The Usage of Future Tense

[Gegenji]

The most Marshall can do with the past tense is assault him in the store or try to steal the apple he already bought. Or idk just try to stab him for no reason, as long as it is not while Kage is on the way to the store...because he already went.

 

What about present tense, then? If Kage "is going" to the store, then he is currently in the process of doing it - success has not been implied yet, it is just what he is attempting to do. As such, it could be interrupted just as much as future tense can be.

 

And, as Bryn pointed out, there's ways to allow for interruption even in past tense. Rather than say Kage "went" to the store, he could have "turned and began his walk to the store." Again, the success of his arrival at said store remains nebulous and open for being stopped by Marshall.

[LiadansWhisper]

I've finally decided to ask.

 

What is the reason why some roleplayers I've found are more likely to use future tense? In some or all of the cases, it's not even about compromising whether or not the other roleplayer they are interacting with will allow an action.

Sometimes it's just:

Kage Kiryuu would throw himself at the ground and then tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

Is this a common way to speak / roleplay in tabletop? Where does the future tense usage come from?

 

Edit: I've emphasized a point that has been brought up already. I know this. That's why I already mentioned it and now I've bolded it.

 

You will always see it applied to actions, and generally in the conditional tense.  It denotes someone trying to do something, but doesn't place it in the present since you can't auto an attack.

 

It's important because, grammatically speaking, RP shouldn't be done in the past tense.  It represents current actions in the context of the game's setting, so the correct tense for an actual in-game RP interaction would be in the present tense.  Many are confused because a novel, generally, is written in the past tense and therefore many believe all writing is done in the past tense.

 

Also, technically speaking, you can't use the past tense to interrupt an action.  If, as in this example:

 

It can easily be handled in past tense.

Kage went to the store in the attempt to buy an apple.

Stepping in Kage's way to the store, Marshall attempted to grab his arm while pointing a knife at the Lalafell.

 

 

You wrote in that you were attempting to buy an apple.  However, in RP, we don't generally write that we are "attempting" to do anything that doesn't inherently involve another character.  By the time you're writing, obviously, Kage is already at the store.  You don't have to conditionally write that he went there (in the game, he is there).

 

This doesn't happen in the present tense because it's deliberately describing temporal action.  Everything that is typed is specifically what is happening in the moment; there's no indication that this was completed beforehand.  That's why your above example doesn't work; in the past tense, you'd have to correctly predict via conditional notation that your character didn't buy an apple.  In the past tense, of course, you'd know you'd have bought the apple or not.

 

If you're going to have truly random roleplay where people can just hop in or out, you can't plan everything out like a book.  So in addition to being technically correct, the present tense is often more mechanically useful.

 

That means that, if you're speaking in the present tense, any conditional action becomes future tense.  That makes sense.  Whereas in a book all actions are simply being retold after the fact (and by the time of the telling are preordained), RP in real time doesn't happen after the fact.  So the use of the present tense and future conditional is the most applicable for our uses.

 

You'll find this is different in forum RP where you're typing out stories which may well be in the past tense and that the past tense is generally accepted to be the de facto standard for writing your own closed stories.

 

I fail to see how "Liadan throws herself towards the ground, attempting to grab onto his legs" isn't grammatically correct. Yet, it is in present tense and completely allows for the other party to interrupt the actions.

 

Edited to add: I need caffeine.

[Ignacius]

I've finally decided to ask.

 

What is the reason why some roleplayers I've found are more likely to use future tense? In some or all of the cases, it's not even about compromising whether or not the other roleplayer they are interacting with will allow an action.

Sometimes it's just:

Kage Kiryuu would throw himself at the ground and then tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

Is this a common way to speak / roleplay in tabletop? Where does the future tense usage come from?

 

Edit: I've emphasized a point that has been brought up already. I know this. That's why I already mentioned it and now I've bolded it.

 

You will always see it applied to actions, and generally in the conditional tense.  It denotes someone trying to do something, but doesn't place it in the present since you can't auto an attack.

