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

[Caspar]

Isn't that sort of an extreme situation? It seemed like the example was based off of how inarticulate the player was. So the outsmarting had more to do with basic conversational skills. Though, I agree that seems like it would be a common blending problem.

[Paradox]

The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

 

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.

What you're speaking about however, is not truly intelligence or wit in its own regard. That is also training and knowledge, which is not the same thing. You can have a 'talent' for math and learning math based subjects, but you still have to learn it. And that has to do with study, not just one's level of wittiness or smarts. You specifically addressed this as about wit, and originally intelligence. The situation you are referring to now has little to do with wit at all, but the difference in experience on a subject. You present being always bad at math with someone who has talent at math. Which is fine, but even someone with talent at math or someone who has bad ability with math can still both learn math. Indeed, you (in the example) will learn slower than the talented individual, but it isn't beyond your scope. And that's the crux of this isn't it?

 

I keep hearing the idea of something 'beyond your limits', but it seems like the idea that someone can push their limits and learn what they need to isn't even present. Everyone has basically said 'if a person isn't smart enough they can never act like they are'. I'm sorry, no. I'm quite smart on paper myself so they say and no, I'm not bragging or anything of the sort, but conversely I'm not a great social talker by nature in real life because I'm shy. I have people anxieties in crowds. Never have been great face to face. I however, learned to fake it. I can smile and pretend I'm good at engaging in witty conversation. And my character tends to actually be a lot more suave than I am because I don't have to actually be near someone when my character talks. I'm moderate at math, and I have memory problems that hinder me in learning. I've had to re-learn some subjects multiple times because of it. But I'm not dumb or even not 'witty' just because I don't meet someone else's high standards of what is and isn't witty. Can someone be more trained than me in something? Absolutely. But that has no reflection on my character versus yours. This entire subject basically comes down to a few people's standards of what they consider a gate pass to playing a certain type of character. And I'm sorry, but again, no. It is judgmental form the get go, whether you use levity at the beginning or not to say in all caps you're not judging.

 

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.

 

If I play a genius character but I myself am not a genius in that area, it is not the player's place to make any kind of stand against that character. If the character lacks something because the player can't back it up, roleplay will sort it out. And that's how it should be. But arguing if someone not smart can play someone smart; that itself is dissonance. My character is interacting with your character. If your character has no knowledge of the subject, even if you do, your knowledge is irrelevant because roleplaying is not about what you know. If my genius character misses a few details and that ruins your immersion and joy of roleplaying with me, then I am genuinely sorry that your immersion is so shallow. But the entire so-called debate is basically thinly-veiled judgment on what you and others have decided is and isn't witty or not, and whether something is beyond someone's limits. Limits are not as cut and dry as some are making out, and the fact that that's the prevalent opinion to not do something 'beyond your limits', it makes me a little sad at the state of creativity and willingness to learn and teach exists in the community. Roleplaying is about being something you are not in real life. If you can't do this exactly, continue learning. There's too much of this nonsense about if you aren't smart enough, don't play x. I propose the inverse. If you are not experienced enough. DO play x. This will cause you to learn, to go out of your box, to become 'wittier' or 'smarter'. Ignacius says know your limits. I say push beyond them. I say learn as you go along and the experience becomes real. And for those that say it can't be done, you are incorrect. I've done it myself.

 

The entire passive-aggressive stance of 'I never said I was one to judge wit, however..' is patently offensive. You are judging by the statement itself. Someone who can't roleplay a trait by your standards. Not everyone has the same standards of roleplay. Who properly roleplays what is not for anyone to say regardless of what you know. We're not talking about someone who shoots fire form their eyes and lightning bolts form their arse. People want to play something they are not in roleplay. It is for fun, it is not to prove they are or are not smart or witty enough for you to enjoy it. If you don't think they're witty enough, that is your failing, not theirs. They could be genuinely trying. But if the first thing someone sees is 'they're obviously not smart enough to pull this off', then that someone should not be roleplaying. Judging leads to negative feelings. If you think I'm not smart enough to play a genius, then that's your business. But if your character wouldn't know one chemical from another IC, and you OOC are a professional chemist and you dislike that my chemistry genius is wrong on a few things..well. I hate to put it this way, but too damn bad. The entire subject you put forth is truly about OOC/IC dissonance, and playing with someone who isn't what they present their character as, not wit or intelligence. It's basically saying 'I can tell this person doesn't know what they're talking about IC because the player doesn't know it, so because I do even though my character wouldn't know the first thing about it, they're upsetting me personally and that bothers me'.

 

We play characters different to ourselves. Not everyone who's written a genius is a genius. I'm willing to bet that authors who have written experts on subjects had no expertise in the subject themselves and did something called research. Which a lot of people who want to play these types of characters do. I do so myself. Between research and bullshit, you can do a lot of things with a character to make them appear experienced or witty or more intelligent, even if you haven't studied it yourself as thoroughly as a real expert. But honestly, when you post a subject with the word 'dumb' in it for any reason, whether it's to spark debate or rant, or for any other reason, prepare yourself for what can come of it. Because whether you mean to or not, you're insulting or judging somebody passively. Reading this honestly watching the 'no you can't do it' crowd being back patted while the ones that say you can are basically deconstructed entirely has left me shaking my head.

 

But, in any case, if we must get back to the subject. Can it be done? Yes. Absolutely. It isn't always foolproof, but it can be done with research and bullshit. Is it hard to do with people trying to shove their own personal knowledge ooc on you if they don't think your character or you live up to it and apparently this is a reason for your character to be discredited despite it really not being their place? Yes. Absolutely. And that's all I have to add on the matter.

