The Usage of Future Tense

[Ignacius]

Well, I've RPed effectively across all those eras.  And yes, we had open RP and, yes, that meant combat with strangers.  We can debate "interesting stories" all we'd like, but a stranger in combat, whether for narrative purposes or not, is a part of any RP where I'm carrying a sword.  You may not be fond of the era, but I both RPed effectively and told interesting stories as I went.

 

I'm simply relating where the format came from and why it exists as per Kage's request.  I'm not passing judgement on you for disliking it or attempting to stir up your unpleasant memories.

 

However, despite where you were and how you RPed, I can say that quite a few bits of narrative combat arose during RP sessions and we effectively handled it via tactical checkmating.  And, should an altercation arise where grammatical tense is suddenly important, you can't always pull the narrative to a screeching halt to negotiate a neutral party and dice rules.  Tactical checkmating still exists whenever a stranger has a reason to not like you.

 

And, in the end, that's where the live RP format comes from.  We didn't often write in a past-tense narrative format and that was the reason.

 

You're fine. I'm just remarking that it still sounds like trying to win via outwriting your opponent. "You dedicated an attack at my head, so you're forced to do it, so now I'm going to outsmart you" etcetera. It might be the most "fair" way of settling things without dice to some people, but it's still dickwaving at how capable of a writer you are. Powerlevel shouldn't be dictated by dictionary. As long as the intent is delivered (A swing aimed at your head) there shouldn't be a need to outlaw action or restrict a change in that.

 

I think you're mistaking how this generally gets handled and why it arose.  Dickwaving didn't happen via tactical checkmating, though my writing on that was in passing.  Quicktyping was generally how that happened, and when your options were to quicktype combat or to use tactical checkmating, I highly recommend tactical checkmating.  In all honesty, few people were showing up in the local bar thread to start off a multi-para checkmating battle.  That just didn't happen.  Your shill walking around picking fights for the sake of it was generally asking to, "come t9 me mf"

 

Tactical checkmating tended to be a somewhat more flourished affair.  It wasn't really outwriting someone; you had to somehow get the essence of your character across in it.  Otherwise it turned into a game of well-written twister.

 

However, it would happen that fights would break out.  And even in WoW, even at max level and gear, I tended to favor tactical checkmating over kicking off game mechanic duels.  It's just a better way to write combat, and you tend to get favorable outcomes.  In that case, I may have tried to kill Ziggy, but just as likely Ziggy and Ignacius would fight for a while (generally talking the whole way through), but fizzle out.  Like a lot of fights in bars that happen for no reason.  A duel might take ten seconds, but you could easily be dropping combat paragraphs for an hour.

 

However, in case one's going the whole length (and I've had to hold my own checkmating a lot in my RP career, especially in WoW), the best defense is to remember that anything you say you do can be used against you in another post.

[Warren Castille]

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

[Ignacius]

Actually warren, Ig explained exactly what the grammatical issues are. A lot of people take grammar in RP as rule.

 

I personally don't like that sentence because it is two actions in one. My character could have long since moved away between the drawing of the sword  and the swing toward the neck, but I feel forced to ignore the space and emote a response as if it is one action. If you try to take advantage of the present tense lock, people start getting upset.

 

If he draws the sword and swings it at my neck, but I moved as he was drawing his sword, what is he swinging at? Is he slow?

 

Of course you could add some description like, he draws his sword fast as a whip and in one motion slashes at my neck. Then there is fluidity.

The way I see this. If your character moves as he drew the sword, would the other character not be tracking movements as well and still be aiming to swing at his neck? So the idea is still the same, the character drew the sword and his aim is to swing at the neck. You see what he's typed, your character moved as he was drawing and now it's his turn to act.

 

Everyone I have roleplayed with, the tense does not matter as much as the intent is clear. I have had at most two cases where meta'ing or godmoding happened but not in combat player character to player character. We adjust from past to present or vice versa depending on the players we are roleplaying with.

 

Like I'm saying, Kage, I could feasibly type "i eat gud" and my intention was to say I'd cooked the foie gras to perfection.  Intention is fine when you're with people you know and you can have long, drawn out OOC discussions to talk about how you handle things (or even if you handle things).

