especially when you're starting to talk to someone OOC (even if it's entirely cordial).

I mean, that's my personalÂ take on it. Â Otherwise, the format I think is highly useful in combat, but it's an older formality. Â If you know how to apply it, though, it can be an exceptionally useful story driving tool.

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 04:22 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:01 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:48 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 03:43 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: I'll repeat it: Combat RP decided by picking apart grammar instead of intent isn't roleplaying.

Well, if you'd like to not even debate your unfair generalization of the point, then go forth and feel confident in your resolution. Â It doesn't do much especially for the conversation's topic at the moment, though.

What is there to debate? Ignoring someone's character, that character's history and abilities, on the pretext of outwriting someone isn't roleplaying, it's posturing yourself based on your education. There's been plenty of excellent RP had with people who aren't great writers, and declaring that their attacks fail because the writer did a poor job of stating something is working the meta so hard that I can't believe we're even having to discuss why that isn't a fun or fair thing to do. That's why I called it dick measuring earlier: That sort of RP doesn't serve to engage or tell stories, it exists to reinforce egos and showcase talent with words. If it works for you, that's splendid, because it means you found people who enjoy writing the same way you do.

There's people who also think using Oddjob is perfectly fair, or that Smash should only be played on Final Destination with no items.

If I wrote my criminal poorly, and no one believed me or took me seriously, that's my fault. Â If I can't also write combat well, that's also my fault if I use combat well. Â If I couldn't, it may have limited the amount of people I could play with because I might have retconned and blisted anyone who wouldn't fight outside those terms.

I, however, can do it. Â Regardless of what you think of people who would use it, it's a proven commodity and has worked for a great many roleplayers. Â In the same thread where people are insulting people behind their back for using "would" too often, I'd say poor writing during combat isn't proportionally worse.

If you find nothing of value in it at all, that's fine. Â It would hardly seem fair to call people who are taking cues in combat from wording to not be roleplaying, but if you insist on it, then there really is nothing to debate. Â You've already disenfranchised the entire concept.

Val · **09-21-2015, 04:25 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:16 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Some people will just roll with the punches. Â Other people will completely freak out and cause a massive volcano of drama. Â I'm allergic to the latter, so I'd prefer just to smooth things out OOC before I start swinging.

This is pretty much how I feel. I know there are people out there that could care less, but I'd rather just avoid problems and be safe. I abhor drama explosions and would prefer to keep away from it.Â

Another alternative is to just watch/observe people. I quit posting on the RPC for multiple reasons, but I still lurk and watch people. You can learn a lot by how someone interacts with others. Same goes for watching others RP in game. After a few sessions, I can generally tell if I could tolerate someone enough to do things with.

Kage · **09-21-2015, 04:38 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:17 PM)Ignacius Wrote: In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good. Â You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs. Â I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side. Â That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write. Â It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like. Â People get a very distinct picture.

So this was my example.

Code: (Select All)

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

Personally, I would write this and not even think twice about it (and also prefer to write it in these two possible ways).

Code: (Select All)

Kage Kiryuu threw himself at the ground with the aim of tackling the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

Code: (Select All)

Kage Kiryuu throws himself at the ground, aiming to tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

I'm curious, and since you seem to have far more experience with the possible reasoning, why would you prefer the opening post example over the other two if we stick with the format? Or, what makes it more preferable to the others?

For me, there's still ways for the other to 'interrupt' the aim and Kage's throwing of his body. Attempting to catch him mid-air, kicking him etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(09-21-2015, 04:16 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: "People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

Val · **09-21-2015, 04:42 PM**

(09-21-2015, 10:39 AM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)Warren Castille Wrote: 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.

Idunno how to break this to you, but most of the people I know/knew/have known from Ayenee were elitist pricks that tried to wave their RP around like a status symbol rather than just enjoy it for what it was. I'm sure that there were some good people there. Hell, I am in touch with a few, but most of them are (and continue to be) arrogant pricks. I'm in a facebook group with some of these so-called "old schoolers" and judging by the tone of their posts, not really much has changed.

Cato · **09-21-2015, 04:59 PM**

Role-play is just role-play. It's not something I get up in arms about and so I'm perfectly happy for people to approach my character and try to attack them if they so desire because there's nothing holding me in place and forcing me to participate.

If it seems like something that'll be intriguing then I'll likely go along with it. If it seems like something that'll be dull or bizarre Â - such as being attacked in the middle of a populated settlement in view of the guards - then I'll send a polite message telling the player that I'm not interested in what they're offering.

Yet I detest shutting myself off from spontaneous, random role-play. When it works out it can be a lot of fun and I've always found it very bizarre to see how random role-play has become shunned by many unless every last little detail is planned out in advance.

Though I can't say I'm terribly surprised - the bulk of role-play I see these days tends to revolve around sitting around in taverns talking about doing stuff rather than...actually doing it.

On a side not, the generalisation of entire groups of role-players is getting pretty tiresome. Let's avoid that, eh? In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 05:00 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:22 PM)Ignacius Wrote: If I wrote my criminal poorly, and no one believed me or took me seriously, that's my fault. Â If I can't also write combat well, that's also my fault if I use combat well. Â If I couldn't, it may have limited the amount of people I could play with because I might have retconned and blisted anyone who wouldn't fight outside those terms.

I, however, can do it. Â Regardless of what you think of people who would use it, it's a proven commodity and has worked for a great many roleplayers. Â In the same thread where people are insulting people behind their back for using "would" too often, I'd say poor writing during combat isn't proportionally worse.

If you find nothing of value in it at all, that's fine. Â It would hardly seem fair to call people who are taking cues in combat from wording to not be roleplaying, but if you insist on it, then there really is nothing to debate. Â You've already disenfranchised the entire concept.

