The Usage of Future Tense

[Flickering Ember]

On topic, 'would' is being made into a mountain from a mole hill. You might find you have a lower blood pressure should one stop worrying about such silly things. I guess there are two types of people: those who are bothered by it and those who really can't be bothered to care.

 

It's exactly the sort of people who aren't going to get worked up over it who don't post in threads like these. Thought I would speak up for those sort of people, at least.

 

TL;DR: It's not a big deal unless you make it one. Also I have never played or seen 'tense gymnastics' and have only seen 'would' be used like 3 times in the past 6 months.

 

Shruuug

You assume that the attempt at answering curiosity is a matter of really caring or getting worked up over it. Seeking knowledge for something one does not understand does not mean that one is getting worked up over it.

 

I've come to the part of the conclusion that there is no real "origin" but I am now curious as why people -do- prefer it for combat or otherwise roleplay.

 

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

[Ignacius]

 

Or, you know, don't pick fights with strangers.

 

That's just generally good advice.

 

If you do, though, talking about it OOC is probably a good idea.

THIS. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. It is possible to talk to strangers OOCly and come to an agreement/compromise instead of doing tense gymnastics. Whether John Doe stabbed Berrod in the heart ten years ago or if he's woulding into the sun, a quick discussion between John and Berrod's players can make things flow well with each one sticking to their style/tense. If John and Berrod don't want to communicate, then...then they're not going to gain much by roleplaying with each other.

 

That seems a bit harsh.  I get along fine with plenty of people who started out trying to kill a character of mine for some reason, mostly without asking.  I always found it somewhat... I don't know, unprofessional I guess is a good word, to seem to drop character as soon as conflict reared up and start making some kind of OOC script.  I certainly didn't need it to get into trouble.

 

I mean, if my character, Heaven forbid, calls someone a rank amateur in the course of a conversation, and that character decides to take a swing at him, I'd feel it a bit rich at that point to then pause the whole scene to OOC out with the character how we were going to handle it.  I prefer OOC to be the last refuge when things aren't working.

 

I'm more than willing to talk it out if someone really wants to, but I'd never assume I need to start making demands on how this combat should go or end up, especially since I might just as easily not end up in combat.  Or that we'd end up in combat with something else.  RP can go a million different ways, and I'd rather keep my options open on that front than to start locking up mechanics.

 

That may be different for other players, but I try to be flexible to keep the RP going as best I can so that we don't get bogged down in OOC.  Again, that's a personal preference rather than a piece of practical advice; you all should know what you're capable of performing ICly as far as how to manipulate a scene.  Still, I don't think it's good policy to say that people can't hash out combat ICly without predetermining it OOC without having anything to RP about.

 

The richness of your RP proliferates by the amount of people you can effectively RP with, I find.

On the note of seeming unprofessional...I can't really be bothered with anything close to the pretense of being professional when I'm sitting in my boxers** playing pretend on the internet. I do agree that the last part of my statement -is- a bit harsh, because I too, have met a few strangers and bounced off good fight scenes with them without OOC communication. I attribute that, however, to how open I tend to be regarding the other player's writing, and my love for rolling with the punches (and getting my character bloodied). 

 

Regarding 'pausing a scene ooc' -- it's not a movie, it's not running and then STOP. There's always a pause between posts, and if part of that pause involves me whispering the other guy to ask if his punch is coming faster than my character's position affords him to block, then so be it! It can only help the scene for me, not harm it. If the other person reacts unfavorably to this, then I know that this is someone I don't want to invest any time in. 

 

I don't make demands on how the combat should go. I don't script anything (most times...! Sometimes there's an idea another roleplayer and I are bursting to deal with and we plan and play). I simply clarify things that may or may not happen, sometimes ask what the other player would like to see, and at times ask their permission to allow this to happen. I have done roleplay combat with a few of people on here, they know how it goes, and I would like to think that it's a very comfortable process (when undertaken) that only results in a clearer, more enjoyable depiction of conflict/combat. Nothing's locked up. Everything is open. Communication is not a sudden lockdown onto one path. It's just...communication! It can serve many purposes.

