Thread Closed
The distinction is an illusion of preference. RP requires you to garner interest in your writing. While I'm not the biggest fan of the idea, you need some kind of hook, whether that's being older than the average character or being an Allagan construct or something off the wall like that. You need to write in the way you're confident can get and retain an audience. It is fallacious to assume that simply because a person chose a different approach to this they're a worse writer, period.
My stance is and always has been "players have a right to not suck." It's fine to be competent at something. You write at a level of competency that means something to the character's development. If that demands they're special that's fine. If it demands they're mundane that's fine. So long as they're neither meaninglessly strong or weak to feed your ego you really can't "fail" this part of RP.
A character who doesn't fight or heal can still be very competent or exceptional within the context of a setting, but I'll take it in good faith that they're meant to be a generic concept executed in a distinct enough way that it's fun to play with. I don't agree this has inherent value. The character doesn't exist in a vacuum. A character lashed directly to the lore can be boring or interesting and at any given time this can fluctuate to any point between extremes for each individual player on every individual day, depending on who else is there and what situation they're in.
But I don't believe the lore friendliness debate was ever about how to write an effective hook, but rather a shouting match to determine who has the right to claim their writing is somehow more genuine, more worthy. No amount of concession on either side will satisfy anyone because of it. Similar to coding people's RP behavior in chargen threads, it's about misleading the opposition into thinking they'll be shunned. The idea wasn't to help a person execute their concept but rather to tell them what you don't like, so you see less of what you don't like in the game proper. That behavior can still be unconscious too, so it's not assuming malign intent necessarily, even if the boot fits by coincidence once in a while.
Back on track though, it's pretty clear that a lot of people either enjoyed playing Dragoon or knew people who they respected playing the Job. It's not really their fault the retcon happened. People want to apply uneven standards about the lore to the Job, and I wondered, if the standards are too draconian to accommodate the people you want to play with, who do they benefit? If it's the satisfaction you get from adhering to the lore, is that worth more than others' rp? Maybe they ought to be relaxed, if all they do is deny you and others choice. I'm pretty much rambling at this point, but I think standards that aren't standard probably aren't necessary, really.
My stance is and always has been "players have a right to not suck." It's fine to be competent at something. You write at a level of competency that means something to the character's development. If that demands they're special that's fine. If it demands they're mundane that's fine. So long as they're neither meaninglessly strong or weak to feed your ego you really can't "fail" this part of RP.
A character who doesn't fight or heal can still be very competent or exceptional within the context of a setting, but I'll take it in good faith that they're meant to be a generic concept executed in a distinct enough way that it's fun to play with. I don't agree this has inherent value. The character doesn't exist in a vacuum. A character lashed directly to the lore can be boring or interesting and at any given time this can fluctuate to any point between extremes for each individual player on every individual day, depending on who else is there and what situation they're in.
But I don't believe the lore friendliness debate was ever about how to write an effective hook, but rather a shouting match to determine who has the right to claim their writing is somehow more genuine, more worthy. No amount of concession on either side will satisfy anyone because of it. Similar to coding people's RP behavior in chargen threads, it's about misleading the opposition into thinking they'll be shunned. The idea wasn't to help a person execute their concept but rather to tell them what you don't like, so you see less of what you don't like in the game proper. That behavior can still be unconscious too, so it's not assuming malign intent necessarily, even if the boot fits by coincidence once in a while.
Back on track though, it's pretty clear that a lot of people either enjoyed playing Dragoon or knew people who they respected playing the Job. It's not really their fault the retcon happened. People want to apply uneven standards about the lore to the Job, and I wondered, if the standards are too draconian to accommodate the people you want to play with, who do they benefit? If it's the satisfaction you get from adhering to the lore, is that worth more than others' rp? Maybe they ought to be relaxed, if all they do is deny you and others choice. I'm pretty much rambling at this point, but I think standards that aren't standard probably aren't necessary, really.
ã€Œè’¼æ°—ç ²ã€ã‚’使ã‚ã–ã‚‹ã‚’å¾—ãªã„!
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.
AV by Kura-Ou
Wiki (Last updated 01/16)
My Balmung profile.