(09-21-2015, 10:51 AM)Kage Wrote:(09-21-2015, 10:41 AM)Vyce Wrote: Actually warren, Ig explained exactly what the grammatical issues are. A lot of people take grammar in RP as rule.The way I see this. If your character moves as he drew the sword, would the other character not be tracking movements as well and still be aiming to swing at his neck? So the idea is still the same, the character drew the sword and his aim is to swing at the neck. You see what he's typed, your character moved as he was drawing and now it's his turn to act.
I personally don't like that sentence because it is two actions in one. My character could have long since moved away between the drawing of the sword and the swing toward the neck, but I feel forced to ignore the space and emote a response as if it is one action. If you try to take advantage of the present tense lock, people start getting upset.
If he draws the sword and swings it at my neck, but I moved as he was drawing his sword, what is he swinging at? Is he slow?
Of course you could add some description like, he draws his sword fast as a whip and in one motion slashes at my neck. Then there is fluidity.
Everyone I have roleplayed with, the tense does not matter as much as the intent is clear. I have had at most two cases where meta'ing or godmoding happened but not in combat player character to player character. We adjust from past to present or vice versa depending on the players we are roleplaying with.
Like I'm saying, Kage, I could feasibly type "i eat gud" and my intention was to say I'd cooked the foie gras to perfection. Â Intention is fine when you're with people you know and you can have long, drawn out OOC discussions to talk about how you handle things (or even if you handle things).
That's just not the case with complete strangers you meet in random RP. Â If Ignacius says something someone else doesn't like, and we come to blows, this is how it works.
The problem with the example you're not reading is the reaction. Â Yes, according to the sentence you're interpreting, Ignacius is still swinging at Ziggy's neck. Â However, Ziggy's neck didn't just move, Ziggy could be moving to cut off Ignacius's arm, and continuing to swing at Ziggy's neck would be stupid.
Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it. Â 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." Â 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. Â In the end, only the wording matters.
I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so. Â It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.