 

I do not think it's mandatory at all for people to have to work things out OOC rather than hash it out IC. I do that, a lot! However, I believe if someone is -incapable- of or unwilling to do so when the need arises, then there's a problem. 

 

If the richness of my RP proliferates by the amount of people I can effectively RP with, I think that what I've been saying and doing has some definite merit!

 

I do understand the quoted view on things (and can relate to it on some level), but as it works one way, so does it work the other. It's always good to be open to the idea of having to communicate with a stranger instead of wrestling with prose. Your characters may be fighting, but as writers you're supposed to be working together to build a scene that is enjoyable for you both. Sometimes that may involve working with each other's odd tense preferences! 

 

Sometimes. In the end, to each his own, always.

 

**Berrod's player usually sits in a towel because he is lazy trash who doesn't like to get dressed when he's at home

 

Certainly that, and a lot of what I'm saying comes from two very distinct points:

 

1.  I'm a relatively old and involved active-format RPer.  This stuff was ground into my head at 13 in a Dragonstrike chronicle being played on a BBS (which dates me).

 

2.  Also at a young age, I started running the RP.  My personal style doing this is to run it from a character, adding outbound elements from the perspective of within the group.  I ran my YIM thread probably between 15 and 16, and that's colored a lot of my perception.

 

I was counted on, pretty early, to be the guy that made sure everyone had fun.  So I've got a pretty wide breadth of RP styles in my background at the same time I've also had to be able to adapt to new players and make them feel welcome.

 

At the same time, whenever I had to go OOC to explain something, the flow of RP would simply crash.  Things can't move forward when you're working things out.  So it's always behooved me to be descriptive and outline future consequences for actions even in cases where others might not warrant it.  For me, it was a way to also provide description.  Swinging a sword with the intent to cut off someone's head is a lot different than swinging a sword at shoulder height, of course.  So for me, it's been so deeply ingrained in my style and is so natural for what I do that it feels strange not to do it.

 

In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good.  You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs.  I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side.  That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write.  It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like.  People get a very distinct picture.

 

And I know professionalism isn't the best word for it, but it's the best I can come up with.  I pride myself on the RP experiences people who play with me get and, for better or worse, I take it very seriously.  On the plus side, it's meant I've got a lot of experience working things out in-character that even ten years ago I'd have worked out OOC.  I can provide people ways out, talk them out of combat, give them ways to stop injured and not kill them, made them feel camaraderie, all without stopping the RP flow.  I mean, I might be on my computer in my pajamas, but it's kind of the same feeling you get when you're tanking a primal and everyone in the party points out how good you did.

 

Of course, you'll get more props as a good RPer than a good party tank...

 

I always prefer the method that causes the least stops.  I can ask or tell the other character what I need to, or I can include that in the original post, and I tend to opt for the latter.  Given my background, that works well for me and seems to elicit the most enjoyment from whoever I'm playing with.  I feel like if you're OOC bouncing ideas off each other and executing them, that's RP for the benefit mostly of everyone else.  If I give the person enough to work with on my end that he has fun, that's also RP for the benefit of him.

 

It's personal opinion at this point, of course, but I've always used the format because I think it's more fun for the other player to bounce things off of without having to plan.

 

I wouldn't recommend the format for that reason, though.  You have to manage a lot of scenes to camouflage DMing like that without godmodding.  I like the effect, though.  It feels more like giving the other person things to do and getting them back rather than doing a lot of interior planning.

 

I've done both, and I feel like that the IC method can make one of the most tense and sometimes un-enjoyable parts of random RP, character-on-character combat, feel fun, free-flowing, and satisfying for the actual participants.  I dislike how most character combat turns into a knot-in-the-pit-of-your-stomach confrontations, especially when you're starting to talk to someone OOC (even if it's entirely cordial).

 

I mean, that's my personal take on it.  Otherwise, the format I think is highly useful in combat, but it's an older formality.  If you know how to apply it, though, it can be an exceptionally useful story driving tool.

[Ignacius]

I'll repeat it: Combat RP decided by picking apart grammar instead of intent isn't roleplaying.

 

Well, if you'd like to not even debate your unfair generalization of the point, then go forth and feel confident in your resolution.  It doesn't do much especially for the conversation's topic at the moment, though.

