How important is OOC achievement when playing a powerful character ICly?

[Dravus]

The idea that people should never, ever criticise or make quips about an unusual character concept is really quite bizarre. If somebody chooses to portray their character as the long lost daughter of Minifilia then those of us who respect the lore have every right to roll our eyes and let out a sigh. We should even be allowed to make jokes at their expense.

 

The mentality that 'it's my £9.99 a month, I can do what I want' is true to some extent but it does not make people immune to criticism. If you want to take major liberties with a character concept then people are going to make judgement - and that's fine, since if there weren't any standards at all then the world would be a pretty scary place.

 

That's not to suggest that people should hound and harass the culprits but I don't think there's any real harm in people making a few jokes at the expense of the more unusual character concepts that people come up with. Most of us are, presumably, here to role-play something relevant to FFXIV at the end of the day. If people want to role-play something completely different...then there's other avenues such as Skype for the more strange stuff.

[Dogberry]

I don't understand why MMO RP should lack the same sense of imagination that other RP embraces.  Why place such unnecessary limits on it?  The OOC game in FF, not to mention the MSQ, results in characters so ridiculous that they cannot be RPed plausibly.  So why is there any reason to turn that ridiculous equation around?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Not to mention the shortcomings of the game in representing the full breadth of actual professions and skill sets available in the world of Eorzea (a shortcoming strictly shared by any MMO, by necessity). 

 

Live, and play free.  Its more fun that way (at least to me).

 

Edit: I just want to add that these is one of those unresolvable, intractable, and forever standing philosophical disagreements that occur within RP communities.  There is no real way to reach consensus; its just a matter that people disagree on :-]

 

Am I limiting it, though? I certainly won't tell you that you can't play a waitress, or a model. If someone wants to be Eorzea's greatest plumber, shine on you crazy diamond. Those things are outside the scope of the game, though. The game is about high fantasy swords and sorcery, so most people are going to make characters suited for that in order to maximize their story potential. So if you're making a character in line with the scope of the game, why would your power not be in some way, even on a severe sliding scale, tied to their in game avatar?

[Sin]

Sorry, I should have been more clear:

 

Out of character, I will make fun of and look down on and disrespect Pinkie Pie Miqo'te as a character concept. Partly because it's hilarious, partly because it's not something I care to have to roleplay with. That said, I won't be a dick about it, won't throw that laughter or disrespect into their face or into a public space. I'll either keep it to myself or to a private space. I'll also - because it is my choice, my $15, and my perogative - choose to avoid encountering or interacting with that character.

 

Out of character, I will respect Pinkie Pie Miqo'te's player, their choices, their decision to roleplay said character, because it's their time and entertainment, not mine. I may even get along great with the player in OoC channels, maybe even tells. I just won't roleplay with Pinke Pie Miqo'te.

 

In character, if inadvertently confronted by Pinkie Pie Miqo'te despite my OoC attempts to avoid our characters colliding in narrative, my character will react as my character is wont to.

 

 

 

...this is all ironic in light of the pink Miqo'te child that can be found somewhere in Heavensward's areas. I assure you that my discontent with such a concept is not the color but rather the "I'm a pony from a different setting/universe altogether!" aspect.

 

That's fine. We all do that, and the concept you've presented is crazy enough I think most people would make comments about it to their inner circle. That's natural.

 

I agree with what you're saying. What I'm trying to say is that to have your character know flaws in the person's stance if they are roleplaying a Level 1 kung fu master based solely on the number displayed when you Examine the person or Search them is metagaming and in my opinion should be frowned upon for those more concerned with a pure storytelling aspect. At that point, where you are assigning flaws to their concept based on level, then no longer are you just saying that's not my style and going off to roleplay with others more in line with your tastes.

 

At that point, you are making your concept override their concept, not by thinking that they are crazy, not by thinking that they see flaws, (that's okay) but by knowing that they have flaws you have godmodded your way above their concept and have disrespected it, and them. That's what I'm saying should not be done. That's not quietly removing yourself from the situation, that's actively pooping on the concept.

 

It's much more directed at what prompted my renewed involvement in the thread. A situation in which a lowbie roleplaying a kung fu master is examined, determined to be low level, and then roleplayed with as if they were unquestionably a novice based on their level.

