LadyRochester Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share #101 Posted August 21, 2015 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? I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay a trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. Wit implies someone can come up with relatively sharp responses quickly, it implies someone can offer insightful assessment in a discussion without having to whip out google. Wit, unlike knowledge, is purely reactionary. "Dumb", on the other hand, stands for people who are stubborn, slow, illogical, and in a constant struggle to see from the other's perspective. Mind you, idiocy does not mean ignorance. An intelligent person can quickly come up with an insightful response, while the "dumb" counterpart will take longer and likely only offer a weak assessment. Sure, you could argue we don't truly know what the player does during the few minutes they take to respond, but if a player lacks the intelligence to come up with an insightful response, the response will be lacking for a character they claim is a "Genius". Mind you, this is rare. People can often pull off these characters, but not if they lack the mental faculties. Say, player #1 and player #2 are arguing. Player #1 is someone who is perceived as "dumb" by the public OOCily. Now, these two are engaged in a heated debate ICly. Unless player #1 has the intelligence to come up with insightful responses OOCily, he cannot portray that ICly, because it takes OOC effort to support your character's claims. Player #1 will be crushed by any other character played by a more "intelligent" player. So, the point is, player#1 would fail to say anything intelligent to back up the claim that their character is "a genius". I believe in the multiple-intelligence theory, where some people are more proficient in some areas than other. I believe that someone who is terrible at math can still be extremely socially or linguistically intelligent. Intelligence is a difficult concept to grasp when the possibilities are so vast. However, I speak of cases where one person would be obviously inferior in every area to their character. You can be intelligent and not witty, however, it doesn't work the other way around. Someone truly "dumb" is difficult to find, everyone has a gift of sorts, however, I speak of the very specific case where someone tries to play a character that vastly exceeds their mental capability. Say I were to play a mathematical genius who specializes in Chemistry, and as a player, I have never studied any chemistry or ever been any good at math. If a character like mine who was roleplayed by someone who actually had talent in that area were to engage in a discussion/debate... I'd be ICly crushed. No matter how much I use google, I could never play my character as being better at mathematics than them because I, as a player, lack the mental faculties. I am intellectually inferior to the other player, and no matter how much I claim my character is a genius, ICly, my character will be crushed. This is an extreme case, but people seem to struggle to grasp the concept. This is not a personal insult to anyone (despite the fact quite a few have tried to do so in this thread.) Cute poem, by the way. Displays your maturity like a charm. 1 Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #102 Posted August 21, 2015 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. No, I don't think it's a miscommunication, it's just a contextual problem. There are two opinions here. 1. The perception of wit is a function of the audience, its portrayal the responsibility of the writer. 2. The perception of wit is the responsibility of the audience, its portrayal is the function of the writer. I'm certainly of opinion 1. If a player's character is not witty, but we are told that the character is witty, I do not believe that it is endemic on the other players to make something which is not in keeping with the character to be true. For example, I cannot tell any other player that my character is funny. I can tell jokes as my character, and I can certainly say my character tells a lot of jokes. I can make those jokes as funny as I possibly can. I can even make many other people think my character is funny if I'm good at those. But I cannot force those players, or their characters, to laugh because I said, "My character is funny." Therefore, my character is as funny as I'm capable of being. My characters are not able to be any funnier than I am. It's the same here. A person can feasibly say their character has a great deal of knowledge they don't have. They can do their best to act intelligent or witty. They can try their best to come up with witty remarks or to perform fast and complex on-the-spot problem solving. And we, as players and characters, might remark highly on the character's intelligence and call them a genius. But a character isn't intelligent because we're told they are, especially if the player isn't themselves intelligent. Therefore, a character cannot actually be any more intelligent than the player. There's simply a limit. Now, many here are postulating that, if someone says their character is intelligent, we need to take that as gospel no matter how unintelligent the character is (despite the intention of the writer). I simply don't think that's either rational or even necessarily reasonable in an open setting. Maybe if you're around a tabletop with your friends, people can cut you slack and give you the benefit of the doubt. However, we're not under any compunction, as players, to have to pretend something bland or insipid is witty and insightful. That is the responsibility of the writer, and are titles we bestow as the audience. And that means some people will have limits, and it's best to know them. It certainly shouldn't be the responsibility of the audience to react according to the players' demand rather than the players' performance. Link to comment