That's not at all what we're discussing. This is:

(09-21-2015, 10:58 AM)Ignacius Wrote: Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it. That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then." And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head. In the end, only the wording matters.

Ignoring intent due to the writing posted, regardless of understanding. ESPECIALLY if you're acknowledging the articulation wasn't there, but are punishing them for it anyway. And since you're very staunchly anti-OOC communication, you won't even allow for the discussion to clarify by the sounds of it (Edited for snarky tone) it's possible the other person would have no idea what they did "wrong." You're, in effect, saying that you can treat anyone however you like so long as you, the writer, can find holes in their post, regardless of what the character intent is. After all, if they're not a good writer, it's their fault!

Flickering Ember · **09-21-2015, 05:04 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:38 PM)Kage Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:16 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: "People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

(09-21-2015, 04:16 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:09 PM)Kage Wrote: You assume that the attempt at answering curiosity is a matter of really caring or getting worked up over it. Seeking knowledge for something one does not understand does not mean that one is getting worked up over it.

I've come to the part of the conclusion that there is no real "origin" but I am now curious as why people -do- prefer it for combat or otherwise roleplay.

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

This is the part I was responding to. Why do people prefer it? There isn't an answer really. It's personal preference. Often times, people don't think about it. They just do it. If you fawn over every little detail in your post then it will take you 10 minutes to write anything. That's an exaggeration but in my opinion having a fast flow of emotes is more fun than waiting for a carefully crafted post. (Though, I do enjoy slow RP and and am patient enough to wait for it. Just a preference!)

For the record, I have seen people who use present tense be accused of godmodding. I personally am not a fan of conditionals, 'if's, 'attempts', or 'tries' in my emotes but I put them in any way so no one will accuse me of godmodding. I would rather say: "Ember hits you with her hammer." I can also reword that to: "Ember swings her hammer at you." But I find that to be uncertain. Often, when I word it like that people don't even acknowledge me!

In the RP community, it's better to upset someone's grammar pet peeve than it is to be accused of godmodding. And that's why people use "would".

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 05:05 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:38 PM)Kage Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:17 PM)Ignacius Wrote: In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good. Â You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs. Â I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side. Â That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write. Â It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like. Â People get a very distinct picture.
So this was my example.

Code: (Select All)
Kage Kiryuu would throw himself at the ground and then tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

Personally, I would write this and not even think twice about it (and also prefer to write it in these two possible ways).

Code: (Select All)
Kage Kiryuu threw himself at the ground with the aim of tackling the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

Code: (Select All)
Kage Kiryuu throws himself at the ground, aiming to tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

I'm curious, and since you seem to have far more experience with the possible reasoning, why would you prefer the opening post example over the other two if we stick with the format? Or, what makes it more preferable to the others?

For me, there's still ways for the other to 'interrupt' the aim and Kage's throwing of his body. Attempting to catch him mid-air, kicking him etc.

(09-21-2015, 04:16 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: "People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

In the more general sense, the courtesy sense, it was because if someone comes off the sidelines and tackles Kage sideways, or if his target moves and his legs aren't there anymore relatively early in the motion, etc. Â It gives you, your opponent, and the bouncer at the bar the option of interfering without autoing anything or breaking the syntax.

If there's no one to stop you throwing yourself at the ground, it's not strictly necessary, but if someone wants to grab you and yell, "He's not worth it!" he'd likely have to do so before Kage actually dove. Â At least, that's the purpose behind the old convention. Â You can use all sorts of wording; I personally try to be a lot more open and friendly so I wouldn't devil the details at all if someone did interrupt him after the fact. Â It does look funny if someone grabs Kage off the floor, already entangled with trying to grab some legs andÂ dealing with whatever is coming his way (I'm assuming Kage's version of Ziggy isn't taking being tackled lying down, so to speak).

It's also worth pointing out that using the conditional at that point, especially today, implies someone probably ought to do something. Â That's where you get people "would"ing up to the bar and "woulding" a glass of wine. Â In a way, you get the sense that the person wants to be interrupted. Â That's why I don't recommend it for general RP.

Generally, if Kage's in a fight and no one's stopping him, by the format, he should dive at the legs and wouldÂ tackle Ziggy, putting the dive in the present tense and giving the tackling of Ziggy (poor Ziggy) the conditional. Â That way, Ziggy's character knows what's coming and can probably surmise that Kage's arms are spreading out, he intends to hit him in the midsection, etc. Â It gives him a lot more idea of what's going on, even if it actually doesn't go on unless he's hit.

Now, personally, I don't mind the others either, though personally I think the wording is a little weird. Â The first just gives your opponent the ability to get out of the way before the tackle without breaking syntax, but also gives other people the chance to tell Kage that Ziggy is the indestructible Yor, Hunter from the Future, etc. Â It's more inclusive.

So that's why the format of your first response might actually be the best from a mechanical sense, simply because more people can respond to it (and you might actually avoid the confrontation altogether if it's a problem).

Me personally, I would say use whichever seems best for your situation, but what you're doing without thinking is using an old-school form in probably the most polite way possible. Â I wouldn't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong. Â I think it's probably a better idea especially if it's the first thing happening in combat (giving everyone a fair shake to disengage without having to OOCly tell someone it's coming) than the other two.

But none of those three fail to get the point across. Â The only forms that are taboo are autoattacks (i.e. "Kage dives at Ziggy and tackles him by the legs"). Â Placing the conditional future early is just an invitation to people to react before the shit hits the fan, essentially. Â It's considered good RP etiquette to provide as many people the opportunity, especially early.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (12): « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next » Jump to page:

The Usage of Future Tense

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