 

That's just not the case with complete strangers you meet in random RP.  If Ignacius says something someone else doesn't like, and we come to blows, this is how it works.

 

The problem with the example you're not reading is the reaction.  Yes, according to the sentence you're interpreting, Ignacius is still swinging at Ziggy's neck.  However, Ziggy's neck didn't just move, Ziggy could be moving to cut off Ignacius's arm, and continuing to swing at Ziggy's neck would be stupid.

 

Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it.  That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then."  And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head.  In the end, only the wording matters.

 

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so.  It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.

[Ignacius]

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

You survive with the times.  I've been doing this a long time and in all manner of different settings.  Tabletop, LARP, forums, IMs, games, I've written well in all of them and had to defend myself from other players in all of them.  You learn to adapt.

 

If you're worried about format, it's in your best interest to simply not get into any combat with any stranger no matter what.  I always thought that limited my character interaction (some of my best friends I met while trying to decapitate them), but I understand the sentiment.

[LiadansWhisper]

Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

 

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character.  And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

 

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct.  I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

 

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner.  What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

 

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off.  Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense.  It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

 

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine.  Then all this is meaningless, literally everything.  You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation.  If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

 

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company.  Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

 

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

 

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

[LiadansWhisper]

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

A happy community of people who agree to exist defined by specific rules can still be assholes. I'm glad it worked out for them.

 

The drama was incredible and it eventually faded into obscurity as people moved on the better venues.

[Warren Castille]

Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it.  That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then."  And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head.  In the end, only the wording matters.

 

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so.  It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.

 

Ziggy sounds like a dick. Anyone looking to hamstring you on your choice of tense or phrasing isn't trying to roleplay with you, they're masturbating over their English textbooks. It's poor etiquette to hold a character accountable for a writer's technical abilities.

[Ignacius]

Are you looking at the roleplay as a completed log and story? Or is each post technically it's own mini scene in the scheme of telling a narrative? There's nothing at all wrong with "Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head" because until we see what Ziggy does (until we come back from commercial break, or turn the page, or whatever device of conveying drama you choose to reference) we as readers don't know what's going to happen.

 

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character.  And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

 

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct.  I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

 

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner.  What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

 

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off.  Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense.  It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

 

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine.  Then all this is meaningless, literally everything.  You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation.  If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

 

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company.  Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

 

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

 

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

 

That's probably why you thought everyone were assholes (Lex Tangent, Red Roman, Donovan Clay, Bruce de Coyne, Alexander Eis, Vic Giovanni, Constance Anavictor, et al).  If all you were running into in combat was a lot of frustration, but you do things that keep landing you in combat, and you don't know how to write your way through it, you probably didn't know what was going on.

 

Believe me, you learn early to say what you "would" do rather than what you "are" doing.  After ignoring the t9ers, I never had a problem with anything else.  You learn or you don't; it's the same with any medium.

[Larson]

"Otherwise it turned into a game of well-written twister."

 

Excuse me while I make this my forum sig.

[Ignacius]

Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it.  That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then."  And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head.  In the end, only the wording matters.

 

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so.  It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.

 

Ziggy sounds like a dick. Anyone looking to hamstring you on your choice of tense or phrasing isn't trying to roleplay with you, they're masturbating over their English textbooks. It's poor etiquette to hold a character accountable for a writer's technical abilities.

 

I mean, I don't know what to tell you.  Poor me?  How do you know Ziggy is a dick?  For all intents and purposes Ignacius started the fight and with a total stranger.  He's not a dick for defending himself.  It's not endemic on him to just say, "Oh, you didn't mean what you typed.  That's okay.  I'll let you parry, whoever you are, and you can try to kill me on your next action."

 

It's not about masturbating over grammer, trying to cut someone's head off is functionally different than swinging at someone with the intent to cut there head off if it's available.  It implies Ignacius wasn't wary of quick reflexes and reactions.  It's not Ziggy's job to write Ignacius for me.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

Maybe so, but the problem is that I'm not writing Ziggy's character.  And Ziggy's player can take my sentence and say, "You're swinging at Ziggy's head, you can't back out now."