Nero Posted August 21, 2015 Share #103 Posted August 21, 2015 The arguments being put forth in this thread, particularly the ones attempting to quantify wit and intellect, are more or less completely meaningless because what the question is essentially asking is: "Can people force you to perceive their character a certain way?" And the answer is no. I think everyone would agree that the answer is no. Unless it's a D&D campaign where the attributes of a character are tracked and informed (e.g. Roll a lore check, score a natural 20, "With staggering speed, your character deciphers the runes effortlessly. This language seems similar to what you know of Ancient Whatsit, and the structure is odd, but you feel that you obtain the complete accurate meaning of the ancient tablet nonetheless"), then no one can force others to perceive their character a certain way. Regardless of whether or not the player is intelligent, the player cannot force other characters to perceive their character as intelligent. An intelligent character may be viewed by other characters as dumb. A dumb character may be viewed by other characters as the flowering genius of the era. If other characters don't perceive your character as the way you want your character to be perceived, then the problem is not the other characters but the portayal--again, one cannot force others to perceive their characters or writing a certain way. One example being put forth is the idea of conveyance; the difference between " does with incredible comfort and skill" and " performs . One is telling. The other is showing. In this situation, the question changes. The question becomes "Does telling someone about a character's attributes substitute for showing them?" And you'll get varying answers, but really what it comes down to is whether or not the audience is willing to tolerate lazy writing. I can of course simply "tell" you that my character is Picasso, Mozart, and Ice JJ Fish rolled into one amazing artistic package, and your character may respond to it by reacting as if they'd met an incredible visionary, but how the player behind the other character responds is up to them. If they're willing to roll with it, then they proceed as normal. If they're not really okay with being told rather than shown, then their character can react accordingly. Attempting to force perceptions on other is, as a general rule, a bad time. Perceptions of characters or situations are made by their portayals, and if you can't convince the audience of a certain trait or attribute, or if they're not willing to roll with being told but not shown, then you're pretty much out of luck. 3 Link to comment
Nebbs Posted August 21, 2015 Share #104 Posted August 21, 2015 "The deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball." I think there is a danger of stereotyping players and layering on assumptions. The best way is to RP and see what happens. If you asuume other players have limitations then you will likely miss out on some great RP. RP is an active thing. As most of you are in the non genious camp. Should I assume you can't RP a genious and better still not even have a valid view on the fact that you think you can? Clearly not. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #105 Posted August 21, 2015 The arguments being put forth in this thread, particularly the ones attempting to quantify wit and intellect, are more or less completely meaningless because what the question is essentially asking is: "Can people force you to perceive their character a certain way?" And the answer is no. I think everyone would agree that the answer is no. Unless it's a D&D campaign where the attributes of a character are tracked and informed (e.g. Roll a lore check, score a natural 20, "With staggering speed, your character deciphers the runes effortlessly. This language seems similar to what you know of Ancient Whatsit, and the structure is odd, but you feel that you obtain the complete accurate meaning of the ancient tablet nonetheless"), then no one can force others to perceive their character a certain way. Regardless of whether or not the player is intelligent, the player cannot force other characters to perceive their character as intelligent. An intelligent character may be viewed as other characters as dumb. A dumb character may be viewed as other characters as the flowering genius of the era. If other characters don't perceive your character as the way you want your character to be perceived, then the problem is not the other characters but the portayal--again, one cannot force others to perceive their characters or writing a certain way. One example being put forth is the idea of conveyance; the difference between " does with incredible comfort and skill" is different between " rapidly flipped the disks on this Towers of Hanoi puzzle with certainty of the solution". One is telling. The other is showing. In this situation, the question changes. The question becomes "Does telling someone about a character's attributes substitute for showing them?" And you'll get varying answers, but really what it comes down to is whether or not the audience is willing to tolerate lazy writing. I can of course simply "tell" you that my character is Picasso, Mozart, and Ice JJ Fish rolled into one amazing artistic package, and your character may respond to it by reacting as if they'd met an incredible visionary, but how the player behind the other character responds is up to them. If they're willing to roll with it, then they proceed as normal. If they're not really okay with being told rather than shown, then their character can react accordingly. Attempting to force perceptions on other is, as a general rule, a bad time. Perceptions of characters or situations are made by their portayals, and if you can't convince the audience of a certain trait or attribute, or if they're not willing to roll with being told but not shown, then you're pretty much out of luck. It's also worth noting that knowledge and intelligence are very different things. You can be of average or below average intelligence and have plenty of hard-fought knowledge. You simply needed to work harder to gain it, and you may not be able to apply it as quickly as other naturally gifted people. Likewise, you can be extremely intelligent and simply lack knowledge. We all know someone like this. The guy who seemed to be capable of anything and actually accomplished nothing. I think that, in addition to what's being said here (which I agree with), it's important to state what intelligence, wit, etc. actually are. You can be a perfectly good engineer, even a highly effective innovator, without being intelligent. As someone who works with a lot of engineers, I can say that there are plenty of highly intelligent people that I wouldn't trust to calculate the structure in my shed. Even if it takes an "unintelligent" engineer twice as long, I'd rather it be done right. So no one's saying that players who aren't personally very intelligent can't play highly skilled or capable characters, but there is a limit to how much of a genius they seem to the rest of us. And that can't be dictated. If it takes them a few days to come up with a good solution (or a good comeback) then they simply aren't going to be able to play a character that seems intelligent. And there's no real way to force that to happen. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #106 Posted August 21, 2015 "The deaf dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball." I think there is a danger of stereotyping players and layering on assumptions. The best way is to RP and see what happens. If you asuume other players have limitations then you will likely miss out on some great RP. RP is an active thing. As most of you are in the non genious camp. Should I assume you can't RP a genious and better still not even have a valid view on the fact that you think you can? Clearly not. I couldn't play a character convincingly above my intelligence any more than I can play a character above my personal ability of charm. Genius, like charisma, is relative. Even if you take, as gospel, the idea that someone can play a character that is somewhat smarter than they are personally, another person who is actually smarter in real life is simply going to be able to do donuts around that character. That's a problem if you're trying to dictate to the audience that the character is a genius. I might be able to pull it off if I'm one of the more intelligent players in the room. However, if I'm the least intelligent person in the room, there's going to come a moment where it becomes blindingly obvious that my character isn't actually that smart. At issue is whether people who are in no way possessed of a comparative mental trait can dictate perception, and they can't. They can try, but they will, eventually, come to be known as the character who thinks he's smarter than he is, only because the player thinks the character is smarter than he can reasonably make him appear. You can make a character appear as intelligent as you possibly can, but in extended open conversations, that's the kind of thing that becomes blindingly obvious. You can't reasonably expect everyone you're trying to convince of your character's wit just take your word for it when they can clearly see through his dialogue that he doesn't have any. Link to comment
LadyRochester Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share #107 Posted August 21, 2015 Ignacious and Nero, I thank you both for providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the "Your opinion offends me" spectrum. Bravo. I didn't phrase things correctly, but my point was pretty much to spark a discussion regarding what the player claims their character is, and what the audience truly sees. If a player cannot properly portray intelligence, no mater how intelligent their character is claimed to be, others will perceive them as dumb. It's tough, but no matter how much you claim your character is a genius, if you cannot properly portray that due to your OOC limitations, you won't be taken seriously as a so-called genius. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #108 Posted August 21, 2015 Ignacious and Nero, I thank you both for providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the "Your opinion offends me" spectrum. Bravo. I didn't phrase things correctly, but my point was pretty much to spark a discussion regarding what the player claims their character is, and what the audience truly sees. If a player cannot properly portray intelligence, no mater how intelligent their character is claimed to be, others will perceive them as dumb. It's tough, but no matter how much you claim your character is a genius, if you cannot properly portray that due to your OOC limitations, you won't be taken seriously as a so-called genius. People can be a little sensitive, but it comes from a good place. People don't want to tell a player that he's definitely punching above his weight, and his "witty" comments are just annoying people. Unfortunately, I think most people get that across by just ignoring and blisting the person. You'd be amazed how many "trolls" are actually trying to RP and just failing at it because they don't understand the human interaction side of it. I think, sometimes, what's lost is that RP isn't just personal liberation, it's performance art. The pinnacle of RP isn't how you write your character, but how well you advance the greater social narrative. Unfortunately, that means that people who aren't well schooled in the art of performance find themselves at a disadvantage without having a clue why. The person you're talking about in the OP probably saw NOTHING wrong with his portrayal. You're probably not the only person finding yourself noticing the deficiency. At least you had enough of a crisis of conscience to come here to ask about it. Most people either write the player off as a jerk and blist him or they try to cater to him, making the problem worse. Perception by the other players drives their characters' interaction, and that's incredibly important in RP. The most popular characters to RP with aren't necessarily the best or most interesting, they're the ones that are the most fun to interact with. That means knowing what limits you can push and when you're just stepping over your capability and driving people away. Unfortunately, playing a "smart" player is playing with fire, and it's risky because if you can't pull it off, it becomes very glaring. More unfortunately, the most common advice in this situation that other players give is to discount the audience. Which is fine, but it's not going to make playing with your character any more pleasant. Better advice is to try not to play to the standard, but play the traits. If they make the standard, more the better, but at least your character comes off as you're capable, not obviously more than you're capable. 1 Link to comment
Diskwrite Posted August 21, 2015 Share #109 Posted August 21, 2015 I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor. You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous. My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism. It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this." So this raises a number of questions, which include: 1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty? 2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly? You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question? But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here. Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here? But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't. This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community. As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it. It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be. When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be. The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun. Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community. Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. 2 Link to comment