 

It's important because, grammatically speaking, RP shouldn't be done in the past tense.  It represents current actions in the context of the game's setting, so the correct tense for an actual in-game RP interaction would be in the present tense.  Many are confused because a novel, generally, is written in the past tense and therefore many believe all writing is done in the past tense.

 

Also, technically speaking, you can't use the past tense to interrupt an action.  If, as in this example:

 

It can easily be handled in past tense.

Kage went to the store in the attempt to buy an apple.

Stepping in Kage's way to the store, Marshall attempted to grab his arm while pointing a knife at the Lalafell.

 

 

You wrote in that you were attempting to buy an apple.  However, in RP, we don't generally write that we are "attempting" to do anything that doesn't inherently involve another character.  By the time you're writing, obviously, Kage is already at the store.  You don't have to conditionally write that he went there (in the game, he is there).

 

This doesn't happen in the present tense because it's deliberately describing temporal action.  Everything that is typed is specifically what is happening in the moment; there's no indication that this was completed beforehand.  That's why your above example doesn't work; in the past tense, you'd have to correctly predict via conditional notation that your character didn't buy an apple.  In the past tense, of course, you'd know you'd have bought the apple or not.

 

If you're going to have truly random roleplay where people can just hop in or out, you can't plan everything out like a book.  So in addition to being technically correct, the present tense is often more mechanically useful.

 

That means that, if you're speaking in the present tense, any conditional action becomes future tense.  That makes sense.  Whereas in a book all actions are simply being retold after the fact (and by the time of the telling are preordained), RP in real time doesn't happen after the fact.  So the use of the present tense and future conditional is the most applicable for our uses.

 

You'll find this is different in forum RP where you're typing out stories which may well be in the past tense and that the past tense is generally accepted to be the de facto standard for writing your own closed stories.

 

I fail to see how "Liadan throws herself towards the ground, attempting to grab onto his legs" isn't grammatically correct. Yet, it is in future tense and completely allows for the other party to interrupt the actions.

 

It's in the present tense (in the future tense, it's "Liadan will throw herself...").  However, "...attempting to grab..." is a conditional future tense.  It is indicating an action which has not happened yet, hence the use of the future conditional with the present tense, as I explained.

[LiadansWhisper]

I've finally decided to ask.

 

What is the reason why some roleplayers I've found are more likely to use future tense? In some or all of the cases, it's not even about compromising whether or not the other roleplayer they are interacting with will allow an action.

Sometimes it's just:

Kage Kiryuu would throw himself at the ground and then tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

Is this a common way to speak / roleplay in tabletop? Where does the future tense usage come from?

 

Edit: I've emphasized a point that has been brought up already. I know this. That's why I already mentioned it and now I've bolded it.

 

You will always see it applied to actions, and generally in the conditional tense.  It denotes someone trying to do something, but doesn't place it in the present since you can't auto an attack.

 

It's important because, grammatically speaking, RP shouldn't be done in the past tense.  It represents current actions in the context of the game's setting, so the correct tense for an actual in-game RP interaction would be in the present tense.  Many are confused because a novel, generally, is written in the past tense and therefore many believe all writing is done in the past tense.

 

Also, technically speaking, you can't use the past tense to interrupt an action.  If, as in this example:

 

It can easily be handled in past tense.

Kage went to the store in the attempt to buy an apple.

Stepping in Kage's way to the store, Marshall attempted to grab his arm while pointing a knife at the Lalafell.

 

 

You wrote in that you were attempting to buy an apple.  However, in RP, we don't generally write that we are "attempting" to do anything that doesn't inherently involve another character.  By the time you're writing, obviously, Kage is already at the store.  You don't have to conditionally write that he went there (in the game, he is there).

 

This doesn't happen in the present tense because it's deliberately describing temporal action.  Everything that is typed is specifically what is happening in the moment; there's no indication that this was completed beforehand.  That's why your above example doesn't work; in the past tense, you'd have to correctly predict via conditional notation that your character didn't buy an apple.  In the past tense, of course, you'd know you'd have bought the apple or not.

 

If you're going to have truly random roleplay where people can just hop in or out, you can't plan everything out like a book.  So in addition to being technically correct, the present tense is often more mechanically useful.

