Posts made by Lithium

@Bobotron I've been meaning to watch that, wonder if hulu or netflix has it.

There's also nothing /wrong/ with a person rp'ing that they /feel/ they have been avoided. It's entirely possible to RP being /wrong/ about stuff. In fact, we should do this more often in general. So many times do I see people RP things their characters should not know, because they simply do not wish to have their character hurt or inconvenienced.

This is wrong to me.

If my character is going around behaving that they're being avoided because there is no RP, and saying that they /believe/ they are being avoided, that is in no way shape or form making decisions /for/ anyone else. It is one characters opinion on the reality of never seeing the other.

That isn't removing anyone's player agency at all.

@noveria I am to busy coding my own game. Not very helpful I know, but I am nearly to the point where I will need to start trying to get other staffers myself and can't be of much help.

@wanderer For me when I get stuck I will read a book. Especially a /bad/ book, or at least, bad in my opinion. Though this is admittedly a last resort.

I prefer to listen to music, play a game I've already played a billion times before, then my mind can just wander but I still am engaged in something, some of my best ideas come out of that.

The bad book thing, that's just a narcissism thing, I know I can do better than the drivel I am reading, so I do it.

I want to point out, that I said they should contact staff. I never once said they should remove player agency from someone else. Just find a way to RP their own story that isn't reliant on someone RP'ing with them who seems to be going out of their way /not/ to.

If that means RP'ing that someone is avoiding them, then you are RP'ing what your character is feeling. It may or may not be true. If RP'ing that the world is keeping them apart, that may or may not be true. The key here is to find a way to play the character that isn't reliant upon someone else.

Especially when the other player is not helping.

Staff should always be involved at this point, or at least kept abreast of things so they can help one way or the other.

@Sunny I think you're misconstruing what I meant, or maybe I didn't convey my point properly.

People talk about their opinions of things all the time. If a character is trying to reach another character, and has done everything in their power to reach them, but cannot, it is not unreasonable for a person to think they are being avoided. There is nothing wrong with RP'ing that the character thinks they are being avoided, because it is just the characters opinion.

At no time does whatever my character says actually determine reality for another person's character. It's just my characters opinion.

There are reasonable reasons for not being able to meet up, but people also behave unreasonably all the time.

If Sam Spade actually weren't around, weren't RP'ing with tons of other people, weren't ignoring my @mails, and weren't giving me vague answers that they never act upon, I'd be more inclined to be patient.

I'm not saying just because someone isn't around, or RL intrudes, that you write them in a negative fashion, or say what has happened to someone else.

@Sunny This isn't a case of schedules not meshing... and note I said

"or just angry with the world at going against them in this fashion."

This means they RP that they haven't been able to meet up with someone for whatever reason. The hard truth of the matter is that they /haven't/ been able to RP with someone. Maybe it is avoiding them, maybe it's just not being able to meet up, but @Roz and @Sunny ... in the case presented /in this thread/ the person playing Sam is not just /not around/.

They are around.

A lot.

They are for whatever reason, playing multiple scenes with multiple other people with multiple other characters and making vague promises about RP that have gone on for a long time.

When is to much to much? When do you get the right to move on and just play your character?

@Roz Sure they are. They are making the time to RP with everyone else BUT the person who needs the RP. They have @mailed. They have paged. They have done everything reasonable to try and be conducive to RP.

Sam is avoiding the RP while RP'ing with others.

This isn't a case of not being around at all and unavailable, this is a case where the person is RP'ing with /many/ other people, on /many/ characters, and not RP'ing with someone who is connected to their character, so that the person can forwards their own RP.

What should they do? Nothing? Give up on their character? Allow it to be held hostage by another? There comes a point where you have to say enough is enough and have fun playing the game rather than rely on that other person.

I'm not saying you don't communicate what you are doing, in fact I would put that in an @mail to Sam Spade in this case, saying look, I need to move forwards on this and I am left with little options here.

Yadda yadda.

Personally (for whatever that is worth) once a character hits the grid, their loyalty to 'canon' is gone. They are free to do whatever it is they do, so long as it makes sense for the character in question. If Sam is avoiding the RP, then they are avoiding the character, and the character is free to react to that. Maybe they just get frustrated that they are being dodged, or just angry with the world at going against them in this fashion.

You should never put your fun on 'hold' for another unless you choose to, RP the character, have fun, use the fact that Sam Spade /isn't/ communicating with your character as an RP launching point.

Especially if the person is active with both that character, and others. They have made a choice to not RP with you at that point, you reap what you sow.

I'd give no more than a few days of unresponsiveness to @mails to set something up before I would go my own way. If you are concerned about it, contact staff, tell them what's going on and why you are going to do what you're going to do otherwise you are being held hostage by someone else and that's not right.

This is part of why I dislike FC driven games, the idea of being 'true' to the character is so subjective, people see a character one way, another see's it another, based on their own perceptions and it's rare that anyone's take on a character is universally lauded.

I think it's a good idea, but I don't know how active I would be. I also don't do facebook. At all.

I am incredibly private with my writings until I feel something has reached a point where I am comfortable with it. It may not be perfect, but it's the best I can do, then I am happy with it so others can read it. If I feel something can still be improved, it doesn't see the light of day. I have a hard time even giving my editor bits and pieces so they can see progress if I don't feel it's ready for a full read.

