(09-21-2015, 05:00 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:(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. 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.
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!
Fine, we can discuss that.
I'm not sure what the problem is. Â The entire discussion arose because someone bothered to use the conditional and future tense in an action and we've had people outright say they laugh behind their backs at it. Â I'm not sure why you'd think that using someone's poor writing to escape an attack is completely unacceptable but using someone's poor writing to escape someone's poor come-on line isn't.
This is RP; we are what we write. Â I've already said multiple times I don't mind talking about this OOC, but quite frankly this situation that you're using as a template for your argument is simply not common to me. Â I can write exactly what I mean without too much effort and I haven't run into anyone who's engaged me this way that didn't lose by making a mistake. Â And I've certainly made mistakes and not cried myself to sleep over it. Â Most often, mistakes aren't made; I've had better outcomes than dice battles pretty much throughout.
The fact is, if someone's not a good writer, it really is their fault. Â And if they wrote a post that their character took a swing at another character without properly balancing themselves for anything else, that's what they wrote and may completely make sense in character. Â You can't backtrack every time something happens that you didn't like any more than you can undo a dice roll that didn't go your way or undo something that you said because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to.
I'm not sure why the double standard, but I can operate with or without it. Â To say that it's not RP because someone doesn't write combat well is like saying someone's not RPing because their suave character can't drop a slick pick-up line. Â It's definitely roleplaying. Â If you don't like it and wouldn't ever do it, that's your prerogative. Â But I have done it, and not done it, and I've been able to enjoy and thrive in both environments. Â I'd never disparage one or the other simply because I personally dislike it.