 

That means that, if you're speaking in the present tense, any conditional action becomes future tense.  That makes sense.  Whereas in a book all actions are simply being retold after the fact (and by the time of the telling are preordained), RP in real time doesn't happen after the fact.  So the use of the present tense and future conditional is the most applicable for our uses.

 

You'll find this is different in forum RP where you're typing out stories which may well be in the past tense and that the past tense is generally accepted to be the de facto standard for writing your own closed stories.

 

I fail to see how "Liadan throws herself towards the ground, attempting to grab onto his legs" isn't grammatically correct. Yet, it is in future tense and completely allows for the other party to interrupt the actions.

 

It's in the present tense (in the future tense, it's "Liadan will throw herself...").  However, "...attempting to grab..." is a conditional future tense.  It is indicating an action which has not happened yet, hence the use of the future conditional with the present tense, as I explained.

 

Okay, I'm not a grammar teacher, but because she's making the attempt RIGHT NOW as opposed to in the future, I have always seen this as present tense. Yes, it leaves open future actions, but her action is in the here and now.

 

And I'm sorry for the huge quote, I'm on my phone.

[Larson]

@Bryn: I suppose coming from the community I come from where anything and everything could be used against you OOC, I may have a paranoia of covering my ass to circumvent the accusation of godmoding. If there are any other former GW2 rpers here, they might know what I mean.

 

In combat, future tense becomes the most ideal. If I type, "Vyce twists sideways, attempting to dodge the blow." I can get a nastygram in whisper. Yes, I know how dumb it is.

"Vyce would twist sideways, attempting to dodge the blow." runs much less risk of someone getting their jimmies rustled.

 

 

In spite of my arguments, I don't use future tense all the time. There are actions where I was use present tense. Future tense I'll only use personally when it is an action that heavily depends on the reaction from someone else.

I never use future tense (unless by accident) because I am in the moment when I RP. I think of everything as right here and now unless my character is talking about something that happened.

[Gegenji]

I'm still of the mind that folks shouldn't have to worry overmuch about the tense as long as the base concept gets across. RP is, in my mind, supposed to be fun and interactive and enjoyable for all those involved. If you get too wound up on the minor details like proper tense usage and punctuation and all that, then I feel that detracts from the enjoyment.

 

If someone wants to imply an unknown by using a future tense, is that really such a bad thing? Is anyone's RP really stymied by someone saying that they would pull out a book rather than just pulling the book out? Events may be "happening" so that present tense is the "correct" tense to be in, but is that really a big deal?

 

There is obviously a difference between

 

1.) Doug ate the bagel

2.) Doug is eating the bagel; and

3.) Doug would eat the bagel

 

But, as has been shown, each one can be interrupted in some fashion. Even if it requires, in a sense, a mild bit of "retconning" for the sake of RP. Doug may have ate the bagel, but if someone states that "a couple bites in" or "just as his teeth break its crisp surface" they are still acknowledging that Doug was in the act of eating the bagel and is attempting to have something happen during it. A sort of forcing into a present tense (or even future, if it kept him from eating the bagel at all) that effectively changes the flow of events, if you will, for the sake of RP.

 

And if Doug's player doesn't mind that someone has interrupted his eating of his bagel, regardless of the tense it was presented in, is there any harm?

[Ignacius]

I'm really just hoping someone knows where it's really common and might give me a better understanding. Do you think it's common in LARP? Tabletop? Certain regions??

 

The last time I asked someone about why they roleplayed x way I got chewed out >.> When I literally just asked them "I'm curious and pretty new. Why do you do ___?"

 

Like I explained, in interactive roleplay (both tabletop and active; whether that's a book game, game, or instant messenger), the common form is that it's written in the present tense and conditionals are written in the future tense.

 

For example, the past tense, past conditional:

 

Ignacius drew his sword and tried to cut off Ziggy's head.

 

Doesn't work because it immediately implies Ignacius didn't cut his head off, which we (technically speaking) don't know yet (the sentence is in the past tense, action is in the present, and reaction is in the future).

