"Witty" characters, can they be roleplayed by the dumb?

[111]

I just think that people should play characters as people and not a collection of tvtropes.

 

There is no need to artificially declare your character is smart, stupid, strong, weak. Just play it ICly and let people come to their own assumptions.

[Caspar]

I just think that people should play characters as people and not a collection of tvtropes.

 

There is no need to artificially declare your character is smart, stupid, strong, weak. Just play it ICly and let people come to their own assumptions.

But it's natural to want to play something specific. I dissent from the majority of players on here in that I do not see characters as people, and rp as group writing with some improv, rather than acting. Both exist to tell the story you're trying to articulate, and whether you can write it or not is independent of said character's traits but does color the execution to some extent. It is important to flesh them out and make them believable as hypothetical people of course, but every character I've made has a specific purpose in mind, and the background and traits necessary to execute it.

I've played enough of a diversity of character types to find writing "myself" pedestrian and bland. I've no interest in whether others think writing a character whose personality or competencies do not align with my own is "above my station."

[111]

I just think that people should play characters as people and not a collection of tvtropes.

 

There is no need to artificially declare your character is smart, stupid, strong, weak. Just play it ICly and let people come to their own assumptions.

But it's natural to want to play something specific. I dissent from the majority of players on here in that I do not see characters as people, and rp as group writing with some improv, rather than acting. Both exist to tell the story you're trying to articulate, and whether you can write it or not is independent of said character's traits but does color the execution to some extent. It is important to flesh them out and make them believable as hypothetical people of course, but every character I've made has a specific purpose in mind, and the background and traits necessary to execute it.

I've played enough of a diversity of character types to find writing "myself" pedestrian and bland. I've no interest in whether others think writing a character whose personality or competencies do not align with my own is "above my station."

 

That's fine, but why do you have to publicize it? What is the advantage of letting everyone know OOCly.

 

'My character is really smart!!!'

 

Instead of just playing them in a way that suggests that through IC action.

[Eses Fafa]

I just create nonsensical jargon for the supernerd chars. For the rest, there's internet research!

[Oscare]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or intelligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or intelligent.

 

That sounds a little unfair though. Just because you don't know how to write something doesn't mean you're not welcome to try. A "slower" player should be allowed to play whatever they so choose to want to play instead of only sticking to concepts they know they can write without ease. As much as I love playing oblivious, silly, ridiculous characters, sometimes I want to break my own mold and go with something that is "claimed" to be "smart", even if I can actually write it worth beans. It's a learning process in my eyes.

[Nebbs]

I just think that people should play characters as people and not a collection of tvtropes.

 

There is no need to artificially declare your character is smart, stupid, strong, weak. Just play it ICly and let people come to their own assumptions.

 

Great point. Much better than asserting what the character is.

 

Personally I try to shy away from OOC description of a character, and will even avoid people who insist on OOC commenting on RP and what they character will and wont do.

[Caspar]

I just think that people should play characters as people and not a collection of tvtropes.

 

There is no need to artificially declare your character is smart, stupid, strong, weak. Just play it ICly and let people come to their own assumptions.

But it's natural to want to play something specific. I dissent from the majority of players on here in that I do not see characters as people, and rp as group writing with some improv, rather than acting. Both exist to tell the story you're trying to articulate, and whether you can write it or not is independent of said character's traits but does color the execution to some extent. It is important to flesh them out and make them believable as hypothetical people of course, but every character I've made has a specific purpose in mind, and the background and traits necessary to execute it.

I've played enough of a diversity of character types to find writing "myself" pedestrian and bland. I've no interest in whether others think writing a character whose personality or competencies do not align with my own is "above my station."

 

That's fine, but why do you have to publicize it? What is the advantage of letting everyone know OOCly.

 

'My character is really smart!!!'

 

Instead of just playing them in a way that suggests that through IC action.

