I am quickly realizing that this boils down to pretty much the same as all of my other issues related to people and RP and fun and blah blah blah:
please don't make me repeat myself.
That's really it, I suspect.
ETA: Especially not when I have to repeat myself with stronger words. That really kills me.
I am not advocating in any way that people not communicate this stuff. What I am saying is that I should be able to get the respect of having my own preference accepted. I don't want to bring players in. I have no limits beyond 'keep it in character'. Once I have said that, once I have expressed that I am not going to get squicked or whatever due to the nature of the RP, I should not have to continually repeat myself.
@lithium said in Let's talk about TS.:
@sunny Then you do not want to communicate about a potentially sensitive topic.
IC is IC, I get that.
It's not impolite to ask someone before getting into a potentially intimate scene what is good for that person anymore than it is asking someone you're about to create a conflict with what they are ok with happening.
Communication is important.
Absolutely! And I don't mind the asking, at all.
It's when I say 'this is my preference' and that answer is not good enough, that's where my issue comes in. My answer of 'I have no limits, I will let you know if I get actually upset by something that happens as a natural part of the RP' should be enough. If I then get upset/offended/bothered by something at this point, it's on me.
@lithium said in Let's talk about TS.:
I don't want to know kinks. I do however want to know /limits/ and /squicks/ because I don't want to ruin what could be a fun RP for someone.
This hobby is mutually creative, mutually constructive, and should be mutually enjoyable.
In that respect I /want/ to know what the other player doesn't like. What terminology. What acts. What anything so that everyone can have the most fun as possible.
Of course the characters are /still/ the characters and will like what /they/ like, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it and lay down some boundaries.
I'm just not on board with this. We (general we!) don't have these kinds of conversations for all the other sorts of RP that we engage in. I'm not interested in having it about the sex. It is incredibly uncomfortable for me when I express that I do not want to discuss this stuff in detail, I just want to play my character, and the person I am playing with pushes. Wanting to know details about my sexual preferences so you (general you) can make the scene more fun for me when you don't do that for any sort of other rp...that IS my squick.
ETA: @Arkandel Sure! Like that. Zooooooooom.
@saosmash said in Let's talk about TS.:
@sunny I just wish I could upvote that more than once. Characters = / = players. I don't care what your kinks are, you don't know what mine are . . . !
AND I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.
god I do not want to know.
The only thing I have to add that hasn't been covered here already is:
If I am on an actual game (and not goofing around on Shang), I want to be left out of it. I should be able to talk in terms of my PC and my character without ever bringing up what MY particular preferences/limits/etc. are. My kinks have no place (for me) in RP where I am playing a character and so on. When I say that I want to not talk about me or the person behind the other character (save to avoid things that might upset/trigger/whatnot the other person), that should be respected. Deal with it IC, play your PC, even in the bedroom. If your character whips out the chains, understand that REGARDLESS of what I might like, my character may very well flip the hell out. Just keep it IC. IC. IC. IC. IC.
TSing does not give my partner any ownership over my time as a player. Ever. I will bolt like a thing that bolts the first time somebody implies that they get to tell me what I can / can't do. My character virtually screwing your character does NOT imply anything about you and I as players. Period.
I have other rules and such (and many of them are mentioned here), but I'm really a sucker for throwing them out if the story is good and then regretting the hell out of it later. It's something I need to work on. No RP is worth pretending I didn't notice the 'oh, you ARE still allowed to RP with other people' comments.
I think that you should do it and that there's a market for it! Even if it's not something I personally would enjoy, I know a lot of folks DO like that sort of game, and it would be great to have further variety on offer.
I have never played a character in a family like that ever and don't know if I could do it. (That is a joke for the people who know better.)
I've been poking a few places, but if I come up with something I think will work there, I'll let you know!
They got him within like 2 or 3 posts this time. The answer is 'not much'.
I am going to be making a character here at some point soon. Been poking around at things. Not there yet, though.
I have a couple of types I play (there's really 3 main ones, all considered). I used to try and stretch my wings and play different things, but those characters never stick. I've been doing this thing long enough that I know what I like, so I do what I like.