 

The same example in full present is:

 

Ignacius draws his sword and tries to cut off Ziggy's head.

 

This works better, but still makes no sense if you actually cut off Ziggy's head.  The operation on "try" makes it conditional without using a word like "would", but necessarily implies that Ziggy's head doesn't get cut off (in which case, he wouldn't be trying, he'd be doing).

 

Worse, this implies after reaction.  If Ziggy is somehow dodging out of the way after Ignacius draws his sword, he's probably not going to make it.  Ziggy, if he can, is going to GTFO before Ignacius is finished drawing his sword.  A lot is happening there.  However, according to the sentence, Ziggy is now reacting to Ignacius's attempt to cut off his head.  Even if he is no longer there, even if he has his own sword out, even if his own sword is moving to cut off Ignacius's arm, by this point, Ignacius is locked into his action.  No matter how ridiculous, the present action can't be changed.  He is trying to cut off Ziggy's head whether Ziggy is there, his head is available, or not.

 

So the correct form implies the conditional future tense (and even in the previous example, we assume the future tense is implied by the verb "try"):

 

Ignacius draws his sword and would try to cut off Ziggy's head.

 

Or, more commonly:

 

Ignacius draws his sword and swings, intending to cut off Ziggy's head.

 

 

This has the benefit of being in the correct tense and implying a conditional future action.  That way, if Ziggy happens to not have his head in front of Ignacius's sword, he can move or abort the action.  He can make sure he moves to try to cut off Ziggy's head, or stop swinging even if his daughter jumps in front of Ziggy asking Ignacius to spare him (unlikely).

 

I hope that helps.  It's a lot different from writing a short story.  People can go one way or the other, but the most common is to RP in the present and set actions conditionally in the future if you feel they'll be contested (to avoid having your action "locked").

[Coatleque]

There is a world of difference between your character eating a bagel vs your character trying to force the bagel down someone else's throat. You are confusing what you think is 'future' tense with what is really just one-sided present tense.

 

'would try to' is the same as 'attempts to' which are both present tense happening now, but can be altered by the other party's actions.

[Caspar]

I figure leaving most attempted actions open ended in present tense is enough. Once you've written that, then you can write the projected hypothetical result, or better, write it after you've succeeded...

[Ignacius]

I'm still of the mind that folks shouldn't have to worry overmuch about the tense as long as the base concept gets across. RP is, in my mind, supposed to be fun and interactive and enjoyable for all those involved. If you get too wound up on the minor details like proper tense usage and punctuation and all that, then I feel that detracts from the enjoyment.

 

If someone wants to imply an unknown by using a future tense, is that really such a bad thing? Is anyone's RP really stymied by someone saying that they would pull out a book rather than just pulling the book out? Events may be "happening" so that present tense is the "correct" tense to be in, but is that really a big deal?

 

There is obviously a difference between

 

1.) Doug ate the bagel

2.) Doug is eating the bagel; and

3.) Doug would eat the bagel

 

But, as has been shown, each one can be interrupted in some fashion. Even if it requires, in a sense, a mild bit of "retconning" for the sake of RP. Doug may have ate the bagel, but if someone states that "a couple bites in" or "just as his teeth break its crisp surface" they are still acknowledging that Doug was in the act of eating the bagel and is attempting to have something happen during it. A sort of forcing into a present tense (or even future, if it kept him from eating the bagel at all) that effectively changes the flow of events, if you will, for the sake of RP.

 

And if Doug's player doesn't mind that someone has interrupted his eating of his bagel, regardless of the tense it was presented in, is there any harm?

 

In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference.  Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

 

This format was originally created for freestyle RP on IMs and forums.  Tabletop games tend to have systems for combat, and in fact, some of these made it over (some well-structured threads had dice emulators, DMs, etc.).  Freestyle open RP didn't have that.  There was a mechanical version on IMs called quicktype (where someone would declare an action, an impartial third party would type a nine word sentence, then both players would try to type it as fast as possible; least mistakes won, ties were settled by who posted faster).