Caspar Posted August 21, 2015 Share #110 Posted August 21, 2015 Well, I do agree that if you're incapable of writing well, you can't convince anyone 100% of what it is you're describing, though again I don't think that has anything to do with intellect. That goes for a lot of things though, not just genius, and I think a newer rper ought not to be castigated for their lesser vocabulary or writing skill. I think if enough effort is evident on the part of the other player, it's courteous to at least give them the benefit of the doubt, even if telling is less effective than showing. I figure people should be allowed to play things they're not, even if they end up being less than stellar at it from my view. I find the whole "punching above your level" stinks of elitism, but if you're going to separate base competency from writing ability, sure, descriptive skill can and will tinge people's opinion of your character. It's the tacitly approved blending that most people on here are generally comfortable with. You write dumb, so I will act as though your character is dumb. There's really nothing that can be done about that, I guess, and no amount of dictating what others do will be successful in stopping that. Nor is it a good thing to try and force others to think of your character a certain way, for sure. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #111 Posted August 21, 2015 I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor. You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous. My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism. It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this." So this raises a number of questions, which include: 1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty? 2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly? You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question? But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here. Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here? But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't. This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community. As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it. It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be. When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be. The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun. Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community. Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out. It happens all the time. There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls. And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around. I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise. Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions? The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates. There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument. Link to comment
LadyRochester Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share #112 Posted August 21, 2015 Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. You're missing my point. I explained different standards of intelligence and their variables. I was speaking of specific examples where a person tries to push the idea their character is intelligent, without being able to back it up because they can't roleplay it. It's not the player who determines how intelligent their characters are, but the audience who perceives them. If you tell me your character is a "genius" and then you proceed to rp them as bumbling idiots who never do much but talk about how smart they are (without ever really proving it) There's a dissonance. Intelligence is relative to who sees it in RP, but people should not be offended if people fail to see their characters as what they claim they are. I said "CAN" not "SHOULD" Hence why it's open for discussion. The phrasing in the title is clear. I asked about their capability, not if they should or should not be allowed. I see no harm in people trying to roleplay witty characters, I, however, do see harm when people try to shove their "character" down my throat when I can't quite agree with how they role play their concept. People who get offended when your "non-genius" character out-smarts them. I speak of those people. Others have offered good feedback on the discussion, I simply thanked those two individuals for not resorting to personal insults others encouraged. Link to comment
Caspar Posted August 21, 2015 Share #113 Posted August 21, 2015 I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor. You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous. My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism. It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this." So this raises a number of questions, which include: 1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty? 2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly? You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question? But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here. Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here? But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't. This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community. As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it. It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be. When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be. The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun. Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community. Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out. It happens all the time. There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls. And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around. I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise. Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions? The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates. There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument. That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me. Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway. Or alternatively, I don't treat them like an idiot and instead play along, demonstrating to them through play how to show and not tell. Sure, you're not obligated to put up with it, but I'm also not sure doing the opposite is a "duty" of every right-minded rper or whatever. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #114 Posted August 21, 2015 I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor. You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous. My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism. It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this." So this raises a number of questions, which include: 1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty? 2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly? You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question? But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here. Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here? But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't. This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community. As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it. It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be. When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be. The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun. Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community. Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out. It happens all the time. There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls. And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around. I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise. Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions? The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates. There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument. That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me. Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway. Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. "Just ignore them and move on." Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. And they'll be shunned by a larger mass. And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar. We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it." 1 Link to comment
Kaiz Posted August 21, 2015 Share #115 Posted August 21, 2015 Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. "Just ignore them and move on." Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. And they'll be shunned by a larger mass. And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar. We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it." How do you identify and differentiate between what is someone's 'limit' and what is just the product of a lack of research or understanding? Link to comment
Desu Nee Posted August 21, 2015 Share #116 Posted August 21, 2015 * Lays two cents on the discussion jar * I don't personally believe in quantitative intelligence, so I don't think anyone's dumb, or smart. They simply know and has more experience and affinity in one area and another. That being said, I personally feel sometimes we have more difficulty playing a certain role than others, due to how we are as a roleplayer, and our own experiences as tastes. I, for example, can't really do long-worded characters, or villains, because English isn't my first language, so it has a lot of hiccups, and that I get really paranoid about overdoing when I do villains. This is character roles I simply don't feel comfortable playing. Can someone that isn't witty play a witty character? I believe frankly that yes, with effort you can pull something good. Early characters are always weird, Quki used to be such a snowflake when I first envisioned her, but with the experience I got roleplaying, I finally got her in a mold I like, so that's great. So, after a while, you learn. So I guess my answer is yes, if you do want you can; might take more effort than normal, but no pain no gain. Link to comment
V'aleera Posted August 21, 2015 Share #117 Posted August 21, 2015 It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly Scenario: There are three players, each roleplaying a character: Abby, Brian, and Scott. All three characters are in a conversation. Scott's player wants to play Scott as a witty character and attempts to do so. Abby and Brian are his audience. The RP concludes and all players go their separate ways. Abby's player thought Scott was an amusing and witty character. Brian's player thought Scott really missed the mark and was kind of dumb. Given the above information, is Scott a witty character? Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #118 Posted August 21, 2015 Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. "Just ignore them and move on." Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. And they'll be shunned by a larger mass. And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar. We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it." How do you identify and differentiate between what is someone's 'limit' and what is just the product of a lack of research or understanding? Generally speaking, if you're talking about research, you're talking about knowledge, which isn't a function of intelligence. Now, a lack of research is one thing that can get aggravating, but that's a pretty forceful display of ignorance (like when someone says they're playing a jeweler, you are a jeweler, you correct them about a fundamental problem with the way gems are set, and the person tells you that you don't know what you're talking about and ignore it). The limit of "wit" is generally an issue of dissonance. As pertains to the OP, we're talking about someone having to tell someone their character is a genius or witty. That's a very significant problem, when the player has one view of their character and the audience (the other players) have another. If you're talking about the limit, it's the point you're playing your character as a genius but all the problems are solved by the thug in your group because you can't actually solve them. Or when you have the worst comebacks in the group but you want your character to be "witty". That just can't be washed over by metagaming in the idea that your character is what you can't manage. Now, most experienced RPers learn not to play to the result, you play the traits. Smart RPers don't even let the limit become an issue. You say your character is sarcastic, vocal, biting, defensive, nerdy, insensitive, etc. You end up with a character that makes nasty responses. They're as witty as you are, but you aren't aiming at "witty", you're aiming at a certain tone of character. Then the audience can discern whether your character is "witty" or not. At the very least, people won't have the issue of having to deal with someone playing an "intelligent" character that isn't intelligent, but a "knowledgeable" and possibly "arrogant" character. If they sound intelligent, so much the better, but you can't force the issue. So the limit is very much personal. Generally speaking, you shouldn't write a character you yourself can't personally carry out, but that is very much something you track by asking for and honestly receiving the feedback from other players. You don't dictate the reaction and call all feedback hateful. That's the responsibility of the community, to be respectful but honest so people aren't just being frozen out without being given a chance to know why. The problem is that most people don't know their own limit, and if they're to the point they're ordering you to receive the character as a genius, they aren't generally in a receptive mood. But is the statement that you can't really play a character wittier than you true? Sure, your character can't be wittier than you can write (obviously, your character is only the sum of the reaction to what you write). And if you just aren't snappy, you don't have to be. It is okay to not be a genius and to therefore not play one. It's fine, and we shouldn't treat people like not having that mental acuity is a disability, it's just a character trait. Your engineer or mage isn't in any way hurt by the character not being a genius, in fact you tend to have more respect for the guy who worked hard and became great rather than the guy for whom it came naturally. But if you really push the character beyond your limits, you're biting off more than you can chew. Your genius will lose a ton of arguments and lose credibility IC, and soon OOC if you demand that the genius be recognized regardless. Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #119 Posted August 21, 2015 It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly Scenario: There are three players, each roleplaying a character: Abby, Brian, and Scott. All three characters are in a conversation. Scott's player wants to play Scott as a witty character and attempts to do so. Abby and Brian are his audience. The RP concludes and all players go their separate ways. Abby's player thought Scott was an amusing and witty character. Brian's player thought Scott really missed the mark and was kind of dumb. Given the above information, is Scott a witty character? That depends, two isn't much of a sample size. More important would be if Brian's player is likely to RP with Scott again. Because if Scott was so off the mark with Brian that he never wants to see him again, and Abby's willing to play with him, we have a major problem whenever Brian and Scott are forced to cohabit. Because if Brian suddenly starts biting back and embarrasses Scott in public because Brian, himself, is wittier, OOC drama is likely. And the OP is even more explicit. We're talking about Brian thinking Scott missed the mark, and then having (presumably Scott, but maybe even Abby) saying, "The character is witty, and just because the player isn't really doesn't mean you can treat him like a moron in character or out of character." Unfortunately, Brian is most likely to tell Abby what he thinks and to avoid Scott, but neither is likely to tell Scott what they think. And if far more people agree with Brian, Scott is likely to find himself isolated and not have any idea why people are avoiding him. If no one told him they found him flat and/or offensive, and his reliance on that trait is a constant throbbing pain in his performance, he's probably trucking along not having any clue why people find him flat or offensive. He's likely to blame Brian and his ilk for not getting it. This tends to happen a lot more with charisma in play, but I've seen it happen with wit as well. I've even seen this happen when someone not only wasn't witty or particularly intelligent, but also couldn't type well. Well-meaning player punching far above her weight, and she didn't know why people tended to avoid her until I tried to gently break it to her. Luckily, that ended a bit better of a story, she slightly modified the character to not rely so much on being a smart-ass. Without the smart, the character is just an ass. Link to comment
V'aleera Posted August 21, 2015 Share #120 Posted August 21, 2015 That depends, two isn't much of a sample size. Very well, let us modify the scenario: Scott's player wants to roleplay Scott as a witty character. Over the course of one week, Scott's player roleplays with three separate groups of players. Group 1: Abby, Brian, Jenny, Dean. Group 2: Cecilia, AJ, Michael. Group 3: Joseph, Irene, Kevin, Ian, James. The impressions made by Scott's character are as follows: Abby and Jenny thought Scott was clever. Brian and Dean thought he missed the mark a lot. Cecilia and Michael were amused by Scott's antics. AJ was not impressed and thinks his character is wittier. Joseph, Kevin, and Ian thought Scott was a riot and invited him to do a comedy routine at their weekly tavern RP event next week. Irene and James were irritated by Scott's humor and do not wish to RP with him again. Given the above information is Scott a witty character? 1 Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #121 Posted August 21, 2015 That depends, two isn't much of a sample size. Very well, let us modify the scenario: Scott's player wants to roleplay Scott as a witty character. Over the course of one week, Scott's player roleplays with three separate groups of players. Group 1: Abby, Brian, Jenny, Dean. Group 2: Cecilia, AJ, Michael. Group 3: Joseph, Irene, Kevin, Ian, James. The impressions made by Scott's character are as follows: Abby and Jenny thought Scott was clever. Brian and Dean thought he missed the mark a lot. Cecilia and Michael were amused by Scott's antics. AJ was not impressed and thinks his character is wittier. Joseph, Kevin, and Ian thought Scott was a riot and invited him to do a comedy routine at their weekly tavern RP event next week. Irene and James were irritated by Scott's humor and do not wish to RP with him again. Given the above information is Scott a witty character? Slightly above average (though probably enough to carry the character). If we take all given opinions as a sample, we can say that he has thoroughly entertained over half of all three of his audiences, enough that only two people will refuse to ever RP with him again (which, given he is doing a comedy routine, seems to suggest that he might be witty, but might also be thoroughly offensive, making him Eorzean Frankie Boyle). Overall, I'd say that, at the very least, Scott himself can pull it off. He seems to be putting out enough wit to be taken seriously as an in-game comedian and only three people in the sample believed, by the statement, he was flat. Scott the player might not be a comedian in real life (he may not be offensive enough to be entertaining), but he seems to be capable of carrying the character. At the very least, he wouldn't have to tell anyone he's playing a witty character, as in the OP. He's doing a fairly good job. I'd be pretty pleased with that kind of ratio. Link to comment
V'aleera Posted August 21, 2015 Share #122 Posted August 21, 2015 So you would argue that the prime determinant of successful and well-played character is the approval of a plurality/majority? Link to comment