 

And, technically speaking, he'd be absolutely correct.  I did not say Ignacius would try to swing at Ziggy's head in that example ("would" being a conditional word that assumes his head is readily available for separation) I said he tried to swing at Ziggy's head.

 

While we might all know what I intended, that hardly would be an issue to the head's owner.  What's at issue is that Ignacius was locked into an action, despite the reaction.

 

And in the past, if Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head, in your example, Ziggy has already not had his head cut off.  Otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense.  It's essentially the difference between writing a short story by yourself (where action is all predetermined) and RP (which is, technically speaking, happening in the present with conditions abounding).

 

Of course, with your friends or relatively apologetic and forgiving company, intent is fine.  Then all this is meaningless, literally everything.  You could write everything in the future tense with mispelled words and completely not get your point across until you throw in a lot of OOC explanation.  If people are inclined to just let it all roll, there's nothing to worry about.

 

Open RP is just not a place where you're going to run into universally agreeable company.  Ziggy's certainly going to argue with his potential decapitation.

 

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

 

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

 

That's probably why you thought everyone were assholes (Lex Tangent, Red Roman, Donovan Clay, Bruce de Coyne, Alexander Eis, Vic Giovanni, Constance Anavictor, et al).  If all you were running into in combat was a lot of frustration, but you do things that keep landing you in combat, and you don't know how to write your way through it, you probably didn't know what was going on.

 

Believe me, you learn early to say what you "would" do rather than what you "are" doing.  After ignoring the t9ers, I never had a problem with anything else.  You learn or you don't; it's the same with any medium.

 

Lol?

 

You're saying my problem was that I just didn't know how to rp?

 

Hahahhahahahahhahaahah

 

No.

 

Yahoo rp was full of assholes. But thanks for your attempt to insult me. Too bad it didn't work out for you, cupcake.

[Ignacius]

 

The people you RP with sound like grognard assholes.

 

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

 

That's probably why you thought everyone were assholes (Lex Tangent, Red Roman, Donovan Clay, Bruce de Coyne, Alexander Eis, Vic Giovanni, Constance Anavictor, et al).  If all you were running into in combat was a lot of frustration, but you do things that keep landing you in combat, and you don't know how to write your way through it, you probably didn't know what was going on.

 

Believe me, you learn early to say what you "would" do rather than what you "are" doing.  After ignoring the t9ers, I never had a problem with anything else.  You learn or you don't; it's the same with any medium.

 

Lol?

 

You're saying my problem was that I just didn't know how to rp?

 

Hahahhahahahahhahaahah

 

No.

 

Yahoo rp was full of assholes. But thanks for your attempt to insult me. Too bad it didn't work out for you, cupcake.

 

No, I'm saying you might not have been aware of how to survive in tactical checkmate combat.  There's a reason I learned to do these things.

 

I've learned to read what people actually write.

[Warren Castille]

Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it.  That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then."  And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head.  In the end, only the wording matters.

 

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so.  It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.

 

Ziggy sounds like a dick. Anyone looking to hamstring you on your choice of tense or phrasing isn't trying to roleplay with you, they're masturbating over their English textbooks. It's poor etiquette to hold a character accountable for a writer's technical abilities.

 

I mean, I don't know what to tell you.  Poor me?  How do you know Ziggy is a dick?  For all intents and purposes Ignacius started the fight and with a total stranger.  He's not a dick for defending himself.  It's not endemic on him to just say, "Oh, you didn't mean what you typed.  That's okay.  I'll let you parry, whoever you are, and you can try to kill me on your next action."

 

It's not about masturbating over grammer, trying to cut someone's head off is functionally different than swinging at someone with the intent to cut there head off if it's available.  It implies Ignacius wasn't wary of quick reflexes and reactions.  It's not Ziggy's job to write Ignacius for me.