 

I interpreted inspect as "taking a look at", not "right click and examine".

 

Which brings me to this, I meant examine. But let me bring this around from our misunderstanding to being more in line with the thread and my opinions.

 

ICly judging a character based on how they IC'ly look. Two thumbs up.

IC'ly judging a character based on game mechanics like level or OOC achievements. Not cool, and staunching of creativity. (I know a lot of cool people that could probably roleplay some badass uber powerful people, but would never touch Coil. I don't want to limit their creativity because they don't have the time I do."

 

@Faye and Graehem.

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I'm saying or perhaps I did not make myself clear. I'm quite tired from grinding in HW.

 

There's a line between making quips and being a dick that should not be crossed. That's all I'm saying. I agree with you two, and I'm as much a lore nazi, and as picky as they come. I'm just not a dick about it. The situation presented by Dogberry seemed to cross that line to me. That's all I'm saying.

[Lilia Lia]

Is it necessary to respect other people's characters?  Absolutely not.  Nor is it necessary to respect other people's desires, preferences, headcanons, and so forth.

 

Is it advisable?  I would think so.  If you can respect as many RP styles as you can, you ought to.  If you can limit yourself according to accepted community etiquette, and maybe make small sacrifices on your creative vision in the interest of not annoying other people, then it may very well be worthwhile.

 

This is why it's important to have these conversations, so we can understand the diversity of attitudes and respect one another more.  Ultimately I think that's a much better attitude to have than "it's my money I'll do what I want, if you don't like it go RP with someone else."

[Dravus]

I don't think anybody is trying to dictate what anybody else should be doing. They're simply stating that if someone takes massive liberties with the lore then they shouldn't be surprised if their character raises eyebrows/leads people to cease interaction with them.

 

It's a lot like in real life. If I go to a restaurant and there's someone slurping loudly whilst eating their soup they're not technically doing anything wrong but they're still - understandably - going to be judged and potentially avoided for it.

 

Not the best example, perhaps, but hopefully people understand what I'm getting at. 

 

I've found that most role-players within this community are more than willing to tolerate the lore being bent provided it's done in a way that is plausible. It is my firm belief that if someone is deliberately going out of their way to embrace an unusual concept then it is their responsibility to make it seem plausible whilst also acknowledging that nobody is in the wrong for not wanting to interact with them.

 

On a side note, true creativity, to me isn't doing anything and everything under the sun but rather making an interesting character that is unique whilst also feeling like it fits in the game world.

[Melkire]

Someone else put it very well, imo. I'm going to quote them anonymously.

 

The problem is with people thinking that the phrase "everyone is entitled to RP how they want" is interchangeable with "everyone is obligated to tolerate my RP".

[Aya]

Am I limiting it, though? I certainly won't tell you that you can't play a waitress, or a model. If someone wants to be Eorzea's greatest plumber, shine on you crazy diamond. Those things are outside the scope of the game, though. The game is about high fantasy swords and sorcery, so most people are going to make characters suited for that in order to maximize their story potential. So if you're making a character in line with the scope of the game, why would your power not be in some way, even on a severe sliding scale, tied to their in game avatar?

Could someone have played a knife fighter prior to the rogue class?  A gunfighter prior to the Machinist, a two-handed swordsman prior to the Dark Knight?  Could someone dual wield swords, fight with a rapier and dagger, fight with a saber and an open-hand?  What about someone that wants to use a blowgun, or a sling?  What about a whip or someone specialization in ground-fighting or grappling rather than the pummeling strikes of the traditional pugilist?  What about a cat burglar, a forest scout, or chocobo-mounted cavalryman with a lance (but not exactly a lancer in FF terms)? 

 

Are these verboten without having a class of appropriate level to back it up?  If they're not, then what relevance, really, is the class?

 

I understand the idea of not wanting to invest much energy in RP with someone who you don't feel confident will be worth the investment (and if you find, somehow, that level is a truly important indicator for judging that, then so be it!).  But this idea that somehow willing to accept in RP that a character can be more than the stats of their stand-in-avatar, means we should shuffle back to the forum RP hole we crawled out of, is pretty much ridiculous; not to mention that the attitude behind the remark cuts-off an immense amount of potential RP and fun.  