 

What is there to debate? Ignoring someone's character, that character's history and abilities, on the pretext of outwriting someone isn't roleplaying, it's posturing yourself based on your education. There's been plenty of excellent RP had with people who aren't great writers, and declaring that their attacks fail because the writer did a poor job of stating something is working the meta so hard that I can't believe we're even having to discuss why that isn't a fun or fair thing to do. That's why I called it dick measuring earlier: That sort of RP doesn't serve to engage or tell stories, it exists to reinforce egos and showcase talent with words. If it works for you, that's splendid, because it means you found people who enjoy writing the same way you do.

 

There's people who also think using Oddjob is perfectly fair, or that Smash should only be played on Final Destination with no items.

 

If I wrote my criminal poorly, and no one believed me or took me seriously, that's my fault.  If I can't also write combat well, that's also my fault if I use combat well.  If I couldn't, it may have limited the amount of people I could play with because I might have retconned and blisted anyone who wouldn't fight outside those terms.

 

I, however, can do it.  Regardless of what you think of people who would use it, it's a proven commodity and has worked for a great many roleplayers.  In the same thread where people are insulting people behind their back for using "would" too often, I'd say poor writing during combat isn't proportionally worse.

 

If you find nothing of value in it at all, that's fine.  It would hardly seem fair to call people who are taking cues in combat from wording to not be roleplaying, but if you insist on it, then there really is nothing to debate.  You've already disenfranchised the entire concept.

[Val]

Some people will just roll with the punches.  Other people will completely freak out and cause a massive volcano of drama.  I'm allergic to the latter, so I'd prefer just to smooth things out OOC before I start swinging.

 

This is pretty much how I feel. I know there are people out there that could care less, but I'd rather just avoid problems and be safe. I abhor drama explosions and would prefer to keep away from it. 

 

Another alternative is to just watch/observe people. I quit posting on the RPC for multiple reasons, but I still lurk and watch people. You can learn a lot by how someone interacts with others. Same goes for watching others RP in game. After a few sessions, I can generally tell if I could tolerate someone enough to do things with.

[Kage]

In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good.  You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs.  I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side.  That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write.  It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like.  People get a very distinct picture.

So this was my example.

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

 

Personally, I would write this and not even think twice about it (and also prefer to write it in these two possible ways).

 

Kage Kiryuu threw himself at the ground with the aim of tackling the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

Kage Kiryuu throws himself at the ground, aiming to tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

I'm curious, and since you seem to have far more experience with the possible reasoning, why would you prefer the opening post example over the other two if we stick with the format? Or, what makes it more preferable to the others?

 

For me, there's still ways for the other to 'interrupt' the aim and Kage's throwing of his body. Attempting to catch him mid-air, kicking him etc.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

[Val]

 

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.

 

Idunno how to break this to you, but most of the people I know/knew/have known from Ayenee were elitist pricks that tried to wave their RP around like a status symbol rather than just enjoy it for what it was. I'm sure that there were some good people there. Hell, I am in touch with a few, but most of them are (and continue to be) arrogant pricks. I'm in a facebook group with some of these so-called "old schoolers" and judging by the tone of their posts, not really much has changed.

[Dravus]

Role-play is just role-play. It's not something I get up in arms about and so I'm perfectly happy for people to approach my character and try to attack them if they so desire because there's nothing holding me in place and forcing me to participate.

 

If it seems like something that'll be intriguing then I'll likely go along with it. If it seems like something that'll be dull or bizarre  - such as being attacked in the middle of a populated settlement in view of the guards - then I'll send a polite message telling the player that I'm not interested in what they're offering.

 

Yet I detest shutting myself off from spontaneous, random role-play. When it works out it can be a lot of fun and I've always found it very bizarre to see how random role-play has become shunned by many unless every last little detail is planned out in advance.

 

Though I can't say I'm terribly surprised - the bulk of role-play I see these days tends to revolve around sitting around in taverns talking about doing stuff rather than...actually doing it.

 

On a side not, the generalisation of entire groups of role-players is getting pretty tiresome. Let's avoid that, eh? In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

[Warren Castille]

If I wrote my criminal poorly, and no one believed me or took me seriously, that's my fault.  If I can't also write combat well, that's also my fault if I use combat well.  If I couldn't, it may have limited the amount of people I could play with because I might have retconned and blisted anyone who wouldn't fight outside those terms.