 

I can't think of a better way to articulate this, but let me give it a shot. There is a world of difference between "You tried to cut my head off and missed because my character moved/deflected/dodged/whatever" and "You tried to cut my head off but didn't write it well enough so it misses."

 

"You lose because I'm a better writer" completely removes a character's input and it turns into two word processors duking it out, rendering your actual character completely irrelevant to your OOC writing chops.

[Ignacius]

Yet, according to the sentence, Ignacius only tried to swing at Ziggy's neck; that example leaves no room to not continue doing it.  That may sound petty to you, someone may say "you know what I meant", but the other person only has to say, "But you didn't write what you mean, then."  And this is a stranger who, one would think, thinks he has as much right to cut off Ignacius's arm as he does to lose his head.  In the end, only the wording matters.

 

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to think of Ziggy what you want for taking the sentence literally as it was written, but truthfully Ziggy has no reason not to and isn't necessarily a bad person for doing so.  It would be my own fault for writing it so that Ignacius wasn't wary enough to stop swinging at Ziggy's neck when Ziggy's sword came out.

 

Ziggy sounds like a dick. Anyone looking to hamstring you on your choice of tense or phrasing isn't trying to roleplay with you, they're masturbating over their English textbooks. It's poor etiquette to hold a character accountable for a writer's technical abilities.

 

I mean, I don't know what to tell you.  Poor me?  How do you know Ziggy is a dick?  For all intents and purposes Ignacius started the fight and with a total stranger.  He's not a dick for defending himself.  It's not endemic on him to just say, "Oh, you didn't mean what you typed.  That's okay.  I'll let you parry, whoever you are, and you can try to kill me on your next action."

 

It's not about masturbating over grammer, trying to cut someone's head off is functionally different than swinging at someone with the intent to cut there head off if it's available.  It implies Ignacius wasn't wary of quick reflexes and reactions.  It's not Ziggy's job to write Ignacius for me.

 

I can't think of a better way to articulate this, but let me give it a shot. There is a world of difference between "You tried to cut my head off and missed because my character moved/deflected/dodged/whatever" and "You tried to cut my head off but didn't write it well enough so it misses."

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're not seeing this in the context it was originally in.  This is with total strangers.  If I'm trying to cut someone's head off, they aren't supposed to let me, especially if I don't know them.  If we're strangers, all they HAVE is my writing to go on.  If I don't write it well, that's not on Ziggy, and it's not endemic on him to grant me mercy because I didn't mean to write it that way.

 

In the end, I wrote it that way.  In small, closeted, premade groups, this kind of thing isn't an issue.  However, I don't RP with just a couple friends and I don't like having extended OOC conversations to plan out what's going on.  I really do like meeting random people for unorganized and organic RP.

 

Sometimes that means ending up in a fight with a dedicated opponent.  That's how it goes sometimes.  Then again, I learned not to write it in a way where Ziggy could interpret my words that way.  I used the present tense with a future conditional.

 

The issue rarely came up with me.

[Aya]

I find the tense rather annoying to read, and it is nice no know that the intent is to be polite.  I suppose I feel that emotes should read like a book, which are typically written in the past tense unless there is a good reason not to.  Just because an action is written in the past tense doesn't mean it is somehow written in stone ^^

 

In actions that are expected to be opposed it is easy to shift either to present tense or use wording that makes it clear the described action is an attempt, rather than slipping into the very unusual realm of the Future Perfect.  To me it just instinctively rings on the ear to as an attempt to sound more formal, and just never felt right (which is why the actual intent is helpful now to know ^^).  But writing style is a highly personal matter.

[Roen]

I am with Aya on this. Writing style is a personal preference.

 

But as to where the usage of future tense came from... I guess we have this thread to thank for the history! I would have always assumed it was out of courtesy either way.

 

I use either past or present. Lately past tense has been my preference since I find myself writing RP actions like a narrative. But I switch to accommodate whoever I am RPing with since I like for things to be consistent going back and forth!