[V'aleera]

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.

This seems rather arbitrary.

 

If nine people don't think Scott is witty, but one person does think Scott is witty, then the only conclusion we can reach is that Scott is witty (but only to a certain segment of the population).

 

You can not simply accept the opinion of the majority as fact simply because the majority hold that opinion. You most certainly can not do so in a subjective realm such as humor or wit.

[111]

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.

This seems rather arbitrary.

 

If nine people don't think Scott is witty, but one person does think Scott is witty, then the only conclusion we can reach is that Scott is witty (but only to a certain segment of the population).

 

You can not simply accept the opinion of the majority as fact simply because the majority hold that opinion. You most certainly can not do so in a subjective realm such as humor or wit.

I bet 9/10 people would tell you that a book like 'Catch-22' isn't funny. That doesn't mean its not. 

 

As Val says, it's all subjective.

[Ignacius]

 

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.

 

However, that's the problem.  You are, very outright, saying that it's not your business and you won't offer help if someone doesn't ask.  That's your right, you are not responsible for helping anyone.  However, you did say that you're not going to go out of your way to help, in your case for your modesty's sake and because you don't feel people will listen.  And yet you feel sorry for my friend, because she was frozen out of RP for punching above her weight, but because I told her what everyone said behind her back.

 

Which simultaneously made you exactly the sort of issue she was facing, none of the eventual solution she received, and yet ironically also pitying the help she got.  All for perfectly acceptable and well-meaning reasons; you're not a bad person and you're trying to be as polite as possible.

 

But man do most people who punch above their weight get sawed off quickly at the knees.  Not by advice telling them to definitely cut back and to build the character, not the result, but by people who say nothing, freezing people out of RP without explanation with the assumption that, once people see they're being frozen out, they'll ask someone to improve as a writer (in this case, beyond their own cognitive ability).

 

I'm not sure how else I can explain that this is, while seemingly the best course of action, extremely unhelpful.  Most people, when they start, want to play Mary Sue and part of that is punching FAR above their weight somewhere.  Most people who pick it up fall right back out because no one in our multitude tends to step up to teach, but we're all willing, as a group, to ignore them.

 

It's a difficult balancing act, but it does mean telling people who get frustrated that no one's receiving their "witty" character as witty probably because the things they say just weren't that intelligent.  We're all passively fine in our role as gatekeepers, but we're usually uncomfortable taking up an individual role as educators.  We're a lot more comfortable watching people drown on dry land.

 

I mean, by the logic I'm reading, we're not even comfortable talking about personal limits even though we're perfectly fine telling each other that if someone's not fun to RP with, we can burn them out.

 

Now, it might not sound appealing in the short term pointing out that someone might not be able to write enough wit, intelligence, or charisma into their character and they might want to back it off a bit, but in the long term, it's likely to keep people around as RPers instead of having them blame the entire audience and leave.  And if someone can't be witty because they simply cannot write good responses, that's probably outside their scope.

 

I really understand where the intent comes from, but it's really not as helpful to tell someone who isn't witty that they're totally fine instead of telling them that, you know, it's really not a personal deficiency to fall short of Mark Twain.  These people aren't bad because they bit off more than they'd ever be able to chew once or twice, they likely write something else quite a bit better.  You never hear about this when someone plays a schizophrenic and fails to be accurate or recognizable; it's rare someone encourages them to keep going with it regardless of how bad or offensive it is.

 

It is true that people can try to write far above their ability and fail, and it's also true that most other players will, when someone's annoying them this way, freeze them out.  And it's likewise true that few people will tell someone that the latter is related to the former for fear of hurting their feelings.

[Oli!]

Outside of just saying that a character Said a Witty Thing, the answer would be No, if you're not capable of constructing something that is witty.

 

This assumes some sort of absolute wittiness, but the same thing is true for all facets of a character, like it or not.

 

You could debate whether or not things are truly witty, or truly smart, or whatever else, of course. But whatever you personally define as witty / smart / whatever trait you want, is only achievable if you, too, are capable of constructing that behind the keyboard. You can always state narratively that your character says Something if you can't make them say that yourself, however, though writing-wise, this will fall flat for most people even if the character would be true to themselves regardless.

 

An easy way to see this would be to play a character that is a mathematician, as they work in a field which does have a sort of absolute correctness in most cases. If you can't do the math that your character is supposed to be doing, then it's very clear that you can't "play" a mathematician. Sure, you could get people that are mathematicians to help you out, or vaguely say that they are Doing Math, but if you are incapable of grasping or understanding that facet of a character, then you won't be able to play them to the fullest extent of their characterization.

 

So, individual reflections on what is or isn't reflective of various traits on a specific level aside, this is the answer to your question.

[LadyRochester]

 

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.

 

 

That's taking OOC IC. That's an entirely different matter. I have characters who are completely ignorant about things I know in the game, that's not the point.

 

My point was criticizing people who OOCily brag about their character's intelligence and wit, only to say something shockingly stupid when they hop in IC. Say, you are playing a "genius" character, yes? My character is not a genius. They get into a discussion.

 

Your character says something stupid along the lines of "Cats are reptiles."

 

... Just because you OOCily claim your character is a genius does not mean everything they say will be intelligent, it does not mean people will perceive them as such. If your character says cats are reptiles, my character will argue against them because of COMMON SENSE.