 

I, however, can do it.  Regardless of what you think of people who would use it, it's a proven commodity and has worked for a great many roleplayers.  In the same thread where people are insulting people behind their back for using "would" too often, I'd say poor writing during combat isn't proportionally worse.

 

If you find nothing of value in it at all, that's fine.  It would hardly seem fair to call people who are taking cues in combat from wording to not be roleplaying, but if you insist on it, then there really is nothing to debate.  You've already disenfranchised the entire concept.

 

That's not at all what we're discussing. This is:

 

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.

 

Ignoring intent due to the writing posted, regardless of understanding. ESPECIALLY if you're acknowledging the articulation wasn't there, but are punishing them for it anyway. And since you're very staunchly anti-OOC communication, you won't even allow for the discussion to clarify by the sounds of it (Edited for snarky tone) it's possible the other person would have no idea what they did "wrong." You're, in effect, saying that you can treat anyone however you like so long as you, the writer, can find holes in their post, regardless of what the character intent is. After all, if they're not a good writer, it's their fault!

[Flickering Ember]

 

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

 

 

You assume that the attempt at answering curiosity is a matter of really caring or getting worked up over it. Seeking knowledge for something one does not understand does not mean that one is getting worked up over it.

 

I've come to the part of the conclusion that there is no real "origin" but I am now curious as why people -do- prefer it for combat or otherwise roleplay.

 

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

 

This is the part I was responding to. Why do people prefer it? There isn't an answer really. It's personal preference. Often times, people don't think about it. They just do it. If you fawn over every little detail in your post then it will take you 10 minutes to write anything. That's an exaggeration but in my opinion having a fast flow of emotes is more fun than waiting for a carefully crafted post. (Though, I do enjoy slow RP and and am patient enough to wait for it. Just a preference!)

 

For the record, I have seen people who use present tense be accused of godmodding. I personally am not a fan of conditionals, 'if's, 'attempts', or 'tries' in my emotes but I put them in any way so no one will accuse me of godmodding. I would rather say: "Ember hits you with her hammer." I can also reword that to: "Ember swings her hammer at you." But I find that to be uncertain. Often, when I word it like that people don't even acknowledge me!

 

In the RP community, it's better to upset someone's grammar pet peeve than it is to be accused of godmodding. And that's why people use "would".

[Ignacius]

In Kage's original example, in my personal opinion, the form is good.  You'd want to dive at someone as if you intend to tackle them, because although you might not actually tackle them, that denotes a very particular and descriptive action as opposed to just diving at someone's legs.  I mean, you can infer that it's in a tackling motion, but you may want to dive between them, come up like a football player and aim for the chin, roll through and try to end up on the other side.  That's endemic to the form, but I also find that it's good for the way I write.  It saves you from having to OOC out what will happen or even what it will look like.  People get a very distinct picture.

So this was my example.

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

 

Personally, I would write this and not even think twice about it (and also prefer to write it in these two possible ways).

 

Kage Kiryuu threw himself at the ground with the aim of tackling the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

Kage Kiryuu throws himself at the ground, aiming to tackle the others' feet in an attempt to make him stumble.

 

I'm curious, and since you seem to have far more experience with the possible reasoning, why would you prefer the opening post example over the other two if we stick with the format? Or, what makes it more preferable to the others?

 

For me, there's still ways for the other to 'interrupt' the aim and Kage's throwing of his body. Attempting to catch him mid-air, kicking him etc.

 

"People don't think" is the answer to many of life's questions.Which is not good or bad really. People are not omniscient. What one may not notice, someone else might.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what your point is. If you dislike the topic or see no reason then to say "It is what it is," then I also fail to see what value you have to the discussion and why you choose to stay.

 

In the more general sense, the courtesy sense, it was because if someone comes off the sidelines and tackles Kage sideways, or if his target moves and his legs aren't there anymore relatively early in the motion, etc.  It gives you, your opponent, and the bouncer at the bar the option of interfering without autoing anything or breaking the syntax.