 

However, the de facto standard of freestyle RP combat was the "tactical checkmate".  In it, essentially, people declared actions and reactions until someone couldn't weasel their way out of getting hit (if it stretched too far, people could call a tactical checkmate, because you can't bend your back completely over without some serious backstory, for example).  And for tactical checkmate combat (and later, for pretty much everything) the present tense with future conditional was the way you learned to type.

 

In that example I gave above, action locking was usually what got you killed.  Ziggy could draw his sword and cut at Ignacius's elbow as he stepped to the side.  If Ignacius is trying to cut off Ziggy's head, he has no exit, he is still trying to cut off Ziggy's head even if Ziggy is about to dismember him.

 

That's why there's so many "woulds" and future conditional verbs in a lot of old-school RPer's styles, even though that's not seen in many novels or short stories.  An RPer, especially in some kind of contested action, tends to set a future conditional on a present action, saying Ignacius is drawing his sword and swinging, with the intention of hitting Ziggy's head if it's still in the area.  However, in that wording, the swing can change and meet Ziggy's sword instead of Ziggy's head as soon as Ignacius reacts to the situation.

 

Tactical checkmating is still the de facto standard today if your character gets in a dust up with another character and it wasn't planned.  However, FFXIV has a lot more DMs and dice rolls just in the community.  The population is, at this point, getting a bit young to the point where some maybe started RPing in games instead of forum threads and IMers, so they've grown up with the tools around them.

 

In short, it's not necessary for any action (and most people don't care too much), but grammar suddenly can become a big deal if someone decides to take a swing at you and you don't have a dice setup beforehand.

 

That, and it's good RP courtesy, if such a thing exists anymore, to leave any contested action available for future reaction.  If your character grabs a bottle of wine and pours it, trying to fill someone's cup, that person can't cover the cup and say no thank you.  If your character begins to tip the bottle, intending to fill it (notably here, intending to fill it in the future, making it a conditional future tense), your character can stop before he pours wine all over her hand and the table.

[Zael Aders]

I've stuck with present tense simply because the game's default emotes use present tense. 

 

e.g. /dance

 

Ludivine Goultard dances. (or) Ludivine Goultard dances with [x]

 

I've been told by professional writers and published authors in person that there's nothing wrong with using one tense or the other, just so long as you are consistent. Sometimes people just have their own way of emoting.

[Warren Castille]

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.

[Dante Abigor]

I personally believe it started in combat oriented Rp, where players did not want to seem like they were forcing a sequence by extending the hand of God into the Rp, and then out of habit it started bleeding into all of their rp like a nervous twitch.

 

I didnt start doing it myself until I saw it done repeatedly, since usually you can write around things in a way so that its open ended without stating the full effect of what happens. Lately thought it is somewhat harder not to do it, since I see like....almost everyone I rp with do it.

 

But yes, I think at this point its just a cautious form of Rping so that the "GOD MODE" finger isnt pointed at someone like a really bad day in Salem.

[Gegenji]

In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference.  Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

 

Understandable, but Kage made a point to mention that this was a curiosity on people using future tense and indefinite statements outside of a combat situation. Such as Doug and his bagel.

 

Obviously, if it's a combat or any manner of conflict situation, it's "better" for someone to leave an action open-ended to allow the other person or persons involved to react or even interrupt what is being done. Using a future tense - or a present/past tense that does not implicitly imply success - is recommended and even encouraged in these sorts of situations.

 

The matter at hand is when people are using it for mundane things. Again, such as Doug and his bagel. And, since it's such a small thing that will likely have little to no impact on whatever RP may or may not come from it... I would say that the tense used with Doug and his bagel is irrelevant in the grand scheme as things. Just as long as the message that Doug has a bagel and his current goal of eating it is understood.

[Warren Castille]

It only sounds like an issue if you're in it to win instead of telling an interesting story. The whole concept of trying to write someone into a corner with a "tactical checkmate" reeks of AOL speed-posting bullshit from 1997.

 

I've always felt someone should give as good as they get. If you randomly get into a fight with a stranger and they're completely no-selling reasonable attack posts because they're just that good, they're not trying to have a dramatic scene, they're trying to measure their dick in public.