 

Common sense is not a rare feature for a character.

 

Just because you tell me your character is an absolute genius does not mean my character will clap their hands and cheer whenever they announce cats are reptiles. Because that's stupid. Why would anyone dumb down THEIR character so that your seems like a "genius"?

 

Are you telling me that if a "genius" character approaches mine, says cats are reptiles, my character should nod and say: "WHOA! Really!? I thought cats were fish!" Simply because I don't promote my character as smarter or as smart as theirs?

 

You can't force the idea that a character is a genius unless you manage to keep intelligent conversation flowing. If you say stupid shit, no matter how "amazingly intelligent" you claim your character is, it simply isn't going to be received well.

[Caspar]

Ignacius I think you should read what I'm writing a little more carefully. You're inferring actions I don't take. I moderated a forum like this; I'm no stranger to helping others write better. I was as honest as you were. But where you aim to put someone in their place, I augmented them, because Rp isn't acting to me but group writing, and the group element means you help others achieve the story they want to write as well as your own. We're not performance artists.

[LadyRochester]

The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

 

Yes, I will admit that I bit off more than I could chew when it came to the initial phrasing. And while I can see from your perspective and I think intelligence can easily be improved, I still think a character is more defined by how others perceive them, not how the player itself intends to play them.

 

To some, my character is highly intelligent, to others, she's a cowardly idiot who hides behind others like a mouse. If someone icly or oocily thinks my character is stupid, I will not scoff at them and say "BUT SHE'S A GENIUS." At best, I'll ask them why and improve based on their criticism. You cannot force others to think your character is funny or witty because they are highly subjective and flexible concepts, but if nobody ever laughs at your jokes and you get angry because of that, it's your problem. You're not improving. People are too sensitive about criticism. I get annoyed at roleplayers who claim their characters are highly intelligent, and then proceed to do stupid things expecting no-one to rise an eyebrow.

 

I phrased things incorrectly and presented myself as a judge for intelligence-Something I am not. I am, however, someone who gets deeply annoyed when there's a huge IC/OOC dissonance when it comes to the perception of a character.

[Caspar]

The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

 

Yes, I will admit that I bit off more than I could chew when it came to the initial phrasing. And while I can see from your perspective and I think intelligence can easily be improved, I still think a character is more defined by how others perceive them, not how the player itself intends to play them.

 

To some, my character is highly intelligent, to others, she's a cowardly idiot who hides behind others like a mouse. If someone icly or oocily thinks my character is stupid, I will not scoff at them and say "BUT SHE'S A GENIUS." At best, I'll ask them why and improve based on their criticism. You cannot force others to think your character is funny or witty because they are highly subjective and flexible concepts, but if nobody ever laughs at your jokes and you get angry because of that, it's your problem. You're not improving. People are too sensitive about criticism. I get annoyed at roleplayers who claim their characters are highly intelligent, and then proceed to do stupid things expecting no-one to rise an eyebrow.

 

I phrased things incorrectly and presented myself as a judge for intelligence-Something I am not. I am, however, someone who gets deeply annoyed when there's a huge IC/OOC dissonance when it comes to the perception of a character.

That's definitely a frustration I can understand. I can't really tell someone "don't judge" on that note either. Sometimes it just unconsciously happens. Personally I think it's better if that sort of advice is broadcasted ooc, but in ic terms, a character ought to react the way they would to anyone who said something stupid, and the player never really enters the picture.

[Ignacius]

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.

This seems rather arbitrary.

 

If nine people don't think Scott is witty, but one person does think Scott is witty, then the only conclusion we can reach is that Scott is witty (but only to a certain segment of the population).

 

You can not simply accept the opinion of the majority as fact simply because the majority hold that opinion. You most certainly can not do so in a subjective realm such as humor or wit.

 

Well, unfortunately, "witty" is hugely subjective and it is therefore determined by the audience.  One out of ten people might think Orrin Hatch is funny, that doesn't make Orrin Hatch funny.

 

And, very tellingly, if I told you Orrin Hatch is funny, that DEFINITELY doesn't make him funny.

 

It's not arbitrary (if anything, what I said was entirely related to proportion, so by definition it isn't arbitrary).

 

Give you an example.  If I say I'm going to play a "witty" character.  I show up and someone tells my character off.  If my response was, "lol u dumb, suk it", not a single person in this thread is going to say that's a witty response.  It doesn't get better if I write, Character A tells you off in a biting way that humbles you.  No one in a group setting is going to buy that.

 

In neither case would it be made better by insisting that the character is witty because, and this is important, that's metagaming.  And that means that, even in physical reactions, you cannot impose an expectation upon the audience.  It's certainly not going to happen in a conversational context.

 

Now, you can find some wiggle room, but wit and humor DO have definitions and they are 100% developed by reception.  And the above examples weren't provided for hyperbole, I'm using a pair of examples that we, as RPers, understand completely as being insufficient for wit or humor.  That's entirely subjective, because there ARE people who would find both of those to be sufficient.  However, in an open RP setting, neither of those is acceptable.

 

It's no different if someone's character says "You don't stand a chance" and the response is, Character A laughs, "Fool, I have something for you to suck on!"  It's no more witty.  We certainly recognize it as not being witty.  And having someone try to pass that off as wit is a failure.

 

Here's the point of all of this, this is all absolutely true no matter whether the player was sincere in his attempt or not.  Humor and wit, if they're based on any one thing, are not based on the intent of the speaker.  It does not matter whether that was the best the player could do or if the player intentionally meant for the other players to recognize the bad flub of wit to show his characters' lack of intelligence, we recognize that the statement lacks wit.  We, as an audience, define that as being witless, humorless, and pretty much groan-worthy whether it was intentional or not.