 

As a pure hypothetical I'd rather spend all of my time with fun and enjoyable level 1 RPers, than the most accomplished but boring level 60's.  In essence, I put fun foremost, have no trouble resorting to my imagination, and really try not to be bothered by anything that is irrelevant to what I'm actually doing.  I would much rather spend my time imagining that the starting-gear-clad person is garbed in the fancy outfit of a wealthy nobleman, than trying to pretend that the bore is actually fun to RP with.

 

You really don't have to do the same, but I don't see any reason to go on the offensive against people daring to pretend while role playing.

 

Edit: For that matter, Aya typically stands 4-6" taller than her avatar due to being two inches taller (5' 10") than the maximum Midlander female height, and enjoying wearing high heels. I can't possibly represent this in-game due to the strict limitations of the engine we're given to play in. Should I simply forgo that aspect of her physical characteristics so that no one is challenged to imagine her standing taller than they see in game? How is that, really, any different a case?

[Caspar]

Someone else put it very well, imo. I'm going to quote them anonymously.

 

The problem is with people thinking that the phrase "everyone is entitled to RP how they want" is interchangeable with "everyone is obligated to tolerate my RP".

 

The impression that I get from this, and I may be wrong, is that people think I believe being permissive of others rp and being open minded mean accepting any and all character concepts, when in reality I just meant to point out the inconsistency inherent in being "rigidly permissible" of some martial supernatural powers and not others, for the sake of argument. Sorry if that frayed your nerves. It is a pet peeve of mine that people unevenly apply realism to things in a fantasy setting that is inconsistent in its level of grittiness, and I could not help but compare to the hypocricy of the old d&d player who permits his wizard to fly and summon meteors, but disallows the fighter his flaming sword. You're welcome to play with who you want, but I'd hope the new playerbase is judged on creativity and synergy with the setting, rathe than what entertainment motifs or cultural themes a players' concept has that you like or dislike. More so than anything else, I'd hate to see a player be restricted to applying their character'a abilities only in the narrow way the in-game skill set allows

[Dogberry]

Am I limiting it, though? I certainly won't tell you that you can't play a waitress, or a model. If someone wants to be Eorzea's greatest plumber, shine on you crazy diamond. Those things are outside the scope of the game, though. The game is about high fantasy swords and sorcery, so most people are going to make characters suited for that in order to maximize their story potential. So if you're making a character in line with the scope of the game, why would your power not be in some way, even on a severe sliding scale, tied to their in game avatar?

Could someone have played a knife fighter prior to the rogue class?  A gunfighter prior to the Machinist, a two-handed swordsman prior to the Dark Knight?  Could someone dual wield swords, fight with a rapier and dagger, fight with a saber and an open-hand?  What about someone that wants to use a blowgun, or a sling?  What about a whip or someone specialization in ground-fighting or grappling rather than the pummeling strikes of the traditional pugilist?  What about a cat burglar, a forest scout, or chocobo-mounted cavalryman with a lance (but not exactly a lancer in FF terms)? 

 

Are these verboten without having a class of appropriate level to back it up?  If they're not, then what relevance, really, is the class?

 

I understand the idea of not wanting to invest much energy in RP with someone who you don't feel confident will be worth the investment (and if you find, somehow, that level is a truly important indicator for judging that, then so be it!).  But this idea that somehow willing to accept in RP that a character can be more than the stats of their stand-in-avatar, means we should shuffle back to the forum RP hole we crawled out of, is pretty much ridiculous; not to mention that the attitude behind the remark cuts-off an immense amount of potential RP and fun.  

 

As a pure hypothetical I'd rather spend all of my time with fun and enjoyable level 1 RPers, than the most accomplished but boring level 60's.  In essence, I put fun foremost, have no trouble resorting to my imagination, and really try not to be bothered by anything that is irrelevant to what I'm actually doing.  I would much rather spend my time imagining that the starting-gear-clad person is garbed in the fancy outfit of a wealthy nobleman, than trying to pretend that the bore is actually fun to RP with.

 

You really don't have to do the same, but I don't see any reason to go on the offensive against people daring to pretend while role playing.