Ignacius Posted August 21, 2015 Share #123 Posted August 21, 2015 So you would argue that the prime determinant of successful and well-played character is the approval of a plurality/majority? Not entirely, but certainly that's the bar for entry into subjective and comparative traits. Scott could actually be a TERRIBLY played character, he could only ever be used as a comedian but could then never grow or develop, as he's stunted. We don't know that from the scenario you painted. However, the question of whether his character is "witty", yeah, that's up to the audience. It's like saying you're "funny". You can try to be funny, but it's up to the audience to decide if you're actually funny. Similarly, you can try to play a witty character, but it isn't up to you to say if the character is actually witty, that's a function of the audience. It's your responsibility as the player to get that across. I certainly don't believe the opposite to be true. If one person thought Scott was funny out of 10 and most simply put him on ignore because his jokes aren't funny, not only is the character not "funny" no matter how much the player wants him to be, he's probably not funny because the player isn't really that funny. And you know what, not everyone's funny. That's okay. But you can't fake laughs at a character who isn't funny just because you're told the character is a comedian and he's being played as funny. Link to comment
Caspar Posted August 21, 2015 Share #124 Posted August 21, 2015 I brought up a discussion to spark debate, predictably, people got offended because they took it as a personal attack. I have never said I was one to judge wit, however, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone with half a brain to properly assess who can properly roleplay at trait. OOC and IC dissonance is easily detectable. It doesn't require an I.Q worthy of MENSA scores to see this. It's kind of a cop out to act like the people who are disagreeing you are offended by what you're saying. Especially because later in the thread the people you thank for "providing the thread with sensitive arguments that didn't fall to personal insults or the 'Your opinion offends me' spectrum" are the two people in this thread arguing most prominently in your favor. You say you're looking for a discussion, but when you then discount in this manner the people arguing against what you're saying, it comes off as a bit disingenuous. My point ultimately is that while this discussion is well and good, this thread is not, in fact, constructive criticism. It is gatekeeping. It is saying, "if you do not posses 'x' faculty, you cannot do this." So this raises a number of questions, which include: 1) Who gets to judge whether or not someone has 'x' faculty? 2) Who gets to judge whether or not said person's character portrays 'x' faculty correctly? You seem to be saying this is a personal attack, questioning YOUR capabilities to determine who is and isn't "witty" or whatever other faculty we're talking about here. You say this is easy to determine. That, perhaps, people are calling you stupid when they call this capacity into question? But I don't think this question is so cut and dry. I don't think this is an easy thing to determine, and I'm unclear as to what the standards of possessing "wit" are even being defined as here. Whether or not someone has it or not seems pretty subjective to me. So, whose standards are we going to follow here? But let's say we all come to an agreement on what this means and who has it. That doesn't change the fact that this entire discussion says, certain people are allowed to play a kind of character and... others aren't. This IS a form of gatekeeping, and gatekeeping is not a healthy part of an RP community. As I said before, this doesn't mean you have to play with people who do not play this sort of character convincingly to you. But that doesn't mean you should tell them they can't play their character the way they want to play it. It's one thing if someone's IC/OOC behavior is harmful. (e.x. if someone's self-professed "lady-killer" character is actually harassing every female character in sight and making other players feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.) But no one's being hurt if someone's witty character doesn't quite seem like the bastion of wit they're made out to be. When we start saying to people "don't play this," we're stymieing an avenue of their creativity. We make them self-conscious of their own abilities and whether or not they pull it off. And as I said before, this is supposed to be a hobby. A fun hobby. Nothing rides on people's characters coming off as smart as they're supposed to be. The more gatekeeping rules we throw in, the more people start to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome. And pushing people away not only doesn't help them, but it makes our community smaller. We become more concerned with evaluating each other or ourselves instead of... you know, just having fun. Gatekeeping is not a good thing for an RP community. Which is why I resist, and will continue to resist, assertions that someone just shouldn't play a character because someone else says it is so. Except that we very clearly ARE answering those two questions. It not only IS the audience's place to judge whether a character has a certain faculty and whether the player is displaying it correctly, but that WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! We are already gatekeeping; we will freeze out a player for doing exactly what is being stated in the OP. The problem is that we won't tell the person that, we'll just freeze them out. It happens all the time. There's nothing worse for your RP than trying to tell someone that your character is something that you aren't pulling off. They simply get shunned, and we at best assume they're not very good company and at worst simply assume they're trolls. And this is an exceptionally important point to make, because it is not the responsibility of the community to sacrifice our own fun and performance for someone else's performance. If you feel that's a good use of your time, that's you're prerogative. However, you are making every single person that might enjoy RPing with you have to grind their teeth and suffer through a far less entertaining hang-around. I'd never ask nor expect anyone to sacrifice their fun so that someone else doesn't feel slighted. This is an active and social activity that we all engage in as a contribution. There's no storyteller to say that someone's witty. If the player's not witty, and it comes through in the character, it's disrespectful to tell someone that they're in the wrong for not playing along. It's their time, and if the player is limiting the character's potential wit, charm, and intelligence, then they're under no compunction to laugh at jokes that aren't funny or nod at wisdom that isn't wise. Hell, we aren't doing that here between players, why on Earth would it suddenly change between player-character interactions? The point is that you can play what you want, but you can't complain when you're shunned, skewered, or ignored. And it's probably better for us, as a community, to make sure that, if a player tries to get around his lack of wit by saying, "My character