 

Now, you're not likely to get 100% of people to call it that (I'm sure there are some people playing CoD where that's considered particularly acute) and you'll never get 100% of people to universally agree on anything (I hear there are people who don't like the Painkiller album).  But we do define that, and that means that the relative wit of a person can be limited.  That limit is set by our wit.  We decide what poor, average, and genius are based on whether we find it pathetic, we could do that, or we still have no idea where they got last thirty seconds of awesome statements.

 

Certainly, if the most intelligent people disappeared from the face of the Earth, things will be considered genius that are considered pedestrian today, and that's one of the reasons why trying to intentionally play wit is such a risk.  Because you can fail spectacularly, and your failure will be determined by your audience, not your intention.

[Berrod Armstrong]

The problem with the entire topic itself is that while you say it is to spark debate, the topic you chose is about sensitive subjects that can be perceived as inflammatory or judgmental to some. It is a risky topic, and risky topics have the result of creating often negative responses. The truth is, the very nature of your topic asks if a witty character can be played by the 'dumb'. The topic in itself is a veiled insult, and seems backhanded towards those who may or may not be dumb in the eyes of yourself or others. This is the cost for even starting such a topic and use such wording as dumb. Heat, kitchen, et cetera. But on to the topic proper. I'm no good with quote trees, they're annoying to read, so I'll grab what I can.

 

Yes, I will admit that I bit off more than I could chew when it came to the initial phrasing. And while I can see from your perspective and I think intelligence can easily be improved, I still think a character is more defined by how others perceive them, not how the player itself intends to play them.

 

To some, my character is highly intelligent, to others, she's a cowardly idiot who hides behind others like a mouse. If someone icly or oocily thinks my character is stupid, I will not scoff at them and say "BUT SHE'S A GENIUS." At best, I'll ask them why and improve based on their criticism. You cannot force others to think your character is funny or witty because they are highly subjective and flexible concepts, but if nobody ever laughs at your jokes and you get angry because of that, it's your problem. You're not improving. People are too sensitive about criticism. I get annoyed at roleplayers who claim their characters are highly intelligent, and then proceed to do stupid things expecting no-one to rise an eyebrow.

 

I phrased things incorrectly and presented myself as a judge for intelligence-Something I am not. I am, however, someone who gets deeply annoyed when there's a huge IC/OOC dissonance when it comes to the perception of a character.

Might be time for a change of the question in the OP/topic then! Phrase it as clearly as you can and it might be that you find some more agreement.

[Paradox]

Just because you tell me your character is an absolute genius does not mean my character will clap their hands and cheer whenever they announce cats are reptiles. Because that's stupid. Why would anyone dumb down THEIR character so that your seems like a "genius"?

 

Are you telling me that if a "genius" character approaches mine, says cats are reptiles, my character should nod and say: "WHOA! Really!? I thought cats were fish!" Simply because I don't promote my character as smarter or as smart as theirs?

At this point, the examples are starting to get silly. No one in any right mind, even an idiot, would try to convince someone of anything like that IC. It's gone beyond a person who can't fully back up they are a genius, and are going into cloudcuckoolander territory. Anyone who plays a genius character and would even attempt something like that is trolling, and it's a terrible example to what is supposed to be a serious topic. There's a vast difference between a genius character getting a few details wrong a player may or may not have, and someone just spouting nonsense.  I've never seen anyone who plays a character they're attempting to put off as highly intelligent do anything like that unless they were IC trying to make someone else look ignorant.

 

I also want to know where all these people are who brag oocly about their characters being geniuses who then talk like idiots. Are they in the tall grass like some kind of Pokémon? Because I have yet to see any of them. I suppose it's hard to grasp an example of this when I haven't seen any such thing, but I guess that's just differing experiences.

 

Edit: I agree, Berrod. I think that really is the best idea at this point. Berrod Obama for president of Eorzea, 2016. :3

[LiadansWhisper]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to reply to this.

 

Can non-witty players portray witty characters and do it well?

 

Yes.  I've seen it happen.  It was the hardest thing for those players to pull off, and they were scared and worried that they wouldn't, but they worked hard and they succeeded.  And we loved them for the effort they put into those characters, and we loved them because they were awesome people in general.

 

That's really all that needs to be said.

 

This thread comes across, to me, as an attempt to tell certain players that they're just not smart enough to portray their characters.

 

The reality is, most non-witty people will never - not ever - attempt to portray a witty character.  In fact, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it attempted.  It's really out of the comfort zone for most players to RP something they don't feel qualified to portray.  The ones who DO attempt to pull it off?  They should get kudos for making that attempt, not threads telling them that they're "dumb" and shouldn't try.

 

:dodgy:

 

I've yet to meet a single "dumb" person roleplaying.  I've met young, inexperienced roleplayers, but I've never met a dumb roleplayer.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

I feel like this topic has become argument for the sake of argument. Whatever the intention of the topic was, it doesn't seem like anyone here has any intention of changing a pre-existing opinion.

 

At the end of the day, nobody has any control over anybody else, anyway. If someone's roleplaying a supposedly very intelligent toon and they want to sit there typing "HERP DERP BERDERGLEBERP" or whatever, they're paying the same subscription fee and have the right to enjoy their time in the game however they want. If another player's suspension of disbelief is threatened, and it truly bothers them to the point of not being able to overlook it, the blacklist exists for a reason.