Then that is a problem (arguably) with writing style, and not the player presuming to play something not like themselves. I agree you should show, not tell, but that only tell me the writer is inexperienced or perhaps not accustomed to rp, not too dull to play their character.

[Aduu Avagnar]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or intelligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or intelligent.

 

That sounds a little unfair though. Just because you don't know how to write something doesn't mean you're not welcome to try. A "slower" player should be allowed to play whatever they so choose to want to play instead of only sticking to concepts they know they can write without ease. As much as I love playing oblivious, silly, ridiculous characters, sometimes I want to break my own mold and go with something that is "claimed" to be "smart", even if I can actually write it worth beans. It's a learning process in my eyes.

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

[Caspar]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or intelligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or intelligent.

 

That sounds a little unfair though. Just because you don't know how to write something doesn't mean you're not welcome to try. A "slower" player should be allowed to play whatever they so choose to want to play instead of only sticking to concepts they know they can write without ease. As much as I love playing oblivious, silly, ridiculous characters, sometimes I want to break my own mold and go with something that is "claimed" to be "smart", even if I can actually write it worth beans. It's a learning process in my eyes.

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

I feel that is contrary to what the Op and Ignacious argued, though, and you yourself at the top of the quote pyramid, unless I'm misunderstanding.

[GloryRhodes]

Page 6 Thread Summary:

 

 

Question posed: Should a person that is mentally deficient be allowed to roleplay a person of intelligence, or is their implicit stupidity too egregious a flaw to allow such behavior?

 

 

For the question: Wit is an inherent ability which cannot be faked and which must be presented in detail in order for it to be taken seriously.  The deficient cannot do this therefore their attempts are invalid and disruptive.

 

 

Against the question: People, despite any deficiency should be allowed to do as they wish, and there are methods for faking wit which must be considered before dismissal.

 

Uncomfortable assumptions: The posters for assume that they are not mentally deficient, and that their judgement of others to be less intelligent than they is reliable.  The posters against suppose that the mentally deficient do not have the responsibility to be accepted, but rather that the intelligent have the responsibility to be accepting.

 

Unanswered questions: 

 

 

• What is the definition of "dumb"?
  
• What is the definition of "witty"?
  
• Who is qualified to pass judgement as to what is acceptable and what is not?
  
• When judgement is passed, who is the gatekeeper to prevent such behavior?
  
• Why is the posed question important, and whose opinion determines the value of the discussion posed?
  

[Aduu Avagnar]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or intelligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or intelligent.

 

That sounds a little unfair though. Just because you don't know how to write something doesn't mean you're not welcome to try. A "slower" player should be allowed to play whatever they so choose to want to play instead of only sticking to concepts they know they can write without ease. As much as I love playing oblivious, silly, ridiculous characters, sometimes I want to break my own mold and go with something that is "claimed" to be "smart", even if I can actually write it worth beans. It's a learning process in my eyes.

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

I feel that is contrary to what the Op and Ignacious argued, though, and you yourself at the top of the quote pyramid, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I cannot see how what I wrote was contrary to what I wrote at the begining.... In the first one I state that you are limited by what they can write. Which is the same point I made in the second quote of mine.....

[111]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or intelligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or intelligent.

 

That sounds a little unfair though. Just because you don't know how to write something doesn't mean you're not welcome to try. A "slower" player should be allowed to play whatever they so choose to want to play instead of only sticking to concepts they know they can write without ease. As much as I love playing oblivious, silly, ridiculous characters, sometimes I want to break my own mold and go with something that is "claimed" to be "smart", even if I can actually write it worth beans. It's a learning process in my eyes.

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

I feel that is contrary to what the Op and Ignacious argued, though, and you yourself at the top of the quote pyramid, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I cannot see how what I wrote was contrary to what I wrote at the begining.... In the first one I state that you are limited by what they can write. Which is the same point I made in the second quote of mine.....