has wit," that we correct them. You can't make a debonair and charming ladies' man if you are as charming as bog water, you can't make an intelligent character if you can't even think around a basic problem, and you can't play a witty character if the best you can come up with are Xbox Live insults in debates. There are limits to what a player can do, and other players shouldn't be sneered at and shamed for acknowledging that. It's their bestowal that is not only being talked about here, but demanded by your argument. That sounds like a problem with you and not them. Since I generally respond to everyone who specifically addresses me. Obviously I can't rp with literally everyone I meet, and some won't rp in a way I'd consider great. Still, if I find that if a player rps in a way I don't like, they usually end up doing something ICly that would make my character avoid them anyway. Part of your statement bolded for emphasis. You're already the gatekeeper you fear, and that's exactly what I'm saying. If a player RPs in a way you don't like, a LOT of people end up doing anything to avoid them. The blacklist is, by far, the most popular (and least rude), and you'll see that any time you bring this up. "Just ignore them and move on." Well, the problem is with the first part of your statement. Even the player being shunned will feel like the problem is you, not them, and that in and of itself is a big problem. If you're shunning people who aren't RPing in a way that you like, but you never bring up what it is they're doing wrong (or, better yet, en masse like this so that people understand it), they'll never learn. And they'll be shunned by a larger mass. And, believe it or not, the actual effect of someone trying to exceed their limit of wit and intelligence becomes a big problem, very fast. Not the least of which because, as the OP suggests, this is metagaming at the very least to say other characters should have a certain reaction to a character rather than engendering it and giving them a chance to react. It's also exceptionally grating for someone to be playing someone who, for example, throws out a wisecrack that isn't wise and barely counts as a crack, it's just a poor interjection. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will make sure you sit alone at a table in a bar. We can ignore the problem, or we can try to teach the discipline, but we can't command the audience to respond a certain way. It's no different than having a guy auto a punch on your character and then say, "Well, he's fast, so you can't dodge it." Melodramatic hyperbole aside, you could indeed look at it that way. Me, I'm just not self-important enough to think I am responsible for uplifting unskilled writers, and mind my own business. If they seem receptive or like how I play, I'll gladly go out of my way to help them, and like I said, I don't ignore any player who directly addresses my character when IC, period. (Unless the chat eats their post...) No player is entitled to continuous, involved story lines, but if they earnestly asked, I'd seriously consider it if I thought they could sharpen it up a little. But that's neither here nor there. I think all of this is immaterial, as its predicated on subjective assumptions. I am not the rp community, whatever that is. You definitely aren't. The RPC isn't, even. if other RP venues have taught me anything, it's that those who want to learn how to write better will do so, and those who don't still find people to play with regardless and can have entertaining stories of their own. I've seen people grow a lot by punching above their weight... If not discouraged from doing so by others in the first place. I feel somewhat sorry for your friend. Still I think we've gotten lost in rhetoric though. I don't and never think you need to respond as the other rpers intends you to. I also don't blame people for not reacting to coercive rp like that. If they attempt to be witty or whatever subjective buzzword you want to apply, and fail, they can learn a lot from it, I think. 1 Link to comment
Dis Posted August 21, 2015 Share #125 Posted August 21, 2015 People who get offended when your "non-genius" character out-smarts them. I speak of those people. I have a problem with the "non-genius" character outsmarts a genius theory. Every character is capable of displaying a certain level of intelligence and wit, based on the player of said character being able to adequately display that intelligence. That said, people are also capable of playing characters who are 'less intelligent or knowledgeable' than they personally are about certain subjects. As an audience, I can perceive a character to be more or less intelligent than they actually are. However, as a player, if I'm going out of my way to 'outstrip' a character who claims to be a genius when my character would clearly have no idea what this other character is talking about, that's akin to me trying to deliberately shut that individual down with OOC information. A good example is my character Liviana. If someone was talking to Liviana, and the subject of aether suddenly came up in the conversation, despite the fact that I've read about the different types of aether, and the common methods of utilizing aether for magic in game, Liviana has no idea about the details of such. Say that someone tells her that expelling aether from inside the body is the way to practice arcanima. I'm aware that the method they're talking about using isn't arcanima, but thaumaturgy. I know this, from past RP experience, and from reading while playing the game. Liviana isn't a 'genius' when it comes to aether at all. And while I can send that player a tell saying, 'C'mon now, you know that's wrong," Liviana has to reply accordingly. She just does not know. I'm under no obligation to have my non-genius character comment on a subject that he or she knows absolutely nothing about. A lot of cases of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character seem to boil down to that type of situation. Character A says something to seem intelligent, even if Player A knows that the information they're giving is wrong, to try and impress Character B. Character B corrects Character A, even if Character B is meant to be the less intelligent of the two on that subject matter, because Player B knows that what Character A said is wrong. That isn't a case of a non-genius character outsmarting a genius character, but instead one player using their character as a vehicle to tell the opposite player that they are in fact wrong and their character is not a genius. And while this isn't an 'absolute' example of any kind, that is hands down the most common example of a non-genius outsmarting a genius that I see portrayed in the RP community. Link to comment
Recommended Posts