 

I vote for closure of the topic so that it'll stop popping up on the "Latest Theads" sidebar and some other more constructive topics can get fair visibility.

[Dis]

 

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.

 

 

That's taking OOC IC. That's an entirely different matter. I have characters who are completely ignorant about things I know in the game, that's not the point.

 

My point was criticizing people who OOCily brag about their character's intelligence and wit, only to say something shockingly stupid when they hop in IC. Say, you are playing a "genius" character, yes? My character is not a genius. They get into a discussion.

 

Your character says something stupid along the lines of "Cats are reptiles."

 

... Just because you OOCily claim your character is a genius does not mean everything they say will be intelligent, it does not mean people will perceive them as such. If your character says cats are reptiles, my character will argue against them because of COMMON SENSE.

 

Common sense is not a rare feature for a character.

 

Just because you tell me your character is an absolute genius does not mean my character will clap their hands and cheer whenever they announce cats are reptiles. Because that's stupid. Why would anyone dumb down THEIR character so that your seems like a "genius"?

 

Are you telling me that if a "genius" character approaches mine, says cats are reptiles, my character should nod and say: "WHOA! Really!? I thought cats were fish!" Simply because I don't promote my character as smarter or as smart as theirs?

 

You can't force the idea that a character is a genius unless you manage to keep intelligent conversation flowing. If you say stupid shit, no matter how "amazingly intelligent" you claim your character is, it simply isn't going to be received well.

 

I think you missed the point of my example.  I was specifically talking about a situation where one character obviously knows more about a certain topic than another character.  Not specifically about a character who says something that is common knowledge as being incorrect.  Hence why I used aether as an example, and not animal species.  It's easy to know that a cat is a cat.  And common sense says if someone tells you a cat is not a cat, you can disagree with them.

 

I'm talking about when someone says something about a topic that could potentially be obscure to your character, and your character corrects them even if said character wouldn't know they're wrong, but you as the player know they're wrong.

 

It might not be received well, no, but you have every right to try and portray that kind of character.  Even if it is 'above your means' or 'out of your comfort zone'.

I'd rather see a player try and grow as a player by playing out of their comfort zone, than I would see them stagnate by never playing anything challenging to them.

[Caspar]

Yeah, I agree. I don't mind what Sasha says now that she's elaborated, but I'll never come around to the idea that I have a noblesse oblige to help players rping above their station to aim lower. I personally wouldn't mind it locked.

[LadyRochester]

A'rkalonn Sargonnai

At this point, the examples are starting to get silly. No one in any right mind, even an idiot, would try to convince someone of anything like that IC. It's gone beyond a person who can't fully back up they are a genius, and are going into cloudcuckoolander territory. Anyone who plays a genius character and would even attempt something like that is trolling, and it's a terrible example to what is supposed to be a serious topic. There's a vast difference between a genius character getting a few details wrong a player may or may not have, and someone just spouting nonsense.  I've never seen anyone who plays a character they're attempting to put off as highly intelligent do anything like that unless they were IC trying to make someone else look ignorant.

 

I also want to know where all these people are who brag oocly about their characters being geniuses who then talk like idiots. Are they in the tall grass like some kind of Pokémon? Because I have yet to see any of them. I suppose it's hard to grasp an example of this when I haven't seen any such thing, but I guess that's just differing experiences.

 

Edit: I agree, Berrod. I think that really is the best idea at this point. Berrod Obama for president of Eorzea, 2016. :3

 

 

It was a mere example. I'll give you a more realistic one.

 

This character called him/herself a "strategic genius". However, all the "strategies" he came up with were often extremely reckless and stupid. Instead of sneaking into an enemy camp, they wanted to storm in and rescue their friends while murdering everyone there. My character has a weakness to aether--First thing this person did? Send her off to the likes of Mor Dhona, of course. Kill enemies? Blow up a bomb at our home to send them off.

 

This person had ideas like this--And referred to him/herself as a "strategic genius"

[Paradox]

A'rkalonn Sargonnai

At this point, the examples are starting to get silly. No one in any right mind, even an idiot, would try to convince someone of anything like that IC. It's gone beyond a person who can't fully back up they are a genius, and are going into cloudcuckoolander territory. Anyone who plays a genius character and would even attempt something like that is trolling, and it's a terrible example to what is supposed to be a serious topic. There's a vast difference between a genius character getting a few details wrong a player may or may not have, and someone just spouting nonsense.  I've never seen anyone who plays a character they're attempting to put off as highly intelligent do anything like that unless they were IC trying to make someone else look ignorant.

 

I also want to know where all these people are who brag oocly about their characters being geniuses who then talk like idiots. Are they in the tall grass like some kind of Pokémon? Because I have yet to see any of them. I suppose it's hard to grasp an example of this when I haven't seen any such thing, but I guess that's just differing experiences.

 

Edit: I agree, Berrod. I think that really is the best idea at this point. Berrod Obama for president of Eorzea, 2016. :3

 

 

It was a mere example. I'll give you a more realistic one.

 

This character called him/herself a "strategic genius". However, all the "strategies" he came up with were often extremely reckless and stupid. Instead of sneaking into an enemy camp, they wanted to storm in and rescue their friends while murdering everyone there. My character has a weakness to aether--First thing this person did? Send her off to the likes of Mor Dhona, of course. Kill enemies? Blow up a bomb at our home to send them off.

