Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?

[ixokai]

@Rusalka said in [Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?]

And yes, I do consider scene stealing and derailing to be potentially damaging to other people's fun. I've seen it ruin scenes and plots ("I solve the whole thing immediately, by myself!"), and the people involved in the worst cases didn't seem to care because "it's what my character would have done lol." (I have several "wonderful" stories of what not to do, in fact, but those are probably better suited for the Hog Pit.)

On the 'I solve the whole thing immediately front', I agree and disagree, and as we just had a big whole Lets Talk About Plots on M1963 tonight, and we talked about just this thing, I have various thoughts.

First, those people with an urge to solve everything in everything they do -- they are robbing everyone else of fun. This is bad.
Second, however, is that sometimes a player might come up with a clever approach using their niche powers that really do solve a scene all by themselves. This is good. To not let them shine in this way, to not reward their cleverness and specialty, is to put plots on a rail and that is bad.
Third, if someone tries to solve everything there is very often a likely consequence you can or maybe should apply. Rarely, I think, is a scene constructed where someone can really win it individually without going all out on such a way there might not be collateral damage at worst or unnamed consequences at best. These should be applied by the GM carefully: you shouldn't punish players for cleverness, you shouldn't wield consequence as a punitive measure because your plan got derailed. Your problem here was having a rail at all.
Finally, its very, very important to let each and everyone who can reasonably do so -- shine in their moment. Note the first -- if the character is playing like they solve everything ever that's another matter. But if you have your iconic moment of awesome, the GM shouldn't hold to a rigid set of reality that punishes you for it unless you went a bit crazy. Let the player shine.

This is all a little off topic but, hey, you know, it happens.

All of this can be boiled down to: Collaborate. This is a collaborative environment where we all want to have fun.

But accept sometimes the unexpected happens and that's a good thing.

[Rusalka]

@ixokai said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

Second, however, is that sometimes a player might come up with a clever approach using their niche powers that really do solve a scene all by themselves. This is good.

This is actually one of my favorite things when it's done well. My guidelines for this are that it's awesome as long as a) it's not the same player repeatedly doing it, and b) other players have had, or will have, the chance to do something. Sure, they're not going to solve the mystery or kill the baddie (the player in the spotlight did that), but they can actually get some sort of RP in. Maybe they got to gather a few clues, or held off some of the baddie's minions. Maybe they get to shine in another scene, or investigate the area after the bad guy's dead. Something other than showing up, getting one pose in, and then watching some other player do away with every single shred of conflict.

A lot of responsibility for avoiding this falls on the GM, but a sufficiently irresponsible and selfish player can still fuck things up. A few months ago, I ran a plot where a group of PCs needed to gather up some cursed artifacts that'd been auctioned off. They'd been bought by different people, so it was an easy way to give each PC something to do, if they were interested... until the most powerful character in the room decided that nah, she was just going to send her even more powerful pet mage after them all. Why? Because it "was what her character would do." This is exactly the kind of situation where she could and should have found an alternate option.

[surreality]

@ixokai said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

Finally, its very, very important to let each and everyone who can reasonably do so -- shine in their moment. Note the first -- if the character is playing like they solve everything ever that's another matter. But if you have your iconic moment of awesome, the GM shouldn't hold to a rigid set of reality that punishes you for it unless you went a bit crazy. Let the player shine.

This is what I think is the #1 qualification of a good storyteller, or a good group/faction leader (whether that position is IC or OOC). So often, the IC roles of this nature go to the people great at taking the spotlight themselves -- when in fact it's really the opposite of what makes for a healthy IC group, where creating and sharing those opportunities is the real key to creating maximum fun for everyone involved. This certainly includes that player's character as well, but to no greater or lesser extent than anyone else's in the group.

So in addition to 'is this fun for me' or 'would this be extremely unfun for others', there really is 'would an alternative end up being a lot more fun for everybody, even if that thing is not the bestest wishlist ideal for everybody in the room (because everyone having a good time, just like everyone being miserable, is pretty contagious)?'