 

If there's no one to stop you throwing yourself at the ground, it's not strictly necessary, but if someone wants to grab you and yell, "He's not worth it!" he'd likely have to do so before Kage actually dove.  At least, that's the purpose behind the old convention.  You can use all sorts of wording; I personally try to be a lot more open and friendly so I wouldn't devil the details at all if someone did interrupt him after the fact.  It does look funny if someone grabs Kage off the floor, already entangled with trying to grab some legs and dealing with whatever is coming his way (I'm assuming Kage's version of Ziggy isn't taking being tackled lying down, so to speak).

 

It's also worth pointing out that using the conditional at that point, especially today, implies someone probably ought to do something.  That's where you get people "would"ing up to the bar and "woulding" a glass of wine.  In a way, you get the sense that the person wants to be interrupted.  That's why I don't recommend it for general RP.

 

Generally, if Kage's in a fight and no one's stopping him, by the format, he should dive at the legs and would tackle Ziggy, putting the dive in the present tense and giving the tackling of Ziggy (poor Ziggy) the conditional.  That way, Ziggy's character knows what's coming and can probably surmise that Kage's arms are spreading out, he intends to hit him in the midsection, etc.  It gives him a lot more idea of what's going on, even if it actually doesn't go on unless he's hit.

 

Now, personally, I don't mind the others either, though personally I think the wording is a little weird.  The first just gives your opponent the ability to get out of the way before the tackle without breaking syntax, but also gives other people the chance to tell Kage that Ziggy is the indestructible Yor, Hunter from the Future, etc.  It's more inclusive.

 

So that's why the format of your first response might actually be the best from a mechanical sense, simply because more people can respond to it (and you might actually avoid the confrontation altogether if it's a problem).

 

Me personally, I would say use whichever seems best for your situation, but what you're doing without thinking is using an old-school form in probably the most polite way possible.  I wouldn't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.  I think it's probably a better idea especially if it's the first thing happening in combat (giving everyone a fair shake to disengage without having to OOCly tell someone it's coming) than the other two.

 

But none of those three fail to get the point across.  The only forms that are taboo are autoattacks (i.e. "Kage dives at Ziggy and tackles him by the legs").  Placing the conditional future early is just an invitation to people to react before the shit hits the fan, essentially.  It's considered good RP etiquette to provide as many people the opportunity, especially early.

[Ignacius]

If I wrote my criminal poorly, and no one believed me or took me seriously, that's my fault.  If I can't also write combat well, that's also my fault if I use combat well.  If I couldn't, it may have limited the amount of people I could play with because I might have retconned and blisted anyone who wouldn't fight outside those terms.

 

I, however, can do it.  Regardless of what you think of people who would use it, it's a proven commodity and has worked for a great many roleplayers.  In the same thread where people are insulting people behind their back for using "would" too often, I'd say poor writing during combat isn't proportionally worse.

 

If you find nothing of value in it at all, that's fine.  It would hardly seem fair to call people who are taking cues in combat from wording to not be roleplaying, but if you insist on it, then there really is nothing to debate.  You've already disenfranchised the entire concept.

 

That's not at all what we're discussing. This is:

 

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.

 

Ignoring intent due to the writing posted, regardless of understanding. ESPECIALLY if you're acknowledging the articulation wasn't there, but are punishing them for it anyway. And since you're very staunchly anti-OOC communication, you won't even allow for the discussion to clarify by the sounds of it (Edited for snarky tone) it's possible the other person would have no idea what they did "wrong." You're, in effect, saying that you can treat anyone however you like so long as you, the writer, can find holes in their post, regardless of what the character intent is. After all, if they're not a good writer, it's their fault!

 

Fine, we can discuss that.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is.  The entire discussion arose because someone bothered to use the conditional and future tense in an action and we've had people outright say they laugh behind their backs at it.  I'm not sure why you'd think that using someone's poor writing to escape an attack is completely unacceptable but using someone's poor writing to escape someone's poor come-on line isn't.