 

Edit: For that matter, Aya typically stands 4-6" taller than her avatar due to being two inches taller (5' 10") than the maximum Midlander female height, and enjoying wearing high heels. I can't possibly represent this in-game due to the strict limitations of the engine we're given to play in. Should I simply forgo that aspect of her physical characteristics so that no one is challenged to imagine her standing taller than they see in game? How is that, really, any different a case?

 

For all these examples, I say this: The gameplay vs. lore argument is entirely different from level vs. RP. If someone wants to RP a different kind of combat than what is offered, they can level up the closest job and at least make an attempt to look the part of what they're trying to play. A knife-fighter before Rogue could equip knives, because before Rogue, Gladiators had access to knives. People can RP weapons that aren't represented just fine. Dogberry himself has used a pistol in the past, before Machinist, because he was a member of a military organization that uses guns, and fights like an MMA fighter.

 

I can't help but feel that you're putting words in my mouth. When did I say I'd never RP with level 1 characters?

[Aya]

I can't help but feel that you're putting words in my mouth. When did I say I'd never RP with level 1 characters?

Its not that you said you wouldn't RP with level 1 characters, its that you said level 1 characters should not even bother RPing in this game (though I realize that may be tongue-in-cheek, that's what I'm replying to).

 

 

If you're going to RP a character and not level them, why even subscribe to the game? You'd probably be a lot better suited doing forum RP. Gaia Online is over there, bro.

[Verad]

I don't think anybody is trying to dictate what anybody else should be doing. They're simply stating that if someone takes massive liberties with the lore then they shouldn't be surprised if their character raises eyebrows/leads people to cease interaction with them.

 

It's a lot like in real life. If I go to a restaurant and there's someone slurping loudly whilst eating their soup they're not technically doing anything wrong but they're still - understandably - going to be judged and potentially avoided for it.

 

Not the best example, perhaps, but hopefully people understand what I'm getting at. 

 

Socially-enforced censorship, yes.

[Melkire]

Someone else put it very well, imo. I'm going to quote them anonymously.

 

The problem is with people thinking that the phrase "everyone is entitled to RP how they want" is interchangeable with "everyone is obligated to tolerate my RP".

 

The impression that I get from this, and I may be wrong, is that people think I believe being permissive of others rp and being open minded mean accepting any and all character concepts, when in reality I just meant to point out the inconsistency inherent in being "rigidly permissible" of some martial supernatural powers and not others, for the sake of argument. Sorry if that frayed your nerves. It is a pet peeve of mine that people unevenly apply realism to things in a fantasy setting that is inconsistent in its level of grittiness, and I could not help but compare to the hypocricy of the old d&d player who permits his wizard to fly and summon meteors, but disallows the fighter his flaming sword. You're welcome to play with who you want, but I'd hope the new playerbase is judged on creativity and synergy with the setting, rathe than what entertainment motifs or cultural themes a players' concept has that you like or dislike. More so than anything else, I'd hate to see a player be restricted to applying their character'a abilities only in the narrow way the in-game skill set allows

 

First and foremost, the comment I quoted wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular, nor was my intent in quoting it directed at anyone.

 

Secondly: I've roleplayed with many a player whose character was capable of more than the narrow depiction provided by the in-game skill sets. Conjurers capable of redirecting flames and calling down thunder, or else starting a mobile whirlwind with themselves as the center. Arcanists who circumvented the need for grimoires. Paladins who wielded lances with their shields rather than swords.

 

My original contention was that, if someone is going to pick up and use a FFXIV label ICly, then they should be familiar with and cognizant of what that label entails, the extent of capabilities implied by that label, and what capabilities that character may have that falls outside or beyond that label. If I'm playing a pugilist who can also see through walls, I should be mindful that the label "pugilist" as understood and interpreted by most XIV roleplayers isn't going to include "seeing through walls" as a capability, and I should strive to communicate that well in my writing / emoting / etc.

 

Glancing at someone's level when they ICly claim to be a pugilist, or a gladiator, or a thaumaturge is a poor-but-still-useful indicator of how much knowledge I can expect, at a glance, someone to have regarding the class/job they're roleplaying as... assuming they're even bothering with it to begin with, as I've RP'd with folks who roleplayed as class A despite not having it and their avatar showing class B.