Part of this is because I tend to write in layers, there's things that don't fully make sense until they are explored/revealed later. Sometimes it's a long time later and I don't want even my editor to read something and not eventually get to where it'll be explained

@Cobaltasaurus Ouch... I try to write 1000-2000 words a day. I fail a lot, but that's the goal. comforts

This is very true. I used to RP with Mercedes Lackey a long time ago, and while it was interesting RP, she very much had a story to tell and wasn't all that interested in stuff outside that story. Wonderful woman, very nice person, but really really loved having the story planned out in advance it seemed.

@ThatGuyThere I actually do take Tate of Holly Holm, but I am hoping that they all evolve to where it could be any one of them on any given day. That would be awesome to me, great fights all around.

@Thenomain Ok.

I apologise for upsetting you or belittling what you were saying with how I responded. It wasn't my intention and I am sorry that it happened.

I honestly didn't know we were having anything resembling a 'heated' discussion, just, discussing.

My mistake.

Again, I apologise.

@Warma-Sheen I don't find it strange because when it comes down to it, TS is just porn. Written dirty stories that may, or may not, have impact upon the characters lives depending on a whole bunch of other circumstances.

Couples watch porn together, but then some people are anti-porn, or afraid to admit they like it.

I also never claimed he said it was wrong, I honestly want to know the 'why' of it, same question I'd put to you, why do you find it strange?

I am honestly curious not trying to be argumentative, just opening a dialogue with why I feel the opposite.

@Thenomain I don't think it's belittling to call any disagreement a disagreement over semantics. We were arguing the same 'cultural point' using different terms for the most part. @Ganymede got that. The fact that we were butting heads on it was because of semantics, or our inability to express the same concept in ways that were acceptable to each other.

@Thenomain So essentially, we're sticking over semantics. You're against the use of the term keep IC and OOC separate, because in general it should just be considered good game play and being respectful of the theme and your fellow players. I think Gany is right that we're not necessarily apart in how we feel just not wording it in ways acceptable to the other.

We need to come up with a different name other than 'tools' that is readily and easily understandable as a concept maybe?

As a 'tool', keep your in character actions disparate from your own knowledge/emotions. I don't know of a better way to put it than IC/OOC separation.

I will also admit to being a jerk upon occasion, I like the immersion of a whole world that is not wholly within anyone's control. It's part of why I don't tend to play on full consent places, it's not my style of play.

Also @bored , that downvote was me. I'll own it because I think your statement was completely unnecessary, hurtful, and added nothing to the discussions at hand for this section of the forums. Also: People should behave in asshole fashion if their characters are assholes. They should also own up to it that they /made/ the asshole.

@faraday said:

@Lithium said:

@saosmash We're using different definitions of PvP.

Yes, I agree. My definition of PvP involves more of the direct, often violent opposition format. Cops vs robbers. Empire vs Rebels. Humans vs Cylons.

Also I was specifically speaking of skewing +combat results in my post. Yes, technically there could be some kind of IC rivalry where they're competing over kills or whatnot, but I'm not terribly concerned about that.

I see more scenarios where the PCs have waited all week for this cool combat plot but bad dice are about to make it over in a single turn. Or the opposite scenario where everyone's like "OMG this combat is dragging on forever, why won't the Cylons just DIE already?!?" and I tune down the badguy skills so they die. Or the aforementioned situation where someone wants to be killed/injured for specific dramatic purpose so I arrange it.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, just different playstyles.

See if I were playing, and the bad guys were winning, or if it was taking forever and it was just handwaved... that'd annoy me because it just negates any achievement we may have had.

I get that it has to happen sometimes, time constraints, scheduling, etc, but I don't /like/ it. Conflict builds character

@Ganymede said:

@Lithium said:

It's that I, myself, literally have no idea how you could come up with the idea that there is zero separation between our characters and ourselves.

An illustration.

My PC, Erin, punches your PC in the face. Your PC reacts by getting angry. Your PC could have reacted by punching back, presuming that this is within the realms of how your PC would have reacted in a similar circumstance; however, you OOCly made the choice to react by getting angry.

Suppose, out of those two choices, you decide by rolling a die: even, get angry; and odd, punch back. You still decided OOCly to make the choice by die roll.

I see both of your perspectives, and don't find them as mutually-exclusive as they may seem.

Hopefully, that helps you two in your spat.

In response to your illustration, my characters reaction would depend on a lot of factors that were determined by the character. The character would react in ways that are in character for them not as I myself would react to that very same situation. Sometimes that is resolved by a die roll (Like in the case of werewolves in certain systems, or according to an enraged roll in Hero for example), but sometimes not.

In that respect you can say there is no separation between me and my creation because I am playing the character, but that doesn't mean I don't separate my own responses from those of the character.

I think that is why I cannot agree with @Thenomain on this issue. From what I understand his stance is that: It is all you. There is no IC choices because you (the player) are OOCly making the decision for the character, or at the very least created the character (Which was an OOC decision) to have those flaws/limitations/be that kind of character.

Fair enough.

Maybe we're just using different terms to mean slightly different things. For example, to me, the separation of IC and OOC is me not taking stuff that happens to my character personally, and me not allowing the character to react to things I OOCly know, that the character does not.

That separation from my knowledge, and my reactions, to defer to that of the character as written is what I am talking about with IC and OOC separation.

I still maintain that no matter /what/ character or NPC I am playing who does horrible things, it doesn't make me horrible because there is no separation between IC and OOC.

@Thenomain That's up to you. If you want to convince me that there is no separation between IC and OOC, then you'll need to explain how my examples do not apply.

Honestly, It's ok to not agree. I think you're an intelligent individual and it is kind of frustrating to me that we do not see eye to eye on this because we seem to share a lot of other opinions.

That said, I don't want you to do anything if you do not wish to continue the discussion.