RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 05:16 PM**

(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.

Flickering Ember · **09-21-2015, 05:25 PM**

(09-21-2015, 04:59 PM)Graeham Wrote: In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

This.
This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

It's the difference between:

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

Or

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 05:32 PM**

(09-21-2015, 05:25 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:59 PM)Graeham Wrote: In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

This.
This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

It's the difference between:

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

Or

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person. Â RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point. Â The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack. Â You can't simply write my character being hit. Â However, you can try to hit her."

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat. Â Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

Flickering Ember · **09-21-2015, 05:45 PM**

(09-21-2015, 05:32 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:25 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:59 PM)Graeham Wrote: In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

This.
This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

It's the difference between:

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

Or

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person. Â RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point. Â The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack. Â You can't simply write my character being hit. Â However, you can try to hit her."

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat. Â Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

Ignacius · **09-21-2015, 05:52 PM**

(09-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:32 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:25 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 04:59 PM)Graeham Wrote: In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

This.
This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

It's the difference between:

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

Or

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.
(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person. Â RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point. Â The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack. Â You can't simply write my character being hit. Â However, you can try to hit her."

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat. Â Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

They're sort of opposites of each other. Â An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds. Â Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge. Â The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated. Â The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch. Â However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc. Â It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds. Â They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

LiadansWhisper · **09-21-2015, 07:05 PM**

(09-21-2015, 05:52 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

They're sort of opposites of each other. Â An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds. Â Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge. Â The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated. Â The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch. Â However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc. Â It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds. Â They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things. Â I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction. Â You don't give the other party a way out. Â This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding. Â People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

Val · **09-21-2015, 07:27 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:05 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:52 PM)Ignacius Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 05:45 PM)Flickering Ember Wrote: Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

They're sort of opposites of each other. Â An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds. Â Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge. Â The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated. Â The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch. Â However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc. Â It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds. Â They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things. Â I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction. Â You don't give the other party a way out. Â This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding. Â People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

I've heard the terms used both interchangeably and to denote something entirely different from one another. Autoing was something that people did that, back in the day, was referred to as T3. Most people (quite obviously) frown upon its use. Godmodding was always referred to as just making a ridiculously stupid OP character. Like, hella stupid OP. Over time I think the terms just came together and, really, they kind of fit. It's still forcing things on people they don't want.

Faye · **09-21-2015, 07:35 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:05 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things. Â I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction. Â You don't give the other party a way out. Â This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding. Â People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

Godmodding is a generic term than can be used to mean anything from powerplaying, to autohitting, to metagaming, to forcing actions onto someone else's character, though I see it used to specifically describe the last one most often. Though you're right, autohitting is just a form of godmodding, they aren't really two separate things.

Warren Castille · **09-21-2015, 07:37 PM**

The only time I've heard anyone to refer to "Godmoding" in RP in years has been to force an action or consequence. It's not just DBZ-tier heroics, it's not allowing your opponent a response.

***Nero*** · **09-21-2015, 07:44 PM**

I haven't particularly had reason to use future tense. Generally I word things in past or present tense, but the action itself has no actual conclusion or consequence attached to allow the other party or parties to respond, especially in free-form fight scenes.

e.g. "He swings/swung his sword in a wide sweep." "With a crash he leapt towards the banquet table." "He slipped a white powder into the punch, hoping he wasn't seen."

I can't think of any contexts in which anything else would be simpler to use, and I don't feel any particular need to control the other party's response in any circumstance.

Val · **09-21-2015, 07:49 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:44 PM)Nero Wrote: I haven't particularly had reason to use future tense. Generally I word things in past or present tense, but the action itself has no actual conclusion or consequence attached to allow the other party or parties to respond, especially in free-form fight scenes.

e.g. "He swings/swung his sword in a wide sweep." "With a crash he leapt towards the banquet table." "He slipped a white powder into the punch, hoping he wasn't seen."

I can't think of any contexts in which anything else would be simpler to use, and I don't feel any particular need to control the other party's response in any circumstance.

The only time I, myself, have used future-tense is to describe a character's reaction to what-if scenarios. It's a very rare occurrence, but sometimes I feel as if it is warranted depending on the situation. For example, if Val is at a distance and is running at the person, I simply post that he's doing such and, if he gets close enough, he wouldÂ attempt such-and-such. At that point, it opens the entire sprint up for the opponent/whatever to interfere with.Â

In the grand scheme of things, I don't see it being particularly overpowering as, if multiple actions are given, it allows the opponent to choose which one to allow/defend against. Like a chain, if the first is stopped, then none of the others should follow.

Faye · **09-21-2015, 08:02 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:57 PM)Graeham Wrote: Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

I think you're in the wrong thread...

Cato · **09-21-2015, 08:04 PM**

(09-21-2015, 08:02 PM)Faye Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 07:57 PM)Graeham Wrote: Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

I think you're in the wrong thread...

...and this what happens when I have multiple tabs open at once. :p

Val · **09-21-2015, 08:06 PM**

(09-21-2015, 08:04 PM)Graeham Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 08:02 PM)Faye Wrote:
(09-21-2015, 07:57 PM)Graeham Wrote: Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

I think you're in the wrong thread...

...and this what happens when I have multiple tabs open at once. :p

Better strike through it so people know you don't mean it.

***Nero*** · **09-21-2015, 08:23 PM**

(09-21-2015, 07:57 PM)Graeham Wrote: Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

The above post has been moved to the appropriate thread.

You may view the post by clicking here.

Bear in mind that when posts are moved, they are placed according to timestamp.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (12): « Previous 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next » Jump to page:

The Usage of Future Tense

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes