How to properly react to RP you don't like (or 'Punting the Puppy')

[Warren Castille]

In my experiences, the people who get the most defensive over these topics are the people who are most aware they're taking big liberties with things.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how this is a revelation. They're the ones that get the most crap for it. They're the ones who get targeted by shaming blogs, who tend to get "constructive" tells from strangers on a regular basis, who have to worry about "If I reveal this thing that I've put some thought into, are they just going to write my character off as crazy? Am I going to lose somebody I've been RPing with for a while?"

 

This is neither baseless, nor provocative. It's all quite true. Why do you make it sound like a mark against them?

 

I realize how that can sound negative, but let me try to backpedal clarify the idea.

 

Of those three hypothetical situations you point out, two of them reflect poorly on the community itself: Are they douchebags who have tumblrs dedicated to bitching about their "enemies" as if talking someone else down would somehow make them better as a result? Yeah, probably. I've also been witness to random assholes drop tells on people I know that basically stated "lel u can't be a drg" without so much of a hint of an explanation why.

 

Realizing post-fact that you've got background that might cause people to not want to RP with you can be a terrifying thing. It's not something I'd wish on mostly anybody. We work hard to write interesting characters, work hard to introduce them to new friends, and we work hard to keep those friends so we can keep writing. Sure, you didn't intend on upsetting anybody with your off-canon-maybe backstory, but how do you make sure that you don't suddenly end up alone?

 

Well, I don't have an answer to that. RP with people you trust? I don't do deep roleplay with anyone I don't know pretty well, and when potential immersion-bombs get dropped I make sure they happen with people who have bunkers I know can survive them. If you've got a highly-questionable background that you designed before knowing any better? That's a rough place to be. If you intentionally said "no, the lore is wrong, I can too be a space princess from Garlemald who is also the proto-White Mage" then you should be prepared to find equally-minded people to play with.

 

What I'm pretty sure isn't the answer, though, is going into a thread discussing how to handle these things and stating it's somehow the community's fault. Nobody made anyone play something radical, and radical is a variable term here. I mentioned it in another thread about things being okay when I do them and where those actions fall is going to vary so greatly from person to person that it's impossible to know who's going to get irritated with your concept before you do anything. Putting down a blanket statement like "All IC grief is fueled from OOC trolling" or "You can't criticize someone ICly because words hurt OOCly" is passing the buck. Uninvited criticism being uninvited, not everyone wants a breakdown of how they're "wrong" from someone else.

 

...but that's not what happened in this thread. A lot of people from different stripes came together and basically agreed to live and let live, and then some other people decided anything short of universal acceptance wasn't enough, and then we got off track.

[Flickering Ember]

It was all sorts of unpleasant and awkward for me trying to play diplomat. I ended up just keeping the friendships separate to try and keep both groups as such happy. I'd do little one-on-one scenes with the powerplayers, maybe even forum stories, but if they asked if anyone else I knew might like to join in, I'd make excuses rather than go where I knew they weren't wanted and avoid conflict.

 

So basically more or less what I did... good to know. I definitely feel like I'm playing diplomat at times, hearing one side complain about the other. And yet, here I am playing with both and I like to think that I'm enjoying myself with all of them?

 

I also wanted to respond to this since I am also a "Just roll with it" kind of roleplayer. I find it helpful to know and understand the role-play styles and opinions of your friends. This way, I can understand which of my friends would get along with each other and which of them wouldn't. I've had to serve as the "diplomat" role several times and honestly it just does not work. Right off the bat, if you know that some of your friends would not mesh well with your other friends, then just don't get them involved with each other.

 

I know for me at least, there just isn't enough time in the day to get all my friends to be friends with each other anyway. Don't sweat it if they can't all meet. If the most IC response is to get a friend involved, then I make up an IC excuse for why they can't meet. Usually this is something along the lines of "my character just doesn't know where they are. Or they might not be answering their link pearl." Most of the time this is true anyway.

[Edda]

...but that's not what happened in this thread. A lot of people from different stripes came together and basically agreed to live and let live, and then some other people decided anything short of universal acceptance wasn't enough, and then we got off track.

It makes sense, in a way. Like you said, random people think it's perfectly acceptable to send tells along the lines of: "lololol did you just cast holy IC omg scrub gb2Gilgamesh" so it is easy to blur the lines between those who enjoy calling people out, and those that simply tend to avoid it.

 

For me, I do not agree with WHM roleplay, and would certainly not go out of my way to RP with those whose interpretation of the lore is so drastically different from my own. Perceiving this opinion as an attack, however slight, would be way off. For people who are used to derision for their perhaps less-than-popular interpretations, anything but universal acceptance may as well be an outright attack, even if that is not the case. This is just how I see it, however, and I cannot presume to know the feelings of everyone. There is really no solution for this except honest discourse, and not discarding people's opinions because they do things and interpret things differently.

[V'aleera]

If you've got a highly-questionable background that you designed before knowing any better? That's a rough place to be. If you intentionally said "no, the lore is wrong, I can too be a space princess from Garlemald who is also the proto-White Mage" then you should be prepared to find equally-minded people to play with.

This is a good example of a false dichotomy, as well as the typical narrative that the stricter members of this community (and others) attempt to use to shutdown ideas they perceive as excessively deviant. I don't think I've ever actually seen someone say "the lore is wrong and I am changing it" to justify a character's existence. If you could source a single post on this forum (or any other) where this occurs, that would be great.

 

What actually happens is that people identify grey areas in the lore where there exists only a bare framework and then attempt to create something unique within that framework. Some of the more mundane examples of this include playing racial minorities: Gridania Lalafell, La Noscean Elezen, Ul'dahn Elezen, Ishgardian Miqo'te, non-Hyur Domans, etc.

 

Naturally, the list of strict canon deviance doesn't just stop there: we have people playing Scions, people RPing with the Echo. And then of course we have organizations not shown in canon being roleplayed: Ul'dahn criminal syndicates, Limsan pirate crews, Keeper clans in the Shroud, specific military units and divisions.

 

And you know what all these things have in common? Someone can look at any of these things and argue that canon does not support their existence.

 

Criminal organizations? "How has this not been wiped out and taken over by the Alacran or Syndicate? Why have the Rogues not murdered these people? Not believable."

 

Miqo'te clans? "Nowhere in lore is [specific clan function] clearly stated as existing. Not believable."

 

National minorities? "I have not seen any or many of this race as part of this nation. Not believable."

 

Third-party fighting tournaments happening on Ul'dahn soil? "So you're telling me that Ul'dah is just going to let someone rip off one of its biggest moneymakers without retaliation? Not believable."

 

So by simply creating specific characters to roleplay in this setting, we've already established ourselves as deviating from canon. Now we're just haggling over degree.

[Warren Castille]

 

This is a good example of a false dichotomy, as well as the typical narrative that the stricter members of this community (and others) attempt to use to shutdown ideas they perceive as excessively deviant. I don't think I've ever actually seen someone say "the lore is wrong and I am changing it" to justify a character's existence. If you could source a single post on this forum (or any other) where this occurs, that would be great.

 

I can't do that because we're not supposed to point out anyone specifically. Click around on the wiki pages, though, and odds are you'll find someone with an eyebrow-raising background rather than not.

 

And you know what all these things have in common? Someone can look at any of these things and argue that canon does not support their existence.

 

Criminal organizations? "How has this not been wiped out and taken over by the Alacran or Syndicate? Why have the Rogues not murdered these people? Not believable."

 

Miqo'te clans? "Nowhere in lore is [specific clan function] clearly stated as existing. Not believable."

 

National minorities? "I have not seen any or many of this race as part of this nation. Not believable."

 

You're getting really close to that "Prove to me that we don't all hatch out of eggs" with this line of reasoning.

 

Third-party fighting tournaments happening on Ul'dahn soil? "So you're telling me that Ul'dah is just going to let someone rip off one of its biggest moneymakers without retaliation? Not believable."

 

You'd have a point, if the Grindstone was profitable in any way. Spoilers: It isn't.

[Gegenji]

So by simply creating specific characters to roleplay in this setting, we've already established ourselves as deviating from canon. Now we're just haggling over degree.

 

So the point of the matter, then, is how comfortable people are both in deviating from the canon with both their own characters and the amount of deviation they are comfortable handling in whatever interactions they may participate in. And what one does when they encounter someone whose "deviance comfort" is far enough removed from their own to raise possible contention - either by someone who sticks much closer to the lore than you do (and might take issue with the character you are bringing to the table) or is much more free-form (and thus might bring to the table something you might take issue with).

 

The point of the topic is what happens when this situation occurs, not who is in the right or the wrong in it (because folks really are free to play what they want). Some people try to roll with it and then might just adjust the results afterward if it was too far abroad for their character to swallow ("He was loony" or "It was a dream" being examples), while others seem to like trying to duck out and seek RP more within their comfort levels. Neither of these are wrong.

 

In fact, what I would see as the incorrect way to go about it is to try to force your viewpoint on the other person in these situations. Either by demanding they "loosen up" and accept your character or berating them because of this or that stated in the lore.

[Verad]

 

What I would see as the incorrect way to go about it is to try to force your viewpoint on the other person. Either demanding they "loosen up" and accept your character or berating them because of this or that stated in the lore.

 

This would require that roleplayers stop viewing roleplay in dogmatic terms (seriously, arguing over differing "interpretations" of lore as if they were a religious scripture as often as our people do implies a kind of dogmatism). I don't think that can happen.

[V'aleera]

I can't do that because we're not supposed to point out anyone specifically. Click around on the wiki pages, though, and odds are you'll find someone with an eyebrow-raising background rather than not.

My request was for a specific instance of "I don't care about the lore and I am going to change it fundamentally to suit my own purposes". If you do not care to support your allegation of this behavior in the multitude of ways that are allowed on this forum (such as linking a thread without calling out a specific poster or linking a profile via private message) then I see no reason to take your claim at face value. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

And while I have no interest in arguing the specifics of my provided examples, as they were meant to simply communicate the general notion that there is no such thing as actual canon-supported roleplay, I shall  briefly humor your desire to engage in that particular argument: the Grindstone does not have to be profitable to be a threat. It can function as a branding threat ("Wait, which fighting place is the good one again?") or a scheduling threat ("Wow, there's a cool match coming up at the coliseum... oh wait, that's Grindstone time"), or numerous other kinds of threats. The possibilities are endless, and do bear in mind that we're talking about the same class of people who tried to off a fledgling merchant for trying to find his own mine out in the desert.

 

EDIT: That's not to say I personally have any objection. I'm simply demonstrating how an objection founded in canon can be conjured for almost any avenue of roleplay character, organization, or event development/execution.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

No, seriously, saying that someone can't be a White Mage goes straight against what's said towards the end of the first job quest:

 

 

 

 

 

Not exactly flattering for a community that has this tendency to place far too much value on pre-determined questlines over more important things.

 

 

 

 

That's...that's really not what it's saying.  I mean, I know you want it to say one thing, but that's not what it's saying.  Those "chosen few" are the Padjal.  But I agree it can be open to interpretation.

 

That said, no one is obligated to RP with anyone else.  If someone is breaking lore for you, and it's ruining your immersion, it's a completely valid response to simply not RP with them.  This way everyone gets to have fun - including you.

[LiadansWhisper]

Regarding Black Hat position, you definetly have some points, but Mixing of IC and OOC is, like all aspects of life, and human personality in general, not a bad thing. It's true that one should separate fiction from reality, and being overly affected by fiction isn't a VERY healthy thing, but to propose, and raise a banner of complete distinction of the two universes is wrong.

 

We built our characters, we watch them grow and interact, and sometimes, the stories we write or live affect us. Because again, it may be fiction, but a fiction purpose is more than just give us a timesink. A history can make us laugh, make us sad, make us feel awesome. In many ways, we are living that, even if not as a blatant self insert, and the immersion factor can be as good as in a book, and I highly doubt one can really enjoy a written story in it's entirety without at least without immersion yourself a bit in the story.

 

So no, I disagree the point that IC and OOC merge is a inherently bad thing. As many say, we are writing and living a fanfiction, and I care little if it's a bunch of codes, and graphics. What matters is the story, by that logic a book is nothing more than a bunch of codes and paper.

 

From my perspective, mixing IC and OOC is bad because it blurs the lines.

 

I used to play a series of games that had a disclaimer in almost every book.  Here's one of my favorites:

 

Mage: the Ascension is a game. It's a game about mature themes and difficult subjects. As such, it requires not only imagination but common sense. Common sense says that words in an imaginary game aren't supposed to be real. Common sense says that you don't try to do "magic spells" based on a creation derived entirely from someone else's imagination. Common sense says that you don't try to dig up agents of the supernatural just because of inspiration in some wholly fictional source. common sense says that the game is just for fun, and that when it's over, it's time to put it away.

 

If you find yourself flying in the face of common sense, then put the book down, back away slowly and seek professional help.

 

For the rest of you, enjoy the unlimited possibilities of your imagination.

 

This series of games was where I learned to really, truly role-play, and they taught me one very important rule: OOC and IC should be kept apart as much as possible so that we, the players, can maintain a proper grip on reality.

 

It's exceedingly unhealthy to forget where the game ends and reality begins.  Every time you mix OOC and IC, that line gets a little blurrier.  So it's important to keep each world as separate as possible.  Some mixing is bound to happen, but it should be avoided if at all possible.

[Warren Castille]

And while I have no interest in arguing the specifics of my provided examples, as they were meant to simply communicate the general notion that there is no such thing as actual canon-supported roleplay, I shall  briefly humor your desire to engage in that particular argument: the Grindstone does not have to be profitable to be a threat. It can function as a branding threat ("Wait, which fighting place is the good one again?") or a scheduling threat ("Wow, there's a cool match coming up at the coliseum... oh wait, that's Grindstone time"), or numerous other kinds of threats. The possibilities are endless, and do bear in mind that we're talking about the same class of people who tried to off a fledgling merchant for trying to find his own mine out in the desert.

 

Let's talk about something else, then:

 

That's actually a really cool idea and not just because it places me in the role of Paul Heyman and ECW to Ul'dah's WWE. I struggled a lot to come up with something plausible when we initially did our funding thing: How the hell does the Grindstone exist? Historically, it had Syndicate backing, then FC backing, but now? Now there's no level of protection. How have we not been busted by Brass Blades? How has the Coliseum not just throw piles of gil at our star fighters to draw them away?

 

How has Warren not just been outright killed?

 

Answer: I don't have an answer. The Grindstone exists, in my head, as an RP Event first, with storyline or world-impact last. I (and those before me, I believe) never wanted it to be centered on anyone: It's a random dice fighting club. There's no need for an arcing storyline, and there's no call for it. It'd do more harm than good to try and shoehorn something in like that.

 

Definitely makes for some fun thoughts to chew on, though.

[Verad]

Mage: the Ascension is a game. It's a game about mature themes and difficult subjects. As such, it requires not only imagination but common sense. Common sense says that words in an imaginary game aren't supposed to be real. Common sense says that you don't try to do "magic spells" based on a creation derived entirely from someone else's imagination. Common sense says that you don't try to dig up agents of the supernatural just because of inspiration in some wholly fictional source. common sense says that the game is just for fun, and that when it's over, it's time to put it away.

 

If you find yourself flying in the face of common sense, then put the book down, back away slowly and seek professional help.

 

For the rest of you, enjoy the unlimited possibilities of your imagination.

 

This series of games was where I learned to really, truly role-play, and they taught me one very important rule: OOC and IC should be kept apart as much as possible so that we, the players, can maintain a proper grip on reality.

 

It's exceedingly unhealthy to forget where the game ends and reality begins.  Every time you mix OOC and IC, that line gets a little blurrier.  So it's important to keep each world as separate as possible.  Some mixing is bound to happen, but it should be avoided if at all possible.

 

White Wolf's claims at the start of each of its game lines are more about avoiding legal liability than advocating good game advice, after a number of incidents in which they were tarred with the same brush as D&D with regards to inciting people to violence and suicide. That's pretty off-topic, though.

[Dravus]

It all comes down to plausibility. It's a term more people need to learn to embrace in my opinion since if a character, event or guild can be deemed 'plausible' by multiple role-players who are unaffiliated with each other and not just 'yes men' sucking up to their friends then you can safely consider something to be a success in my eyes.

 

Meanwhile if people are indulging in critique - constructive or otherwise - and a character, guild or event begins to unravel then that, to me, is a sign that it isn't really all that plausible to begin with.

 

Something to take into consideration, however, is that some people will nitpick over every last little detail - though in my experience they're few and far between.

[V'aleera]

Meanwhile if people are indulging in critique - constructive or otherwise - and a character, guild or event begins to unravel then that, to me, is a sign that it isn't really all that plausible to begin with.

The plausibility of a concept is entirely separate from an individual's personal capability to articulate that plausibility. Granted, if they can't articulate why their concept is plausible it may not speak well to their writing abilities in general, but that's a different issue.

[SunTzu7]

I think when you boil it down, you're not going to find a consensus on anything when it comes to specific lore. Plunk a stone down in front of a million people and you'll get a million descriptions. They might be all equally 'canon' or 'valid' but they'll be different.

 

That being said, this topic is about proper ettiquite for when you disagree on these matters. What I think it should boil down to is proper communication.

 

If there's a particular red line that you won't cross, say RP'ing with someone who considers themselves a White Mage, I think it's important to let the other person know.

 

People shouldn't be expected to be mind readers on this matter. So if there's a part in the RP that you strongly object to, inform the other person through tell. Politely and respectfully mind you. But something that's important to remember is that you don't have to let them impact your ongoing character. You don't look them out for further RP. The conversation you're having with them doesn't have to lead to anything mind changing about your character.

 

But it's important (from painful experience) to set out whatever issues you have front and centre before it's assumed that there's no problems and people start resenting one another.

 

I think if we've learned anything, it's that in lore fights, there are no winners, only people getting their head kicked in. The world's big enough for all interpretations. Don't give up on your character ideas, just be prepared for some dissent and that you can't please everyone.

[Kage]

People are always so focused on lore they forget that there's so many other reasons that people can find to not want to RP with someone and in my mind the best answer is to just walk away. You don't make snide comments. You don't pester them like a certain Lion over tells. You don't assume that IC questions are purely for OOC reasons. There's so many other people to RP with no matter what your stance is that why waste the time about worrying what they think, unless they are your best friend or RP partner?

 

Some people don't want to Rp with mafia like organizations. Some people don't want to RP with long, angsty plots.

 

There's plenty of other people willing to to RP with a Disciple of War lalafell.

[LiadansWhisper]

People are always so focused on lore they forget that there's so many other reasons that people can find to not want to RP with someone and in my mind the best answer is to just walk away. You don't make snide comments. You don't pester them like a certain Lion over tells. You don't assume that IC questions are purely for OOC reasons. There's so many other people to RP with no matter what your stance is that why waste the time about worrying what they think, unless they are your best friend or RP partner?

 

Some people don't want to Rp with mafia like organizations. Some people don't want to RP with long, angsty plots.

 

There's plenty of other people willing to to RP with a Disciple of War lalafell.

 

Agreed.  Although, it would probably be helpful if people didn't get upset OOC when a character was confrontational or antagonistic.

[Gegenji]

 

What I would see as the incorrect way to go about it is to try to force your viewpoint on the other person. Either demanding they "loosen up" and accept your character or berating them because of this or that stated in the lore.

 

This would require that roleplayers stop viewing roleplay in dogmatic terms (seriously, arguing over differing "interpretations" of lore as if they were a religious scripture as often as our people do implies a kind of dogmatism). I don't think that can happen.

 

Which is a pity, really.

 

... I'm trying to be as neutral about this as I can to expound on this, but I'm finding issue in doing so. So please keep in mind this is personal opinion on the matter of "RP (and RP concepts) you don't like" and how it seems to be addressed most commonly as of late.

 

It seems that this ongoing conflict between those that like to stick to the lore (which is not wrong) and those that like to play fast and loose with it (also not wrong) and how they interact with one another is the leading cause of a lot of discussion threads devolving into sniping and passive aggressive comments. This seems to be because the standard fallback response to a potential RP situation (that your character might never even come across) is not to ignore it or offer constructive criticism but to argue about it.

 

And it all devolves to one simple point: you can't prove that they can do something, just as much as you can't prove that they can't. Take the ever-controversial Miqo'te Dragoon argument (being used merely for reference here and is not in any way to be used to devolve this thread into an argument about its validity), for instance. What, exactly, in the lore says 100% that a Miqo'te could be an Ishgardian Dragoon? And what, exactly, in the lore says 100% that one can't?

 

The lore is generously vague on many of this points - either purposefully or not - which allows all sorts of concepts to be played and they are all valid within the context of the world as it is presented. Do you have to be comfortable with it? No. But that doesn't mean someone is wrong for wanting to have their fun in that way.

 

The only thing you have true dominion over is your own character. What they do and how they interact with the world around them. Just as everyone else has that same dominion over their own characters. So, when these two dominions interact, it is on both of them to decide how to handle the situation.

 

If neither side has issue with the other's concept and it doesn't conflict with their comfort levels? Cool! RP! Have a good time.

 

If there IS an issue? Then it is something that needs to be addressed in a civil manner. Whether it's politely ducking out to avoid the conflict or "retconning" the event in your own headcanon after the fact. Someone may not be comfortable cleaving so close to the lore... or dealing with an inter-dimensional traveler... and that's okay! It's (should) not be a matter of someone disliking you or your approach to playing the game! It's just not something they're comfortable dealing with - which I would assume is a courtesy you would like extended to you in kind if the roles are reversed.

 

If you're not sure? ASK. Send them a /tell! Maybe the character is not being a jerk because the player thinks Miqo'te can't be Dragoons! Maybe that character is just naturally antagonistic! As always, healthy communication is always the key!

 

And on the forums? I, personally, would like to see less adamant "you can't be this because..." and more "the lore says this, BUT..." and offer creative alternatives! And I'd love to see the free-spirits not get onto the lore-oriented folks when they mention said lore snippets. Instead, I would love to see anecdotes on how they explain away whatever degree of lore-bending they do when pressed on the matter and further help the person who has the idea be prepared when they bring it into the world of Hydaelyn.

 

That's how I react to react to RP (and potential RP concepts) I don't like - I either live and let live... or try and be constructive! Suggestions that aren't "you are bad and should feel bad" and more "hey, I have an idea to help make your concept work!" Which, I will openly admit, is itself a flawed approach - since their concept doesn't have to "work." The suggestion is being offered in my own (perhaps egotistical) attempt to help them be able to present the character to the widest spread of player types and - in doing so - maybe help to widen their RP options across that increased spectrum.

 

Dear God did I get rambly. And I likely lost my own train of thought here and there in the spiel... but I hope that paints a decent enough picture on how I personally feel dealing with disliked RP/RP concepts should be handled. Your mileage may vary. Or something. My head hurts.

[LiadansWhisper]

I mean, this really all comes down to, "Don't be a dick.  If someone else's RP violates your beliefs about the Lore, or really gets on your nerves, don't play with them."

 

Real simple.  Don't bitch at them.  Don't attack them in tells.  Just leave and avoid them in the future.

[Altitis Acquired]

I mean, this really all comes down to, "Don't be a dick.  If someone else's RP violates your beliefs about the Lore, or really gets on your nerves, don't play with them."

 

Real simple.  Don't bitch at them.  Don't attack them in tells.  Just leave and avoid them in the future.

 

Absolutely agree. ^^

[Melkire]

Although, it would probably be helpful if people didn't get upset OOC when a character was confrontational or antagonistic.

 

I've had this happen once before. Matters between certain characters got heated, the folks on one side of the divide weren't upset OoC at all... but it turned out that the confrontation actually did upset, OoC, those on the other side of the IC dispute, largely because said confrontation turned nasty in a way that "triggered" them, to use the contemporary term. It was a landmine that most of us weren't aware of. It took some time for them to recover, and some OoC discussion to reassure the folks in question that we weren't genuinely upset OoC, that we'd merely been playing the parts of our characters. Even now, I don't think that message sunk in as well as expected, because it's still awkward running into and/or conversing with said folk.

 

Shit happens.

[Branson Thorne]

I would flat out ignore them, the same way I ignore people who try to talk to me that I don't like. My solution is pretty simple actually.....

[Aaron]

Just another two cents. As a person who has a knack for writing descriptive lore myself and has even studied the lore of many sources (Anime, All the star wars and to a lesser extent, some FF games) I noticed no lore is ever 100% non ambiguous. A lot of gray areas are left open to promote imagination of the stories setting. 

 

So the lore addicts are in themselves really are setting themselves up for failure if they're trying to stick 100% to lore as that's the thing, there's always a gray area somewhere.

 

That coupled with the fact even a group as large as SE has shown even together making lore that they cant always keep it consistent and air tight. Take Advent Children or Crisis Core compared to the original FF7.

 

In crisis core at the end Cloud was fully healthy on top of the train with no signs of mako poisoning. Yet at the beginning of FF7 he was a vegetable in a wheel chair found by Tifa.

 

In FF7 all the remnants were dead. In Advent Children suddenly 3 more equipped with cell phones guns and bikes appear. Does that suddenly mean lore wise remnants weren't all dead?

 

Writing air tight lore is damn near impossible for a group let alone one person. So if people want to slightly bend the lore why are others getting on their case?

 

Im not choosing sides but from what I read from the last few posts people seem to argue about following lore just because they want to argue.

[FreelanceWizard]

Im not choosing sides but from what I read from the last few posts people seem to argue about following lore just because they want to argue.

 

I don't know if that's a fair characterization of it. I think people enjoy debating the relative pros and cons of different levels of "strictness" with regards to lore, and how this impacts one's access to RP and creative freedom -- and how you can come to a resolution where everyone has fun.

 

Personally (and this is totally me as a fellow RPer, not as the admin, speaking), I don't think it's helpful for people to label each other as "lore Nazis" or "lore breakers" or what have you. We're all on a continuum that ranges from "absolutely strict adherence to lore, insofar as if it's not explicitly stated as possible in quest dialog in game, it's not possible, so how dare you RP that your character learned how to swing a sword from his father instead of the Gladiator's Guild" to "anything goes, and here's my half-vampire, half-werewolf genetically engineered love child of Cloud and Gaius van Baelsar." In between these caricature extremes, people have different levels of tolerance for different interpretations and how big the grey areas in lore actually are.

 

One rather annoying thing that happened back on CoH's official forums for the Virtue server is that the "lore-strict" group decided to never RP with the "lore-lenient" group, and so the lore-lenient group decided to troll and mock the lore-strict group whenever possible. The two groups never had discussions like these to try to reconcile and find common ground. That's... not really helpful or beneficial, in my mind. There's room enough for everyone, and there are stories that can be told without even so much as getting close to a lore boundary.

[allgivenover]

In crisis core at the end Cloud was fully healthy on top of the train with no signs of mako poisoning. Yet at the beginning of FF7 he was a vegetable in a wheel chair found by Tifa.

 

In FF7 all the remnants were dead. In Advent Children suddenly 3 more equipped with cell phones guns and bikes appear. Does that suddenly mean lore wise remnants weren't all dead?

 

Way off topic, but what? You're way off on your VII continuity and lore. Cloud wasn't a vegetable until way later in the story, not the beginning, and three new characters from Advent Children are not remnants from original story, they're manifestations of Sephiroth's will in the lifestream.