 

If I encounter seeing-through-walls pugilist, and that comes out in our interactions, I'm going to glance at their PGL/MNK level to see how far they've progressed. It's a quick check to see whether they've played through the class/job/quests as a gauge of how familiar they might be. If it's lower than expected, or if they don't have very many classes leveled, I might send them tells asking them whether they're new to the game, whether they're familiar with pugilists, and whether this strange capability of their character's is something unique to the character or if they're interpreting "pugilist" differently than I am. If I see the inverse - if MNK is maxed and there's a decent number of classes leveled, which implies familiarity with XIV, its setting, and its lore - then I might just shrug it off and roll with it, or I might still send those tells.

 

I roleplayed with someone within the past few weeks. Prior to HW's release, they wanted to roleplay out a scene in which their character showed off a greatsword. We had that scene without issues. A few days later, they were running an IC dungeon/instance with some friends and I, and politely asked that we pretend that their axe was in fact a greatsword. Again, no issues.

 

Out-of-character communication is important in roleplaying. I use out-of-character accomplishments - levels, classes leveled, jobs acquired, gear worn, titles used, etc. - to try and get a feel for both the player and the character, and that feeling is then used to prompt OoC communication. Or, in the case of Pinkie Pie Miqo'te, I might just walk.

[Dogberry]

I can't help but feel that you're putting words in my mouth. When did I say I'd never RP with level 1 characters?

Its not that you said you wouldn't RP with level 1 characters, its that you said level 1 characters should not even bother RPing in this game (though I realize that may be tongue-in-cheek, that's what I'm replying to).

 

 

If you're going to RP a character and not level them, why even subscribe to the game? You'd probably be a lot better suited doing forum RP. Gaia Online is over there, bro.

 

You didn't read anything else I wrote beyond that, did you?

[Aya]

You didn't read anything else I wrote beyond that, did you?

I've read the entirety of your posts I've responded to!

 

I just entirely disagree on the idea that RP concepts should be tied to the avatar.  I think the FF XIV character is a very very poor construct for RP, and virtually useless for any RP that I'm really interested in partaking in.  Whether or not I like a character concept is entirely independent of the class levels, gear, etc. of the character trying to pull it off.

 

Osric's point is entirely different, its based upon knowledge, cohesion with the lore, and plausible suspension of disbelief.  I don't really agree with him that class level correlates well to the ability to craft an interesting and believable character (even of that class), but I definitely understand where he's coming from.  I've just RPed with enough alts, and NPC-alts that I really couldn't care less if the avatar I'm RPing with is even the same race as that of the character.

[Dogberry]

You didn't read anything else I wrote beyond that, did you?

I've read the entirety of your posts I've responded to!

 

I just entirely disagree on the idea that RP concepts should be tied to the avatar.  I think the FF XIV character is a very very poor construct for RP, and virtually useless for any RP that I'm really interested in partaking in.  Whether or not I like a character concept is entirely independent of the class levels, gear, etc. of the character trying to pull it off.

 

Osric's point is entirely different, its based upon knowledge, cohesion with the lore, and plausible suspension of disbelief.  I don't really agree with him that class level correlates well to the ability to craft an interesting and believable character (even of that class), I definitely understand where he's coming from.  I've just RPed with enough alts, and NPC-alts that I really couldn't care less if the avatar I'm RPing with is even the same race as that of the character.

 

Go back and read the stuff I wrote in posts you didn't respond to and you'll see what I'm trying to say laid out more clearly.

[Aya]

Go back and read the stuff I wrote in posts you didn't respond to and you'll see what I'm trying to say laid out more clearly.

I have been, and I don't really see how its any different from how I categorized it.  You'e worried about the look, and kit of characters representing their role correctly.  I really think its entirely unnecessary (which is why I said what I did about a level 1 in starter clothes RPing as if in fancy noble attire). 

 

Maybe its just because I am a pen-and-paper and forum RPer at heart.  I feel that the avatar should be, at most, a visual-aid for RP when appropriate, but that its the text that is canonical, important, and interesting for RP.  If the avatar is useless as a visual aid, I really don't mind, I am more than willing to go along with it, if I'm enjoying the RP.

 

To me, the avatar is a tool, not a limitation.  I see far more possibility for fun that way, and wouldn't have it any other way.  I know you at least understand that, since you're willing to RP classes that simply don't exist.  So I can't fully understand why you apply a different rubric to those that do.  To me, they're completely the same.  What matters is the RP world, not the game-as-game. 