[Ignacius]

I find the tense rather annoying to read, and it is nice no know that the intent is to be polite.  I suppose I feel that emotes should read like a book, which are typically written in the past tense unless there is a good reason not to.  Just because an action is written in the past tense doesn't mean it is somehow written in stone ^^

 

In actions that are expected to be opposed it is easy to shift either to present tense or use wording that makes it clear the described action is an attempt, rather than slipping into the very unusual realm of the Future Perfect.  To me it just instinctively rings on the ear to as an attempt to sound more formal, and just never felt right (which is why the actual intent is helpful now to know ^^).  But writing style is a highly personal matter.

 

Yeah, that's usually where the dissonance is.  Books aren't generally written in the future tense or present tense (even if they're meant to take place in the future or present).  Narratively, we are conditioned to accept all stories happened in the past (otherwise, how would you tell them?) so we don't often narrate in the present tense.

 

Honestly, if no one ever takes a swing at you that you didn't know is coming (or if you never intend to RP with people who would do that and plan to ignore anyone that tries) it never becomes an issue.  I'm certainly not out there yelling at people typing posts in the past tense.  Not that anyone's been inclined to take a swing at Orleans yet.  He's a kind of intimidating guy.

 

However, Kage did ask why he would have seen that, and I wanted to answer him.  He's probably never had to worry about tactical checkmating yet (and may never have to).  However, if you see present or future tense, particularly in the manner he typed it in the OP, the history of tactical checkmating is why.  It was the traditional form of IM and open forum RP for the purposes of contested actions.

 

If you aren't going to be drawn into life or death combat with strangers in your RP, it won't come up.  People should feel free to do so.  Like I said, nobody is going to care about what tense your character says hello in.

[Sylentmana]

I usually try to write as if the actions are happening in the now. Present tense I guess. I avoid accusations of godmodding by giving clear indication of my character's intent as well as leaving the result open for the other person to put in.

 

For example: "Cecilia makes a tackle at (insert character name here)'s legs in an attempt to trip them up." This leaves it open for the other player to decide if my character succeeds in her attempt.

[Larson]

Future tense is hands down the best way to open end a combat RP.

 

Present tense requires understanding of written language to adequately account for the possibility of change.

 

Past tense means you are constantly retconning history as the RP progresses, which bothers the crap out of me. Noo. Stop it.

 

P.S.

 

Not really sure if the tone that was happening in here was necessary/allowed, but I'll just hope it isn't representative of the community as a whole.

[Aya]

If you aren't going to be drawn into life or death combat with strangers in your RP, it won't come up.  People should feel free to do so.  Like I said, nobody is going to care about what tense your character says hello in.

I think it is much broader than that.  Even if you expect opposed action there is no need to use the Future Perfect.  It is but one option for trying to get across what you are trying to express.

 

Future Perfect: Guyaxe would swing his mighty axe to sever Jerkface's head from his body.

 

Perfect:  Guyaxe swung his mighty axe in a desperate attempt to sever Jerkface's head from his body.

Present:  Guyaxe swings his mighty axe in a desperate attempt to sever Jerkface's head from his body.

Imperfect:  Guyaxe was swinging his mighty axe in a desperate attempt to sever Jerkface's head from his body.

 

Present Conditional: Guyaxe swings his mighty axe and if all went right would sever Jerkface's head from his body.

 

It is entirely a matter of style.  I would argue that there is a most appropriate tense given context (usually perfect tense if it is part of a narrative), but that whatever sounds or feels best (or perhaps is easier to use and follow to the writer) can be justified

[LiadansWhisper]

 

I'm sure the former roleplaying userbase of Yahoo IM's roleplaying forums appreciate your generalization based on the manner they mutually and often respectably handled combat with strangers with no dice pools present or mutual backstory.

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

 

That's probably why you thought everyone were assholes (Lex Tangent, Red Roman, Donovan Clay, Bruce de Coyne, Alexander Eis, Vic Giovanni, Constance Anavictor, et al).  If all you were running into in combat was a lot of frustration, but you do things that keep landing you in combat, and you don't know how to write your way through it, you probably didn't know what was going on.

 

Believe me, you learn early to say what you "would" do rather than what you "are" doing.  After ignoring the t9ers, I never had a problem with anything else.  You learn or you don't; it's the same with any medium.