It's also worth mention that polling folks for ideas is never a bad idea. Sure, there are the folks who have no clue themselves (and then nope everything anybody else suggests), which is common enough to be discouraging, but often enough, people can and will surprise you with something that turns out to be strangely perfect and inspiring that you may never have expected. Those moments, to me at least, were always the ones I loved best: not when I was able to scratch something off some character goal wishlist in the back of my head, but when something I never even thought of suddenly takes off and takes on a life of its own, organically moving in a direction I never could have predicted.

[Arkandel]

I don't know if it's the nature of the hobby, the tropes behind it (in many books and movies the hero basically does all the things themselves) or players themselves being somewhat placed on the socially awkward spectrum but it's undeniable to me that a lot of people playing just don't like to share the stage. They want their toys all to themselves, and they try - subconsciously or even deliberately - to delegate everyone else into being their audience.

On table-top the guy who splits off from the group and tries to do their thing is usually marginalized fast because everyone else is glaring at him, but on a MU* they do occasionally get away with it; how many times have you been in an 'important' scene, even ones ran by staff, where one or two PCs hog the spotlight and everyone else just has to watch them? As a ST I had the honor of running plot where the one person with Fate and Space 5 wanted to solve the mystery in a couple of rolls at the start before it was clear yet what kind of mystery it was, or having to deal with the other person who when other PCs started also doing things paged me to say it 'got crowded in the PrP' (four people...) and stepped out.

But characters are also often made that way. I'm not talking about twinks but... trying to be able to fit all roles. Talk to spirits, punch the bad guys, investigate the things, do the politics. Sometimes the system sort of allows it but usually they just fake it well enough, or for long enough, that they expect no less and it suffocates plot around them since they go in with the demand that it's about them.

The reactive safeguards are, in order of preference, other players and staff. The latter will often not see it, or they'll actually misread the situation completely and consider those players to be good for their game because hey, they're active! The former often say nothing about it (direct confrontation is another thing our hobby isn't very well known for seeking out) and become inactive or at least disillusioned.

The correct approach is to keep in mind that OOC trumps IC. Getting everyone to play the game and have a share in the fun is orders of magnitude more critical than what the game is or who wins it.

[Apos]

@ixokai said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

All of this can be boiled down to: Collaborate. This is a collaborative environment where we all want to have fun.

So basically everyone should stop, collaborate and listen.

[Tinuviel]

@Apos I both hate and love you.

[Coin]

Too many long-winded replies to read.

My answer is pretty straightforward: whatever I, the player, decide the character is going to do, is what is IC for the character.

Source: MY REAL LIFE FUCKING EXPERIENCE.

I am a fully fleshed out real life person who makes real life decisions on a daily basis and those decisions do not, under any criteria ever posited by any roleplayer (or critic of television or literature), follow any sort of consistency.

Yesterday, I had trouble texting the girl I like. Today, I am texting three. My mood, the amount of sun in the sky, your mom's underwear choice half-way around the world, and how much coffee my work budy has had before 10 am might OR MIGHT NOT subtly change what I decide.

We pigeonhole characters into "is this IC or OOC for them" because we're mostly uncomfortable realizing that people vary A LOT MORE THAN CHARACTERS DO, because characters are constructs that we define and limit to show them to people in identifiable ways.

I have had characters who were terminal horn dogs just... turn down sex. For no reason. "But Devlin ALWAYS WANTS TO FUCK, what's wrong, Coin? Are you okay? Is Devlin okay? THIS IS SO OOC."

No, it's not OOC. He just doesn't want to fuck. Sometimes Devlin doesn't want to. Sometimes he does. The latter is more common.

Now, NARRATIVELY speaking, when we're talking about television and literature and movies and what not, yes, consistency of action is important because it keeps the story flowing (though I still absolutely roll my eyes whenever people go 'that character would never doooooo thaaaat' MAN STFU, PEOPLE ACT CRAZY ALL THE FUCKING TIME), but while roleplaying?

Fuggedaboutit.

Also, this extends even further. "Coin, why did your character do that, it's going to lead to a bad place!" "It's what he would do." <--- perfectly reasonable response, EVEN when taking the above into account.

'Cuz I am my character's puppetmaster. I decide what he does.

Usually it's consistent. But sometimes it's not. Deeeeeal with it.

Bring on the complaints. I haven't heard many on this directed at me, though, sooooooo...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

This post ended up way more aggressive than intended, but I'm totally committed now, so fuck all of you.

