Feb 28, 2016, 7:50 PM
If a game's runner agrees with everything that Halicron says and wants to mandate or heavily suggest that players conduct themselves in that fashion, it could well go on a game in an official capacity.
Halicron's Rules For Good RP (which be more like guidelines)
-
If a game's runner agrees with everything that Halicron says and wants to mandate or heavily suggest that players conduct themselves in that fashion, it could well go on a game in an official capacity.
-
Yeah, agree with Sammi. Preferences can be different player by player, but it's absolutely true that games have their own cultures, and all of the things outlined in this might be true or desirable for a game that Halicron is staffing on.
-
On top of what Roz says, I believe that a game's founders should be absolutely clear on what they expect of their game's culture, which is going to involve some imposition of subjective values on others. That way, players who don't like it can choose to patronize other games (unless there's no other game in that niche) and players who accept it are all on roughly the same page regarding conduct.
Basically every game has a consent policy, but I don't think that goes quite far enough. You also can't boil it down as far as vague platitudes like "Be excellent to each other." I also think that Halicron's list is much longer than necessary, but some people might want a document like that. There should be at least a couple of short paragraphs on what the vision is and how players are expected to behave, that everyone sees when they're new to the game.
-
@Sammi Why? I mean, if players aren't being outright horrible to each other, I don't really care what specific RP guidelines they follow.
-
For the same reason that games have theme and system documentation. Yes, RP can happen without any of the above, but when players come into conflict with one another, then those conflicts can either be fought out or resolved according to the clauses that everyone has agreed to by playing on that game. When there's no conflict, it serves to put players on the same page, which allows for more streamlined cooperation (this is part of why not-for-profits have mission statements). When there is conflict, you have the "contract" to fall back on.
-
Having a mission statement is good.
Giving bad advice about bad RP is not so good.
-
I've noticed that the less time I've spent playing RP police, the more fun I have.
-
@Sonder Same. I don't often see folks getting into conflict over things like Halicron's rules spell out. It's not something I would ever choose to regulate.
-
I'm usually not one to say that rules are better than no rules, but maybe, looking back on mu*'s for the last 25 years, the lack of a culture of consciously improving RP on games hasn't been the best way to go about things.
-
@Ide The trouble is that - as you can see from this thread - people have differing definitions on what constitutes "good" RP and what may or may not improve it. Just as in the real world, people enjoy different kinds of writing - or enjoy something despite the writing. I have no issue with Halicron's list as a "Here's what I think makes good RP." But I wouldn't play on a game that tried to force me into a particular writing style.
- 25 days later
-
@Halicron said:
A common one you see is 'Bill walks up, then gasps and faints to the ground'. Unless you're playing an amoral savage, if Bill's a friend, your character MUST get up to respond to that entrance.
Or just play like me and go ahead and play an amoral character.
-
@Duntada said:
@Halicron said:
A common one you see is 'Bill walks up, then gasps and faints to the ground'. Unless you're playing an amoral savage, if Bill's a friend, your character MUST get up to respond to that entrance.
Or just play like me and go aa@Duntada said:
@Halicron said:A common one you see is 'Bill walks up, then gasps and faints to the ground'. Unless you're playing an amoral savage, if Bill's a friend, your character MUST get up to respond to that entrance.
Or just play like me and go ahead and play an amoral character.
Do you mean you only play amoral characters? Because that sounds rather limiting.
-
It was more of a joke, since there was the statement of only having one choice. My inner first world anarchist fights against that.
- 4 years later
-
I've made some pretty substantial edits to the 'Rules for Good RP'.
I usually make some minor tweaks about once a year. This year I sat down for a while and talked with a lot of players I like and respect. I noted their good habits and wrote down their pet peeves. I looked at things I did that people liked, or disliked, and re-read a lot of the criticisms posted in the comments. Then I took all of that back here and applied it to what I'd written (originally more than eight years ago at this point).
I tried to edit and cut back as much as possible so it wasn't so much dense, heavy text. I hope folks enjoy it and find it helpful. It's not the only way to roleplay, but it is what works for me. I hope it works for you, too.
Look me up if we played together! It's a shame how we lose track of each other. I almost never check this account, though, so it's easier to find me on one of the above games.
-
@Halicron Since your changes to the rules came four years later I expect the new version to be far superior. Let's read.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel They edited the original post.
-
@Arkandel I guess in hindsight I should have more clearly logged the changes I made. Some of them were pretty minor at the time or just editorial adjustments. I sat down and started really cutting and snipping pieces here and there to pull out fluff and move things around so they made a bit more sense.