(09-01-2013, 02:26 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote: The problem is that this is a drama bomb of epic proportions waiting to happen. It's essentially a group of players saying, "Hey, this canonical event? You can't have any role other than an extra in it, because these PCs we appointed have those starring roles." It's the same thing as saying your character is the Chosen Protagonist of the story, except it's a group of players anointing some of their own to be the Chosen Protagonists. That's very much stepping on other players' RP; just because a group of people does it doesn't mean it's fair play.
But this only affects people that WANT to be the protagonist. Just assuming and playing by such standards is already potentially stepping on the RP of every single person they meet who may have played to a different chronicle whereas if we can all gather together to unify under a single set of leaders(and leaders can change and die and be promoted/demoted/move etc) we are promoting more consistency and inclusion to as many people as possible and having influence on their stories both directly and indirectly.
Quote:FreelanceWizard
It's especially bad if a significant proportion of the RPC does it, because nothing screams "elitist clique" faster than telling other RPers that an anointed set of characters (who will, being chosen by vote, inevitably be the most popular and well-liked characters, or the characters of the most popular and well-liked players) have key roles in what will invariably be viewed as "the RPC's Secret Cabal of RP Masters' fanon" -- no matter how much people claim otherwise.
I'm sure most of us can rise above this though. No-one wants god modders or ultimate players who can dictate everything we do or do not do. Our characters have free will and I only suggested such "elite" players to play leadership roles or perhaps suit in to meld with any future lore that cannot be attributed to many people and where a "scapegoat" for lack of a better word is needed.
The fact of the matter is that some people need to play the leadership role, someone that members of grand companies or volunteering adventurers/mercenaries can look to otherwise everything will be in disarray and everyone will assume responsibility and cause IC or OOC arguments. Not the good kind I might add. Disarray is nice but it can't be there all of the time because no-one is a leader on the battlefield or elsewhere.
Quote:FreelanceWizard
EDIT: Aaand all of that being taken into consideration, if we're just talking about player-created stories, the exact same issues exist, with the added complication that getting LS and FC leaders to agree on anything can be quite challenging. For player-created stories, the best way to handle them is to keep them at a plausible level that doesn't stomp on anyone else's RP (no saving the world from Bahamut, please), and weave them together with a system like the Tonberry's Lantern. By simply letting other groups know what you're doing, they can weave it into their stories and RP. Offering an RP opportunity is much better than attempting to enforce an fanon.
While this is probably the safest option I'd still like to know what everyone else thinks. Unless many people can come here and give valid reasons why this would interfere with their RP styles or stories personally then I think we should remain open to the possibility of having a more managed and sophisticated setup. Sure it might take a little work, but imagine how amazing it would be to have an absolute structure where everyone played a role to varying degrees.
No-one would dictate who does what, every positioned is volunteered to and voted on by us.
? ^^
![[Image: ecec20e41f.png]](https://puu.sh/xvMxb/ecec20e41f.png)
Characters: Andre Winter (Hy'ur) / K'nahli Yohko (Miqo'te)