[Coin]

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

I am a fully fleshed out real life person

In before someone disbelieves.

That means you, @Thenomain. You robot.

[Kanye Qwest]

Everyone knows the RP chooses you and we are all completely helpless in the clutches of these poorly fleshed out 'people' we pretend to be, boiled down to two or three traits and some grudges that are absolute and immutable.

[Meg]

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

This post ended up way more aggressive than intended, but I'm totally committed now, so fuck all of you.

If you ever post anything less aggressive now, we'll know it's OOC for you.

[saosmash]

I used to have more sympathy for this argument, that my character just wouldn't do this that or the other thing, but meh. Take responsibility for your preferences. You wrote the damn character.

There are lots of things my characters will or won't do but if it's inconvenient to the RP, if I can't find a way to make it work, isn't that my responsibility to deal with and not the other players'?

THEY ARE THE CHARACTERS. YOU ARE THE AUTHOR. YOU OUTRANK THEM.

[Coin]

@Meg said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

This post ended up way more aggressive than intended, but I'm totally committed now, so fuck all of you.

If you ever post anything less aggressive now, we'll know it's OOC for you.

Your mom is OOC for you.

[Meg]

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Meg said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

This post ended up way more aggressive than intended, but I'm totally committed now, so fuck all of you.

If you ever post anything less aggressive now, we'll know it's OOC for you.

Your mom is OOC for you.

The character of @Coin is aggressive and makes bad jokes. That's all you get to be from now on.

[Coin]

@Meg said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Meg said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

This post ended up way more aggressive than intended, but I'm totally committed now, so fuck all of you.

If you ever post anything less aggressive now, we'll know it's OOC for you.

Your mom is OOC for you.

The character of @Coin is aggressive and makes bad jokes. That's all you get to be from now on.

That's all that I was ever taught to be.

[Warma Sheen]

@surreality said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Warma-Sheen I have to second @WTFE on this. You're putting forward a demonstrably false hypothesis, and then trying to use that to prove something else entirely here that is well beyond its scope.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just asking questions to find out what other people's experiences are with this particular topic as compared to mine.

[Thenomain]

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

I am a fully fleshed out real life person

In before someone disbelieves.

That means you, @Thenomain. You robot.

You keep bragging about the flesh you collect, so I believe it. The human suit you are making out of it almost masks your demonic nature.

[Coin]

@Thenomain said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:

I am a fully fleshed out real life person

In before someone disbelieves.

That means you, @Thenomain. You robot.

You keep bragging about the flesh you collect, so I believe it. The human suit you are making out of it almost masks your demonic nature.

I'm sorry, all I see is 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101111 01110000 00100001.

[Misadventure]

@Coin said in [Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise

I'm sorry, all I see is 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101111 01110000 00100001.

010101000110100001100001011101000010011101110011001000000110110101100101011000010111010001101001011100110111010000101110

[Kanye Qwest]

balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

[kitteh]

@Coin Pretty much 100% what you said.

I feel like a lot of people oversell the 'doing what is IC' point as if it is really as simple as that. Few people in this hobby are devoted method actors. Most of the time character actions are a combination of IC context and OOC agenda. Just think about it for a second and it's pretty obvious. When a character is making a tough/meaningful decision, it could probably go either way. That's the definition of the decision being difficult. And so the deciding factor is usually OOC preference. As a corollary 'I'm just doing what's IC' isn't any kind of special protection or something praiseworthy, nor is it particularly bad. It's bad when people act in ways that clearly are clearly non-IC, but that doesn't make the inverse good.

So I RP what I enjoy (and usually what I think people around me will enjoy, to whatever degree I know and can supply that without bending over so far my spine snaps) and I'm generally not going to go to any effort following through on things I don't. That's not the same as avoiding IC consequences or ignoring the world; I will deal with all that stuff to whatever degree is required, but I'm not going to put substantial personal energy into stuff I don't care about or enjoy (or know that at least others I care about are enjoying, sometimes its worth playing out X because it's meaningful to another person and neutral in value to you).

I also try and be clear about telling people what I like, especially stuff that might be iffy otherwise (say, arranged marriages on L&L games). People usually follow the path of least resistance, so you can often guide RP in ways everyone will enjoy more with a smidgen of communication.