Castiel Wrote:Using this argument, we might as well take down the entire etiquette section then. In fact, there wouldn't even be a need for the Assembly Room either. It should be noted that our definition isn't "law binding" or anything like that. This, and all other etiquette, is meant to be a guide and nothing more. If individual guilds or freelancers wish to stray completely from the mold, that's their choice. They may have difficulties getting into any heavy RP by straying too far from the norm, but it will ultimately be their choice either way.
Aah, my mistake. I wasn't aware that this was just going to be an informal suggestion and not an actual rule. Never mind then.
Mason Wrote:Actually I think of it like this: in private chat, you can be as IC or OOC as you like. You can be a hardcore RP'er even if you are OOC when you're doing a mission or fighting a boss (in /party chat). If most of your discussions are OOC however, then you are a casual RPer.
Yeah, I was just using that as an example of possible definitions. It would be practically impossible to really play an MMO 100% IC, lol.
Mason Wrote:Technical in-game OOC should be the same across the board. I think on this all of us can agree. (( )) dictates OOC. Okay?
I think what he was referring to was the fact that some people use alternate characters to show that what they're saying is OOC. I've met people who use [], {}, ::, **, etc. I could see how it might get kind of confusing, since most people use double astarisks for emotes and actions, but I personally never had any problem telling whether a person was narrating an action or speaking OOCly, regardless of the punctuation.
As far as what constitutes RP, it's a bit tough to say. To be honest, I'm fine with the dictionary definition Kes gave. It's a bit broad, but it really does make sense. Roleplaying is just that, playing a role. We could break it down and categorize the different types of roleplay and roleplayers, but if I'm not mistaken, that's not what this thread is about.