 

Lol?

 

You're saying my problem was that I just didn't know how to rp?

 

Hahahhahahahahhahaahah

 

No.

 

Yahoo rp was full of assholes. But thanks for your attempt to insult me. Too bad it didn't work out for you, cupcake.

 

No, I'm saying you might not have been aware of how to survive in tactical checkmate combat.  There's a reason I learned to do these things.

 

I've learned to read what people actually write.

 

Au contraire, mom ami, I was very good at the bullet style of combat, and the other two styles as well. That doesn't change my statement one iota.

[Sylentmana]

It's really all a preference in style and I don't really see the point in arguing over it. I feel like this thread is becoming dangerously close to having a mod step in.

[Melkire]

[Admin Hardhat]

 

Going to preemptively ask that folks cool their heels on this. If you find yourself making personal remarks, or you find yourself on the receiving end of personal remarks, it's probably for the best if you step back from the thread for a while. That will help keep this discussion on track before a significant portion of it devolves into derailing personal disputes.

 

Thank You.

 

[/Admin Hardhat]

 

 

As far as collaborative writing and roleplay are concerned, I come from a play-by-post background and the use of future tense, or present tense phrased to communicate intent and request permission, is almost unheard of there. The Grindstone was the first time in XIV or anywhere else that I'd seen such a thing. Perhaps that was and is common in AOL and Yahoo RP. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that there are plenty of ways in which to phrase actions in past tense so as to leave whoever follows up with the next post enough freedom that "godmodding" was a rare accusation (and usually enough to get the violator booted from the thread).

 

Just my two cents.

[Ignacius]

 

As a former Yahoo RPer  (hello Ayenee!), we were assholes .

 

However,  I don't remember ever rping in future tense with "woulds."  And I am an old school rper.

 

That's probably why you thought everyone were assholes (Lex Tangent, Red Roman, Donovan Clay, Bruce de Coyne, Alexander Eis, Vic Giovanni, Constance Anavictor, et al).  If all you were running into in combat was a lot of frustration, but you do things that keep landing you in combat, and you don't know how to write your way through it, you probably didn't know what was going on.

 

Believe me, you learn early to say what you "would" do rather than what you "are" doing.  After ignoring the t9ers, I never had a problem with anything else.  You learn or you don't; it's the same with any medium.

 

Lol?

 

You're saying my problem was that I just didn't know how to rp?

 

Hahahhahahahahhahaahah

 

No.

 

Yahoo rp was full of assholes. But thanks for your attempt to insult me. Too bad it didn't work out for you, cupcake.

 

No, I'm saying you might not have been aware of how to survive in tactical checkmate combat.  There's a reason I learned to do these things.

 

I've learned to read what people actually write.

 

Au contraire, mom ami, I was very good at the bullet style of combat, and the other two styles as well. That doesn't change my statement one iota.

 

 

Well, you can say whatever you'd like.  I find it questionable, but people can feel free to figure that I have no idea what I'm talking about, never saw these things, and was never involved with any great RP with great people despite the combat.

 

If you say you and your friends were assholes and the RP you had was horrible, I believe you.  My experience was vastly different, and not seeing the tenses yourself seems to be the only difference in our core history you've said you didn't experience.  I can only infer that was a cause, but it might be the company you kept.

 

I can only sympathize that you have such a low opinion of you and yours, or that you never used systems which allowed me to run a perfectly good thread for over a year nearly every single day with a completely open invitation system.  It certainly worked for me and mine, from the moment most people walked through the door of the Auroria.

 

[Kage]

To be honest, this apparent need of "would" etc seems like it is a need stemming from metamodding. The entire need of tactical checkmating just seems like a lot of needing to have a forceful OOC player writing to force such and such IC consequences.

 

I don't know, that's just my opinion of what I'm reading. Then again, I'm also not in the mood to roleplay with people who would randomly want to cut off my character's head so that might be it. Any other time it is someone sending me a tell or PM saying "Are you ok with your character being kidnapped in public?" or "Are you ok with this possible consequence?"