 

This person had ideas like this--And referred to him/herself as a "strategic genius"

Fair enough. I won't argue semantics at this point because I don't know the situation. And it seems like this one individual was just a bad example and not a majority. I haven't seen anyone say they were a genius character ooc and expect it to be acknowledged, so I suppose you've just have some really negative experiences with people like that. I haven't run into it, hell, I rarely talk to people OOC and just let their IC do the talking. Neither here nor there though.

 

But yes, this entire topic has gone off topic I think, and it is a sensitive subject. In any case, it is possible to play a genius if you aren't, if you're willing to do the work. It just sounds like that individual wasn't willing to do the work. Seems more lazy then lacking in intelligence. But that's me.

[Ignacius]

Ignacius I think you should read what I'm writing a little more carefully. You're inferring actions I don't take. I moderated a forum like this; I'm no stranger to helping others write better. I was as honest as you were. But where you aim to put someone in their place, I augmented them, because Rp isn't acting to me but group writing, and the group element means you help others achieve the story they want to write as well as your own. We're not performance artists.

 

There is no "in their place".  There are simply things that are beyond our ability.  I will never win Wimbledon, as the famous example goes.  I'm 30.  I could start playing tennis now, I could even get good, but there's not a cold chance in Hell of me ever becoming one of the world's best tennis players.

 

Likewise, you can try to become a better writer, but if you're starting to say, "Anyone can be witty if they try," you're setting someone up to continue making the same mistake.  It wouldn't be a problem, except failures at wit are something we are intentionally raised to groan at.

 

Think about it.  What if I slid up to a woman at a bar and I said, "Honey, did it hurt... when you fell from Heaven?"  It is recognized, universally, that this is a cheesy pickup line.  This is not a good way to make a serious attempt at being charming.  At best, people recognize that cheesy pickup line is a humorous attempt to use that recognition to break the ice.  At worst, I just tried something I researched on the internet that was supposed to pick up women and it failed.

 

But, from reading it, you have no idea what my intention is.  My intention is irrelevant.  Now, imagine that happening, with someone writing this as genuine, over and over, and not understanding why women aren't fawning over his character.

 

Yeah, people have limits.  You have to be witty to write witty lines, and some people just don't have it and never will.

 

Now, I'm not going to get into the specifics of my friends' issues, but let me be emphatically clear, she was to insightful discourse what that pick up line was to charm.  It was so bad, people thought she was just trolling them and were freezing her out of conversations I had invited her into.

 

Is it pretty?  No.  I explained it as gently as I could.  I object strenuously to your characterization of putting her in her place, particularly since you weren't present for the situation.  But I don't do this just as a forum moderator, I do this with people in bars that other players are ignoring.  Those are the people who really need the help, and most of the time it's because they've absolutely overreached themselves.

 

There's only so much you can do, and all the hoping in the world doesn't make it any easier to sit through.  I certainly can't force people to just take her intention as-is even when the way she wrote her character, at her best, was absolutely not getting her intention across.

 

I'm alright with being disagreed with in my approach, but for someone to try to say that if you just try hard enough, you'll become as witty as you want, I can't agree with that.  I've seen people try as hard as they possibly can for a fairly decent length of time and not get better.

 

At some point, we have to face that reality.  You have to be able to tell someone that, "I know you're trying, but it's not coming across.  But you're great at this other thing!  Look, you aren't any less of a person for not having this trait you don't have.  What did you get the best response doing?  Maybe we could focus on that?"

 

There are better ways to do it than to say, "Look, I know you're trying, but it's not coming across.  You just need to try harder!  I'm sure you'll get it."  Because you can be reasonably sure that there will be quite a few people who we want to retain as RPers, but won't ever get what they're aiming at.

[Caspar]

(Edit) forget it, this is going nowhere.

[Ignacius]

A'rkalonn Sargonnai

At this point, the examples are starting to get silly. No one in any right mind, even an idiot, would try to convince someone of anything like that IC. It's gone beyond a person who can't fully back up they are a genius, and are going into cloudcuckoolander territory. Anyone who plays a genius character and would even attempt something like that is trolling, and it's a terrible example to what is supposed to be a serious topic. There's a vast difference between a genius character getting a few details wrong a player may or may not have, and someone just spouting nonsense.  I've never seen anyone who plays a character they're attempting to put off as highly intelligent do anything like that unless they were IC trying to make someone else look ignorant.

 

I also want to know where all these people are who brag oocly about their characters being geniuses who then talk like idiots. Are they in the tall grass like some kind of Pokémon? Because I have yet to see any of them. I suppose it's hard to grasp an example of this when I haven't seen any such thing, but I guess that's just differing experiences.

 

Edit: I agree, Berrod. I think that really is the best idea at this point. Berrod Obama for president of Eorzea, 2016. :3

 

 

It was a mere example. I'll give you a more realistic one.

 

This character called him/herself a "strategic genius". However, all the "strategies" he came up with were often extremely reckless and stupid. Instead of sneaking into an enemy camp, they wanted to storm in and rescue their friends while murdering everyone there. My character has a weakness to aether--First thing this person did? Send her off to the likes of Mor Dhona, of course. Kill enemies? Blow up a bomb at our home to send them off.

 

This person had ideas like this--And referred to him/herself as a "strategic genius"

Fair enough. I won't argue semantics at this point because I don't know the situation. And it seems like this one individual was just a bad example and not a majority. I haven't seen anyone say they were a genius character ooc and expect it to be acknowledged, so I suppose you've just have some really negative experiences with people like that. I haven't run into it, hell, I rarely talk to people OOC and just let their IC do the talking. Neither here nor there though.

