Aug 4, 2017, 9:53 PM
Being purely IC is a sham, because the setting isn't represented faithfully as independent.
Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?
-
Being purely IC is a sham, because the setting isn't represented faithfully as independent.
-
@Coin said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:
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.
While what @Coin said is true on one level-- ultimately you the writer is responsible for what the character does and whatever you decide is right-- I think it dismisses character-building that goes on in my head, at least.
My characters aren't perfectly consistent, but they have habits, they have different personalities and drives, and aren't just arbitrary. And I, as a fully fleshed out real life person, am fairly consistent. I try to approach that level of consistency with my characters, too.
I try to be true to my character and what I call "the Voice I hear in my head" when a character reaches a certain level of depth. That said, previous comment indicated this is never an excuse, and when it comes to having a fun environment I'll adjust it within reason. (If I adjust too much I might lose the Voice and maybe that is just a character that isn't fun in the current environment/play-group to play-- so maybe I should consider dropping it)
-
Much like the son of Joseph Stalin that got captured on the front during WW2, I alter my writer's ethics as little as possible.
Chet, hero of the Soviet Union.
-
Huh...
My phone has not received a text from @Coin
Does that mean I am not liked girl?! -
@Catsmeow i checked my phone too.
-
@Meg - Obviously we must now text each other.
-
@Catsmeow I got an email from Coin. Apparently he has come into the possession of a large sum of money for which I have been nominated trustee after something happened to a long-lost uncle in Nigeria...
He/Him
-
-
@ixokai 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?:
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.
While what @Coin said is true on one level-- ultimately you the writer is responsible for what the character does and whatever you decide is right-- I think it dismisses character-building that goes on in my head, at least.
My characters aren't perfectly consistent, but they have habits, they have different personalities and drives, and aren't just arbitrary. And I, as a fully fleshed out real life person, am fairly consistent. I try to approach that level of consistency with my characters, too.
I try to be true to my character and what I call "the Voice I hear in my head" when a character reaches a certain level of depth. That said, previous comment indicated this is never an excuse, and when it comes to having a fun environment I'll adjust it within reason. (If I adjust too much I might lose the Voice and maybe that is just a character that isn't fun in the current environment/play-group to play-- so maybe I should consider dropping it)
I feel like you're missing the part where I said, " under any criteria ever posited by any roleplayer (or critic of television or literature)," which is the crux of my position.
-
@Warma-Sheen -- I have, in fact, have exactly these kinds of conversations with other players, both to resolve IC drama neither of us wanted and to create IC drama we thought would be interesting and fun to play out. At least two or three people on here can confirm as much, since I had said conversations with them, and those interactions resulted in some of the most fun RP I've ever had.
With that said, the conversation is one I've generally only had with regular RP partners that I know and have some trust in, because "Hey! Let's deliberately fuck things up for our characters because it seems more fun!" is a pretty delicate balancing act and has the chance to trash both IC narrative and OOC enjoyment.
-
@Catsmeow said in Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?:
Huh...
My phone has not received a text from @Coin
Does that mean I am not liked girl?!I am also not a girl @Coin likes.
-
If both parties are't enjoying themselves, the roleplay has failed somewhere along the line.
As Coin said above, there is no magical seperate mind that decides what the character does. "IC is IC" being treated as there being no OOC effects based on your beheavior is a silly notion too often used to put your enjoyment before, and often at the cost of others in a cooperative exercise.
Of course this doesn't mean you should always be a doormat, but flexibility is required.
Caveat: I do not always pratice what I preach, but I try.
-
@Coin said in [Where do you draw the line in having your character take what would otherwise be an "IC" action for them?]
I feel like you're missing the part where I said, " under any criteria ever posited by any roleplayer (or critic of television or literature)," which is the crux of my position.
I might be.
Because I have no idea what the loving hells that is supposed to mean.
I don't mean this to be antagonistic. Your "position" is not clear at all to me. Granted, I'm up at stupid AM so clarity of thought is not my strong point at the moment.
-
@Thenomain - Well obviously we have to text each other now