 

I really want to say, again, that I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise.  It really is to each their own, enjoyment of RP is an entirely subjective matter.  The only thing I took any exception to, whatsoever, was the suggestion that people who don't want to level a character to RP it, shouldn't bother with MMO RP.

 

Edit: I will just add that I do like it when the visual aid is there! Its fun RPing with people who put a lot of effort into their look, their outfits, gear, and fashion (obviously I do quite a bit of this myself!) I just understand the innate limitations of the game engine's ability to portray our characters.

[Dogberry]

Go back and read the stuff I wrote in posts you didn't respond to and you'll see what I'm trying to say laid out more clearly.

I have been, and I don't really see how its any different from how I categorized it.  You'e worried about the look, and kit of characters representing their role correctly.  I really think its entirely unnecessary (which is why I said what I did about a level 1 in starter clothes RPing as if in fancy noble attire). 

 

Maybe its just because I am a pen-and-paper and forum RPer at heart.  I feel that the avatar should be, at most, a visual-aid for RP when appropriate, but that its the text that is canonical, important, and interesting for RP.  If the avatar is useless as a visual aid, I really don't mind, I am more than willing to go along with it, if I'm enjoying the RP.

 

To me, the avatar is a tool, not a limitation.  I see far more possibility for fun that way, and wouldn't have it any other way.  I know you at least understand that, since you're willing to RP classes that simply don't exist.  So I can't fully understand why you apply a different rubric to those that do.  To me, they're completely the same.  What matters is the RP world, not the game-as-game. 

 

I really want to say, again, that I'm not trying to convince you to do otherwise.  It really is to each their own, enjoyment of RP is an entirely subjective matter.  The only thing I took any exception to, whatsoever, was the suggestion that people who don't want to level a character to RP it, shouldn't bother with MMO RP.

 

See, I'm an avid pen and paper RPer as well, and I think this informs a large part of my RP. In Pen and Paper games, you have a character sheet that defines what your character can and can't do.

 

Likewise, I also see the avatar as a tool. As I've said, it is a puppet. If you can't be bothered to make your puppet look like the thing you want it to be, why should your character have any pull any kind of weight in my RP?

 

One of my favorite pen and paper RPGs, in fact, is called Argyle and Crew, and in the game your character sheet is a sock puppet. You're given two attributes that you can costume onto your sock puppet. So if your character is a wizard, you make a little paper wizard hat and put it on your sock puppet. If your character is also a sherriff, they get a sheriff badge, too. So your sock puppet, who you've put time into by making it look like the best wizard sheriff you can possibly make, gets to be a wizard and a sheriff for the game, and this informs what you can do to affect the story.

 

I see our characters a lot like sock puppets in Argyle and Crew. Someone who looks like a wizard is going to be seen as a wizard regardless of level. They put in the effort to look the part, they get to be the part. Taking it further, a character in higher level gear is wearing something more befitting a master than someone in Plundered gear. So someone in Plundered gear could very well be a master, but he looks like a scrub, and my character will respond accordingly.

 

Edit: I should also add that Forum RP bores me to tears.

[Verad]

I see our characters a lot like sock puppets in Argyle and Crew. Someone who looks like a wizard is going to be seen as a wizard regardless of level. They put in the effort to look the part, they get to be the part. Taking it further, a character in higher level gear is wearing something more befitting a master than someone in Plundered gear. So someone in Plundered gear could very well be a master, but he looks like a scrub, and my character will respond accordingly.

 

Edit: I should also add that Forum RP bores me to tears.

 

That's all well and good, but you also made it clear in earlier posts that you would overwrite attributes of the character - finding flaws in their stance in the Lvl 1 Pugilist, even if they were playing a master.

 

Not only is your character responding accordingly, which could be plausible - perhaps they are surprised when the Lvl 1 Pugilist turns out to be a much better fighter than expected - but you, on an OOC level, are responding to the character as if they are weak, eliminating or ignoring traits they may display in RP to the contrary.

 

That is to say, if the Lvl 1 Pugilist responded with a Dragon Kick, would it be fair to say you would either play the Dragon Kick as being necessarily weak because of course a Lvl 1 Pugilist can't do that well, or would you take the more common route of just pretending the character is insane and ignoring the move? This is admittedly a bit of a false dichotomy, because in both cases your reaction has gone beyond your character's and into rewriting reality to fit your character's perceptions.

[Aya]

well, ultimately we all have our own interests and desires for RP, and ours don't necessarily accord

 

I'm not very picky about what other characters look like, and I'm happy to keep it that way!

[Dogberry]

I see our characters a lot like sock puppets in Argyle and Crew. Someone who looks like a wizard is going to be seen as a wizard regardless of level. They put in the effort to look the part, they get to be the part. Taking it further, a character in higher level gear is wearing something more befitting a master than someone in Plundered gear. So someone in Plundered gear could very well be a master, but he looks like a scrub, and my character will respond accordingly.

 

Edit: I should also add that Forum RP bores me to tears.

 

That's all well and good, but you also made it clear in earlier posts that you would overwrite attributes of the character - finding flaws in their stance in the Lvl 1 Pugilist, even if they were playing a master.

 

Not only is your character responding accordingly, which could be plausible - perhaps they are surprised when the Lvl 1 Pugilist turns out to be a much better fighter than expected - but you, on an OOC level, are responding to the character as if they are weak, eliminating or ignoring traits they may display in RP to the contrary.

 

That is to say, if the Lvl 1 Pugilist responded with a Dragon Kick, would it be fair to say you would either play the Dragon Kick as being necessarily weak because of course a Lvl 1 Pugilist can't do that well, or would you take the more common route of just pretending the character is insane and ignoring the move? This is admittedly a bit of a false dichotomy, because in both cases your reaction has gone beyond your character's and into rewriting reality to fit your character's perceptions.

 

Honestly? I simply don't think anyone at level 1 should be claiming mastery. It makes me not even want to bother with the person. They're clearly playing a different game than I am, the one where they get the instant gratification macho power fantasy based on arbitrary parameters, as opposed to the one I'm playing, the one where I get the delayed gratification macho power fantasy based on arbitrary parameters.

 

Edit: And to actually answer the question... If the Level 1 Pugilist emotes a Dragon Kick, and it hits through the roll off, the Dragon kick hits, and it might even be powerful, but it was bad form. Bad form kicks still hurt.

[111]

My Miqo'te is supposed to have a huge dong, but there is no bulge slider.

 

Sometimes people don't believe how powerful he is ICly.

[V'aleera]

I don't think anybody is trying to dictate what anybody else should be doing.

Of course not. That wouldn't be socially acceptable.

 

But just by reading some of these posts you can tell that they really, really want to. Not that that's exceptional: almost everyone would make everyone else do things their way if they could wave a magic wand and make it so.

[Verad]

 

Honestly? I simply don't think anyone at level 1 should be claiming mastery. It makes me not even want to bother with the person. They're clearly playing a different game than I am, the one where they get the instant gratification macho power fantasy based on arbitrary parameters, as opposed to the one I'm playing, the one where I get the delayed gratification macho power fantasy based on arbitrary parameters.

 

Edit: And to actually answer the question... If the Level 1 Pugilist emotes a Dragon Kick, and it hits through the roll off, the Dragon kick hits, and it might even be powerful, but it was bad form. Bad form kicks still hurt.

"I had to grind, so they have to grind."

 

And is this true even if the post explicitly states that the Dragon Kick has a perfect form?

[Dravus]

I don't think anybody is trying to dictate what anybody else should be doing.

Of course not. That wouldn't be socially acceptable.

 

But just by reading some of these posts you can tell that they really, really want to.

 

I'm not really getting that vibe from any of the posts within this thread. It's simply a debate - some people agree, others disagree. At the end of the day, though...if multiple role-players who are unaffiliated with each other are stating that a character doesn't really fit the setting/feels too contrived then there's a pretty high chance that they're correct. Especially if they back it up with relevant sources.

 

That doesn't mean people have to change their character concept. Not at all - but they should at least have the stones to acknowledge that they don't really have anybody but themselves to blame if others do not wish to interact with them.

[Dogberry]

My Miqo'te is supposed to have a huge dong, but there is no bulge slider.

 

Sometimes people don't believe how powerful he is ICly.

 

But there's no dispute that it's barbed, right?