 

But yes, this entire topic has gone off topic I think, and it is a sensitive subject. In any case, it is possible to play a genius if you aren't, if you're willing to do the work. It just sounds like that individual wasn't willing to do the work. Seems more lazy then lacking in intelligence. But that's me.

 

To be fair, I think people confuse knowledge and intelligence.  Some of the most proficient people on the planet aren't geniuses, they just tried exceptionally hard to excel in their subject.

 

My mother very clearly explained to me one day that both she and her sister went into nursing.  Her sister was very obviously more intelligent.  She could pick up concepts in one reading that might have taken my mother two or three passes, and my mother always had to run through processes and lists because she couldn't just do it mentally.

 

Yet my mother is almost unquestionably the better nurse, and that's because she worked harder.  She read it two or three times until she got it, whereas my aunt might not have read it until right before the test.  She had processes, so she never skipped anything.  She worked HARD to be the nurse she is, and she's more knowledgeable than most of the doctors she works with.

 

You do not need to play a genius to play a master artisan.  You don't need to be Einstein to be a master blacksmith or to be an award-winning scientist.

 

Intelligence is a raw trait.  It's often obvious in conversation.  It is NOT a measure of technical ability.  It often helps, but it's not the hallmark of all great scientific minds.  There is absolutely no shame in not being particularly intelligent.

 

It's sort of that last bastion of elitism.  We can now have plus-sized models but people can't say, "You know what, I'm not a genius, but that's never meant I haven't been the best at what I do."

 

It just makes it hard to play someone with that kind of intelligence because it takes often hours to come up with good responses and solutions that it might take certain people a few minutes.  That doesn't make people worse as people.  There are people of great intelligence who could come up with quick and effective solutions, but never do.  They may seem smart in conversation, but that doesn't mean effective or accomplished necessarily.

[Oli!]

The heartfelt example was touching, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. In the end, rather than helping your friend learn the skills necessary to sell their concept, you told them not to do it. If that's your approach, I'll decline from following the same line of reasoning. Sure, good feelings alone can't make you succeed in anything, and people have their limits. What does it say to your friend to tell her she's reached hers? I'll be as blunt as I need to, but if prefer to actually inform and structure writing towards a goal, because that is what I actually can offer help with.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I think what he was trying to get at, really, is that some things cannot be informed and structured.

 

That's part of the reason why some traits, such as being witty, funny, or charming, or other things like that, are so sought after both in real life and in terms of writing; it requires a certain amount of context and situation reading that cannot be immediately or quickly manufactured. It's like the line between Intelligence and what some people call Book Smarts; Intelligence is genetically informed, and cultivated over a lifetime. Book Smarts can be bought with information, memory, and man-hours. That's not to say that one type or the other is inherently better or useless compared to the other, but it is to say that these things are very, very different.

 

In the instance that you run into something that cannot be manufactured, it's okay to admit that that's something that will never be grasped. As an example, as much as I wanted to be when I was younger, I currently accept that I will never be a physicist, as my mind cannot hold onto necessary information long enough. I can't work harder at that, or manufacture a better memory, because it's a physical disability.

 

The question I'm sure you're asking at this point is whether that's really comparable to something that isn't physical, such as Being Witty. It isn't in a strictly literal sense, but there's a certain hard cap when it comes to the hours needed to learn something like that, and the amount of time that someone actually has. In other words, much like something physical, it stops becoming something that can be manufactured within a lifetime. This brings us back around to the Tennis example; yes, just about anyone short of the physically disabled can learn how to play tennis. If you sink enough hours into it, you can even be great at it. However, eventually you reach the point where there is just not enough time left to learn something, because you won't live long enough. Some things, such as being witty, really do require half a lifetime or more; if you're already there, and you're not witty, then, as bad as it might sound, there's a very solid chance you won't be. I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, it's just that a lot of things work this way. Sports, art, science, wit, and more.

 

And that's all without getting into even more technicalities, such as the physical state needed to play sports, the mental attributes needed to be witty, etcetera. Those are real factors as well. That said, however, most people do have the capacity to be witty, and usually choose not to be, due to social limitations, shyness, or other things. What is important, however, is that they have the capability. I doubt that anyone in here is truly incapable of being such, though those people are out there.

 

 

 

EDIT: Wow I messed up that quote attempt, fixed it.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

[[steps in as a mod]]

 

Just a small reminder to people that if they want to exit the conversation of the thread, there's an unsubscribe button in the bottom left corner. A thread is only "alive" as long as people continue to post in it.

 

Any attempts at purposely derailing a thread, blanking posts, or making personal attacks is strictly not allowed.

 

[[exits thread]]

[Ignacius]

Ignacius I think you should read what I'm writing a little more carefully. You're inferring actions I don't take. I moderated a forum like this; I'm no stranger to helping others write better. I was as honest as you were. But where you aim to put someone in their place, I augmented them, because Rp isn't acting to me but group writing, and the group element means you help others achieve the story they want to write as well as your own. We're not performance artists.

 

There is no "in their place".  There are simply things that are beyond our ability.  I will never win Wimbledon, as the famous example goes.  I'm 30.  I could start playing tennis now, I could even get good, but there's not a cold chance in Hell of me ever becoming one of the world's best tennis players.

 

Likewise, you can try to become a better writer, but if you're starting to say, "Anyone can be witty if they try," you're setting someone up to continue making the same mistake.  It wouldn't be a problem, except failures at wit are something we are intentionally raised to groan at.