 

This is RP; we are what we write.  I've already said multiple times I don't mind talking about this OOC, but quite frankly this situation that you're using as a template for your argument is simply not common to me.  I can write exactly what I mean without too much effort and I haven't run into anyone who's engaged me this way that didn't lose by making a mistake.  And I've certainly made mistakes and not cried myself to sleep over it.  Most often, mistakes aren't made; I've had better outcomes than dice battles pretty much throughout.

 

The fact is, if someone's not a good writer, it really is their fault.  And if they wrote a post that their character took a swing at another character without properly balancing themselves for anything else, that's what they wrote and may completely make sense in character.  You can't backtrack every time something happens that you didn't like any more than you can undo a dice roll that didn't go your way or undo something that you said because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to.

 

I'm not sure why the double standard, but I can operate with or without it.  To say that it's not RP because someone doesn't write combat well is like saying someone's not RPing because their suave character can't drop a slick pick-up line.  It's definitely roleplaying.  If you don't like it and wouldn't ever do it, that's your prerogative.  But I have done it, and not done it, and I've been able to enjoy and thrive in both environments.  I'd never disparage one or the other simply because I personally dislike it.

[Flickering Ember]

In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

 

This.

This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

 

It's the difference between:

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

 

Or

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

[Ignacius]

In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

 

This.

This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

 

It's the difference between:

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

 

Or

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

 

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

 

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person.  RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

 

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point.  The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack.  You can't simply write my character being hit.  However, you can try to hit her."

 

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat.  Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

 

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

[Flickering Ember]

In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

 

This.

This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

 

It's the difference between:

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

 

Or

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

 

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

 

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person.  RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

 

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point.  The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack.  You can't simply write my character being hit.  However, you can try to hit her."

 

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat.  Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

 

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

 

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

[Ignacius]

In fact, I think it highlights an interesting point: that many role-players seem assume the worst about their brethren. It's counterproductive.

 

This.

This is pretty much the source of RPer disagreements and drama. As soon as a RPer has evidence that another RPer has done something "bad" they don't even question it. I have seen this over and over and over again throughout my years of RPing. People will talk about it in a private channel they have with their friends or guild chat. They are free to gossip about any number of things that might actually be untrue if they had only dared to talk to the person for clarification. And it's so universal too! Who HASN'T gossiped to their friends or guild at some point?

 

It's the difference between:

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a private channel) RPer A: omg! I am fighting at the Grindstone and Ember is godmodding!

 

Or

 

Ember slams her hammer down on RPer A.

(In a whisper) RPer A: "Hey! I don't understand the way you worded your post. Can you please clarify?"

 

Although to be fair to Ember in subject A, she's not godmodding, she's autoing.

 

I do agree that you talk to the person before you talk to your guildies about that person.  RPers improve with education, and Ember may be new and not even understand that an "auto" isn't referring to her auto-attack function.

 

Though I don't think it's a matter of understanding on the part of RPer A at that point.  The person would have to say, "Hey Ember, that's an auto attack.  You can't simply write my character being hit.  However, you can try to hit her."

 

But then, that's something that ought to have been handled already by the time a roleplayer starts getting into combat.  Hopefully, Ember would have met some mentor that didn't titter behind her back and blacklist her who could explain how this works.

 

At least I like to think there are still a lot of mentors out there.

 

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

 

They're sort of opposites of each other.  An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds.  Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge.  The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

 

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated.  The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch.  However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc.  It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

 

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds.  They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

[LiadansWhisper]

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

 

They're sort of opposites of each other.  An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds.  Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge.  The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

 

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated.  The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch.  However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc.  It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

 

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds.  They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

 

I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things.  I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction.  You don't give the other party a way out.  This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding.  People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

 

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

[Val]

Honest question: What is the difference between godmodding and "auto-ing"?

 

They're sort of opposites of each other.  An auto is any action which "automatically" succeeds.  Like when you have a hammer which you swing and hit someone without giving them a chance to dodge.  The hammer and swinging is perfectly fine, it just assumes the other character eats it.

 

Godmodding is using a trait or action which, by its nature, cannot be defeated.  The classic example is the man who can eat that hammer without a scratch.  However, it's more common that people have electrified weapons that can't be blocked, killing the entire room with poison that nobody could have known he left there, etc.  It's essentially something which is immune to any action.