Ah, bad news if you're trying to RP someone intelligent then.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

Page 6 Thread Summary:

 

 

Question posed: Should a person that is mentally deficient be allowed to roleplay a person of intelligence, or is their implicit stupidity too egregious a flaw to allow such behavior?

 

 

For the question: Wit is an inherent ability which cannot be faked and which must be presented in detail in order for it to be taken seriously.  The deficient cannot do this therefore their attempts are invalid and disruptive.

 

 

Against the question: People, despite any deficiency should be allowed to do as they wish, and there are methods for faking wit which must be considered before dismissal.

 

Uncomfortable assumptions: The posters for assume that they are not mentally deficient, and that their judgement of others to be less intelligent than they is reliable.  The posters against suppose that the mentally deficient do not have the responsibility to be accepted, but rather that the intelligent have the responsibility to be accepting.

 

Unanswered questions: 

 

 

• What is the definition of "dumb"?
  
• What is the definition of "witty"?
  
• Who is qualified to pass judgement as to what is acceptable and what is not?
  
• When judgement is passed, who is the gatekeeper to prevent such behavior?
  
• Why is the posed question important, and whose opinion determines the value of the discussion posed?
  

 

Haha. Mic dropped. Well said.

[Aduu Avagnar]

Ah, bad news if you're trying to RP someone intelligent then.

Please explain to me then the difference in the statements then. I would rather learn as to how my intent got lost, rather than receive an off the cuff comment that adds nothing to the discourse.

[Edda]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or inteligent.

 

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

 

I cannot see how what I wrote was contrary to what I wrote at the begining.... In the first one I state that you are limited by what they can write. Which is the same point I made in the second quote of mine.....

 

Either you are not getting your point across, or you are contradicting yourself. While both posts support your belief that one is limited by their writing ability, the following thoughts are rather contrasting. I have little personal interest in your explanation - this post is merely for the sake of yourself and the rest of the thread.

[Aduu Avagnar]

I agree with ignacious in the most part. You are limited by what you can write. If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing, then no one is going to believe your character witty or inteligent.

 

And they can, nothing is stopping them but their writing ability.You do not have to be inteligent to be able to write as an inteligent person. You simply need to get across what your intent is.

 

I cannot see how what I wrote was contrary to what I wrote at the begining.... In the first one I state that you are limited by what they can write. Which is the same point I made in the second quote of mine.....

 

Either you are not getting your point across, or you are contradicting yourself. While both posts support your belief that one is limited by their roleplaying ability, the following thoughts are rather contrasting. I have little personal interest in your explanation - this post is merely for the sake of yourself and the rest of the thread.

Thank you. And I don't see them as contrasting. You do not have to be inteligent to portray an inteligent person. As long as you can display it in your writing (read, get the intent across) then you can successfully do it. You are only limited by your writing.

 

If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing = You simply need to get across what your intent is.

 

Worded differently intent is the same.... If you cannot get the intent across, then you are not displaying wit or inteligence through the writing.....

[Warren Castille]

There's a world of difference between someone telling a funny joke at the moment and someone posting "/em tells a funny joke relative to the moment."

 

Sure, the second one works. It'll get real old after a bit, though.

[Edda]

Thank you. And I don't see them as contrasting. You do not have to be inteligent to portray an inteligent person. As long as you can display it in your writing (read, get the intent across) then you can successfully do it. You are only limited by your writing.

 

If you cannot display wit or inteligence through your writing = You simply need to get across what your intent is.

 

Worded differently intent is the same.... If you cannot get the intent across, then you are not displaying wit or inteligence through the writing.....

This is true every once and a while. Maybe. But like Warren said, not really. It's a huge difference, and that line of thinking doesn't only apply to roleplay either.

 

If you cannot cook a good burger through your cooking skills = You simply need to get across that you intended to cook a good burger.

 

If you cannot make another good three Star Wars movies through your directing ability = You simply need to get across your intent of making three more good Star Wars movies.