 

Think about it.  What if I slid up to a woman at a bar and I said, "Honey, did it hurt... when you fell from Heaven?"  It is recognized, universally, that this is a cheesy pickup line.  This is not a good way to make a serious attempt at being charming.  At best, people recognize that cheesy pickup line is a humorous attempt to use that recognition to break the ice.  At worst, I just tried something I researched on the internet that was supposed to pick up women and it failed.

 

But, from reading it, you have no idea what my intention is.  My intention is irrelevant.  Now, imagine that happening, with someone writing this as genuine, over and over, and not understanding why women aren't fawning over his character.

 

Yeah, people have limits.  You have to be witty to write witty lines, and some people just don't have it and never will.

 

Now, I'm not going to get into the specifics of my friends' issues, but let me be emphatically clear, she was to insightful discourse what that pick up line was to charm.  It was so bad, people thought she was just trolling them and were freezing her out of conversations I had invited her into.

 

Is it pretty?  No.  I explained it as gently as I could.  I object strenuously to your characterization of putting her in her place, particularly since you weren't present for the situation.  But I don't do this just as a forum moderator, I do this with people in bars that other players are ignoring.  Those are the people who really need the help, and most of the time it's because they've absolutely overreached themselves.

 

There's only so much you can do, and all the hoping in the world doesn't make it any easier to sit through.  I certainly can't force people to just take her intention as-is even when the way she wrote her character, at her best, was absolutely not getting her intention across.

 

I'm alright with being disagreed with in my approach, but for someone to try to say that if you just try hard enough, you'll become as witty as you want, I can't agree with that.  I've seen people try as hard as they possibly can for a fairly decent length of time and not get better.

 

At some point, we have to face that reality.  You have to be able to tell someone that, "I know you're trying, but it's not coming across.  But you're great at this other thing!  Look, you aren't any less of a person for not having this trait you don't have.  What did you get the best response doing?  Maybe we could focus on that?"

 

There are better ways to do it than to say, "Look, I know you're trying, but it's not coming across.  You just need to try harder!  I'm sure you'll get it."  Because you can be reasonably sure that there will be quite a few people who we want to retain as RPers, but won't ever get what they're aiming at.

The heartfelt example was touching, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. In the end, rather than helping your friend learn the skills necessary to sell their concept, you told them not to do it. If that's your approach, I'll decline from following the same line of reasoning. Sure, good feelings alone can't make you succeed in anything, and people have their limits. What does it say to your friend to tell her she's reached hers? I'll be as blunt as I need to, but if prefer to actually inform and structure writing towards a goal, because that is what I actually can offer help with.

 

I would (believe me, I was essentially a remedial English teacher for a while) but I cannot make her able to respond to a quick quip.  That's partially a skill, but is absolutely part of a naturally available ability that you can't work out.  I don't hold her in any less esteem because she isn't the rapier wit of a conversation.  She just isn't, and isn't going to be.  That's nothing for her to be hurt or embarrassed about.  There's no way, unless you believe a few years of Brain Age would help, to make her anywhere near the genius she'd want to play.

 

Normally, people would just not play with her, which was a shame for the community.  She was a great player.

 

Now, the reason I use her is that she's the one person I can say was not personally intelligent and had to scale back a character from a wild genius to a more technically proficient professional.  The character was far better (and more likable).  Now, intelligence isn't common.

 

Now, I do this fairly frequently, but it is NOT about intelligence.  Lots of people playing "geniuses" get away with it not because they can get away with it, but because they never say "genius" and we never hold them to that standard.  They aren't particularly witty; we aren't particularly shook up about it because they don't drop a line unless they're sure about it and it's not that often.  And, to be fair, most of the RPers I've met, if they aren't above average intelligence, are at least average enough to give a good account of themselves.  I'm not sure if it's about freezing out the below-average players until most are gone or if we just attract people with naturally higher intellect, but I rarely find myself having to re-explain concepts to people repeatedly because they just don't get it.

 

No, this is an issue of mine because of charisma, which is so much more common, so much more damaging, and so much more of an education issue.  Because someone acting smarter than they are and failing can be a little irritating.  Someone trying to be funny when they're not is worse.  Someone trying to be more charming than they actually are is downright infuriating and times and outright insulting at worst.  If I had to finger-point to the biggest problem facing new RPers, it's walking into a situation with more swagger than they can back up.

 

It's something that can be increased with some experience, but charisma is something you simply cannot outrun because there are VERY few guides on the internet that will turn you into a stunning conversationalist.  And while people punching above their wit might get scoffed at and ignored, someone screwing up while hitting on a woman in a bar poorly could get them blacklisted from RP events.  We do NOT have this pleasant of a reaction to someone punching above their weight of charm.

 

I approach both the same way; they're part of the same problem.  People want to play movie characters, who have intelligence, wit, and charm.  Charm is the hardest to replicate if you don't have it.  Truly intelligent people can get away with a lot just by being quiet when they have nothing to say.  Truly charismatic people are only ever judged by what they say.

 

And, unfortunately, we fail those people.  If a guy wanders in and tries to pull the stunts on women in a bar that his brothers' friends said they pulled on the women in the dorm in college, we tend to just call those people pigs.  Believe me, they may not be.  And people without real personal charm cannot play a charming character, for the exact same reasons as we're discussing.

 

 

The only difference between the two is that we're taught to pity the less intelligent and dislike the socially brutish.