 

In a way, they're opposites because autoing implies that something succeeds no matter what, and godmodding implies that no matter what, nothing succeeds.  They're both technically etiquette violations and it's fine to allow someone to do it if that's part of your story, but in open RP, they're both pretty much forbidden.

 

I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things.  I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction.  You don't give the other party a way out.  This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding.  People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

 

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

 

I've heard the terms used both interchangeably and to denote something entirely different from one another. Autoing was something that people did that, back in the day, was referred to as T3. Most people (quite obviously) frown upon its use. Godmodding was always referred to as just making a ridiculously stupid OP character. Like, hella stupid OP. Over time I think the terms just came together and, really, they kind of fit. It's still forcing things on people they don't want.

[Faye]

I've...literally never heard anyone try to break these up into two separate things.  I've always heard "godmodding" defined as basically taking an action without allowing for a reaction.  You don't give the other party a way out.  This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the term "autoing," much less as something separate from godmodding.  People normally cover both of the situations you are describing under "godmodding."

 

mod note: I cleaned up the quote a little bit. Put stuff back in the right boxes.

 

Godmodding is a generic term than can be used to mean anything from powerplaying, to autohitting, to metagaming, to forcing actions onto someone else's character, though I see it used to specifically describe the last one most often. Though you're right, autohitting is just a form of godmodding, they aren't really two separate things.

[Warren Castille]

The only time I've heard anyone to refer to "Godmoding" in RP in years has been to force an action or consequence. It's not just DBZ-tier heroics, it's not allowing your opponent a response.

[Nero]

I haven't particularly had reason to use future tense. Generally I word things in past or present tense, but the action itself has no actual conclusion or consequence attached to allow the other party or parties to respond, especially in free-form fight scenes.

 

e.g. "He swings/swung his sword in a wide sweep." "With a crash he leapt towards the banquet table." "He slipped a white powder into the punch, hoping he wasn't seen."

 

I can't think of any contexts in which anything else would be simpler to use, and I don't feel any particular need to control the other party's response in any circumstance.

[Val]

I haven't particularly had reason to use future tense. Generally I word things in past or present tense, but the action itself has no actual conclusion or consequence attached to allow the other party or parties to respond, especially in free-form fight scenes.

 

e.g. "He swings/swung his sword in a wide sweep." "With a crash he leapt towards the banquet table." "He slipped a white powder into the punch, hoping he wasn't seen."

 

I can't think of any contexts in which anything else would be simpler to use, and I don't feel any particular need to control the other party's response in any circumstance.

 

The only time I, myself, have used future-tense is to describe a character's reaction to what-if scenarios. It's a very rare occurrence, but sometimes I feel as if it is warranted depending on the situation. For example, if Val is at a distance and is running at the person, I simply post that he's doing such and, if he gets close enough, he would attempt such-and-such. At that point, it opens the entire sprint up for the opponent/whatever to interfere with. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, I don't see it being particularly overpowering as, if multiple actions are given, it allows the opponent to choose which one to allow/defend against. Like a chain, if the first is stopped, then none of the others should follow.

[Faye]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

 

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

 

I think you're in the wrong thread...

[Dravus]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

 

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

 

I think you're in the wrong thread...

 

...and this what happens when I have multiple tabs open at once.

[Val]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

 

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

 

I think you're in the wrong thread...

 

...and this what happens when I have multiple tabs open at once.

 

Better strike through it so people know you don't mean it.

[Nero]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if people think the policy is 'dumb' or 'stupid'. Claiming that it's 'dumb' or 'stupid' doesn't achieve anything and it's needlessly hostile. Nor should the site change to appease those who ultimately are just badmouthing the site, the site's policies and the site's moderators by approaching the situation in such a manner.

 

Feedback should be kindly worded and constructive. It can be direct and blunt without being aggressive. Though that seems to be something quite a few role-players struggle to pull off. I won't claim to speak on behalf of those responsible for running the site but I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot more willing to take feedback into consideration if it's worded in a much more pleasant manner and free of excessive hyperbole.

 

The above post has been moved to the appropriate thread.

 

You may view the post by clicking here.

 

Bear in mind that when posts are moved, they are placed according to timestamp.