[Oscare]

There's a fine line between constantly cheesing it with "X does Y action easily!" and actual effort. If you make the attempt, and at least try, I feel like there deserves to at least be credit on the OOC level. Sure the occasional "X explains Y in a relatively simplistic manner" works once if what you're trying to do is so obscenely difficult to comprehend that even masters at the subject can't even explain it, sure. But if you're doing that every time, it just loses touch and it's quite frankly not exciting or stimulating for anyone involved. Effort -- even if you're wrong -- gets you a long way! It's a fantasy game too on top of that, so there's always the "Even if it's wrong, let's pretend it works anyway!"

 

I also want to add: Of course, you can claim whatever you want about your character, but ICly characters will react however they wish to. So even if your character is smart, characters are still free to behave as if your character is too dumb to even breathe. But that's personalities and attitudes taking into effect, which is the core of roleplay anyway. Just wanted to draw the line of you can accept that OOC your character is smart, but that doesn't necessarily mean ICly characters have to believe it.

[Warren Castille]

To be blunter: There's a lot of difference between a night of having fun, interactive roleplay and someone telling you it was a fun night and that they entertained you.

[Aduu Avagnar]

I believe that's a rather simplistic, and extreme example of what I intended, so lets try that again.

 

I am not a master thaumaturge. I cannot cast magic, nor do I know how to do it. Because its magic that does not exist in this world. However, I can portray my character as being inteligent in it.

 

Nako'li closes his eyes and digs deep within the internal wellspring of his aether. Drawing it through the focus in his staff he forms a glowing orb of fire, which he proceeds to throw at Warren.

 

vs

 

Nako'li concentrates on the aether within himself and casts a fireball at Warren.

 

or

 

Thaumaturgy is the act of contemplating on the internal, and using the power within oneself to manifest aether as an outside force.

 

vs

 

Thaumaturgy draws on ones internal aether.

[Edda]

A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

 

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

[Aduu Avagnar]

A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

 

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

That was my point. Even someone using a simpler use of language can get across IC inteligence. The point was gotten across in both versions.

[Warren Castille]

A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.

 

Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.

That was my point. The writing styles are different, yet the point is gotten across.

 

Intelligence =/= combat expertise. Edda's point is that going in-depth about your lore-safe fireball doesn't relay anything about the character in question. The OP was changed to discuss being "witty" and to me, that means quick-thinking or clever.

 

You have to know how to tell a joke or make a swift, humorous observation or have a rapier, scathing comeback to someone harassing you in order to roleplay the same thing. We're not discussing people being able to believably show effort when summoning a spell, we're discussing people who've allegedly read every book in Eorzea being unable to properly compose a sentence, or someone who's stated as being intimidating not knowing at all how to properly insult someone, or someone who's labeled as a criminal mastermind walking headlong into traps or being outsmarted by "lesser" intelligences.

 

Playing down is easy. Playing up is a skill in and of itself.

[Dis]

I tend to subscribe to the school of 'fake it till you make it'.  When I first started RPing when I was younger (11-13ish), I wasn't as witty or as intelligent as my characters were.  So I pretended.  I faked it, I looked up witty conversations, I copied what I'd read in books, and tried to insert it appropriately. 

 

And eventually I started not having to rely on outside sources to do the work for me.  You can pretend until its a skill you develop.  And it is a skill you can develop.  Trust me, mimic something enough, it starts to rub off on you and you begin to learn the appropriate way to formulate responses that are just the right combination of scathe, snark, and intelligence to be seen as 'witty'.

 

Intent is important, though.  And I've RP'd with people who aren't 'as intelligent', but who played characters that way.  And while I acknowledged to them as another RPer that they could try and make x or y changes to make their character seem wittier, or referred them to resources I'd used, my character acknowledged their character, until my character had a legitimate reason to doubt them based on interacting with them.

 

It doesn't take much to not be a judgmental snob when someone is trying to portray something that they're not good at.  Just a bit of patience and offering to help them get to where they want to be.