 

My memories of that era are not fond.

[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.

[Ignacius]

In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference.  Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

 

Understandable, but Kage made a point to mention that this was a curiosity on people using future tense and indefinite statements outside of a combat situation. Such as Doug and his bagel.

 

Obviously, if it's a combat or any manner of conflict situation, it's "better" for someone to leave an action open-ended to allow the other person or persons involved to react or even interrupt what is being done. Using a future tense - or a present/past tense that does not implicitly imply success - is recommended and even encouraged in these sorts of situations.

 

The matter at hand is when people are using it for mundane things. Again, such as Doug and his bagel. And, since it's such a small thing that will likely have little to no impact on whatever RP may or may not come from it... I would say that the tense used with Doug and his bagel is irrelevant in the grand scheme as things. Just as long as the message that Doug has a bagel and his current goal of eating it is understood.

 

Which is fine, but Kage's original post example is not eating a bagel.  His example is correct in use for contested combat.  I figured that's why he was asking.  I highly doubt he's having lunch interrupted so often that he needs to make his bagel consumption subject to tactical checkmating.

[Warren Castille]

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.

[Ignacius]

It only sounds like an issue if you're in it to win instead of telling an interesting story. The whole concept of trying to write someone into a corner with a "tactical checkmate" reeks of AOL speed-posting bullshit from 1997.

 

I've always felt someone should give as good as they get. If you randomly get into a fight with a stranger and they're completely no-selling reasonable attack posts because they're just that good, they're not trying to have a dramatic scene, they're trying to measure their dick in public.

 

My memories of that era are not fond.

 

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.

[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.

[Larson]

It only sounds like an issue if you're in it to win instead of telling an interesting story. The whole concept of trying to write someone into a corner with a "tactical checkmate" reeks of AOL speed-posting bullshit from 1997.

 

I've always felt someone should give as good as they get. If you randomly get into a fight with a stranger and they're completely no-selling reasonable attack posts because they're just that good, they're not trying to have a dramatic scene, they're trying to measure their dick in public.

 

My memories of that era are not fond.

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.

[Warren Castille]

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.

[Warren Castille]

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.

[Gegenji]

In the case of eating a bagel, it likely doesn't make a difference.  Most of this doesn't until a certain kind of context.

 

Understandable, but Kage made a point to mention that this was a curiosity on people using future tense and indefinite statements outside of a combat situation. Such as Doug and his bagel.

 

Obviously, if it's a combat or any manner of conflict situation, it's "better" for someone to leave an action open-ended to allow the other person or persons involved to react or even interrupt what is being done. Using a future tense - or a present/past tense that does not implicitly imply success - is recommended and even encouraged in these sorts of situations.

 

The matter at hand is when people are using it for mundane things. Again, such as Doug and his bagel. And, since it's such a small thing that will likely have little to no impact on whatever RP may or may not come from it... I would say that the tense used with Doug and his bagel is irrelevant in the grand scheme as things. Just as long as the message that Doug has a bagel and his current goal of eating it is understood.

 

Which is fine, but Kage's original post example is not eating a bagel.  His example is correct in use for contested combat.  I figured that's why he was asking.  I highly doubt he's having lunch interrupted so often that he needs to make his bagel consumption subject to tactical checkmating.

 

Yeah, that's why I made my original post about using it in combat as well, leading to Kage going back and clarifying with an example being the "would head to the store" situation. Obviously in a situation of conflicted interest - where combat is the main situation of it - leaving what you are doing open is a best practice to follow.

 

However, it is all still rather circumstantial. While it's good to be open-ended, as long as someone isn't using their tense to "godmode" as situation ("I said I cut off your head, so it happened"), I think even combat could be written in any tense and the implications could still be understood. Grammatically janky perhaps, but if both sides understand what happened and are happy with the results... then it ultimately doesn't matter, as you eloquently mentioned earlier.

 

In the end, the usage of tense only matters as much as those participating feel it needs to be.

[Kage]

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.