I try really hard to not judge people as people for what they choose to play, though that doesn't mean I won't avoid them. If they are playing something I don't want to interact with, I won't -- that's not a judgment on them as a person, though, it's a choice I make for my own fun purposes. I might judge somebody not for what they play, but for the portrayal of what it was they choose to play. If someone is presenting their PC as a caricature of a type of person that exists (especially if that type of person is marginalized in their day to day life), yes. I am judging them as a person. Hard. Every time.
@seraphim73 said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
@faraday said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
Yeah sorry, I don't get it. The Holodeck is by it's very nature ICly fake.
Oooh! I think I can shed some light on this part of it... I don't believe that @Ganymede et al are using the Ten Forward/Holodeck 1 example as an IC example, but rather what it's like on an OOC level. For them it's the difference between going into a room that is always the same thing, and a room that can be whatever you want it to be... since one of them is wildly changeable, it doesn't OOCly feel as real to them as the room that is always the same (unless changed by IC events).
YES.
@ganymede said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
Sunny and I are old. Really, fucking old. Like, I ain't lying, I think as quickly as zefrank narrates sometimes, no bullshit.
Hey, this is the game dev section, NO INSULTS.
(this is a joke.)
@faraday said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
@sunny said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
If he's just something that you created and have been running for 2 years off and on, he is your NPC. I'm going to make my own bartender to avoid stepping on your toes.
Maybe that's a game culture issue? And maybe that's part of the disconnect. On the games I've been on, there's no such stigma attached. Lots of people use the community bartender. There's a tacit assumption that you won't kill him off or anything without talking to the person who created him, but otherwise you're free to use him - no code involved in "taking him off the shelf" or anything.
It's not a stigma. That's not the problem. It's not related to the code. I don't have the context I need to play Larry. I don't know who his kids are. I don't know that he's married. I don't know what his favorite color is. I have no idea if you've established any of these things about him, and I would rather make up my own bartender than do it wrong and mess with somebody else's continuity in their head because now they have to justify why Larry didn't mention anything about the fish all dying in the house fire we just saved him from, and they were HIS LIFE'S WORK.
Eta: (caps were for emphasis of how important they were to Larry, not indicative of something else)
@faraday said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
Because heh - the NPC thing is the same to me. Sure there are times when it's just "the nameless bartender plot device" but I don't need a roster or a wiki profile or a +sheet to get attached to Larry the Bartender, who we've emitted several times a week for two years, who's developed his own personality. Permanence comes from the story not the code -- for me.
To stretch this a little more and maybe get somewhere: in that case, Larry is your NPC. Not mine. Not shared. I would not feel comfortable using him in a scene for something. Same with rooms. If Larry has a sheet and a history and so on and everyone checks him out and then puts him back or w/e, that's one thing (aka having a scene on the grid). If he's just something that you created and have been running for 2 years off and on, he is your NPC. I'm going to make my own bartender to avoid stepping on your toes.
@faraday said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
@sunny said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
I think it's just not going to happen.
Maybe not. I am, at least, making a genuine effort here to understand. If you're sick of trying to explain it nobody's forcing you to.
It's my hope that someone else who has similar views can explain it in a way that can be understood. When I say "it's more real" and the response is "no it's not", I do not know how to articulate what I mean by 'it's more real', because yes. It is. In how I approach things, it is more real. Flat denial of my POV (IE: "there's nothing temporary about it") doesn't change that my first statement stands. To me, it is more real. A @dug room is real, a desced-for-this-scene room is not. The grid is real. Somebody's bar they invented on the spot for a scene is not. Obviously NONE of it is real, but we're talking about perspectives and subjective reality here to begin with.
This one might help. Maybe. The NPC thing is a really good example. For me, a grid location is an npc. It is a character in its own right. It reoccurs, it builds a history, it has its own life and its own existence. If it only exists when I pull it down from a list, it has the weight (to me) of NPCs that are just emitted. They don't have +fingers or +sheets or a history, they just have a name and maybe a description.
ETA: It also has context, on the grid. I know what buildings are nearby. I know what the neighborhood looks like. I know who lives here (or if my character lives here) or whatever. I know that I should RP leaving at 9pm, because by 10pm the neighborhood my PC has to go through becomes a warzone. All of these things come from places having locations in relation to other places already established. I don't have to figure out how they relate to each other. I get a framework to play in, meaning I don't have to invent a bunch of details unless I want to.
ETA2: I want to save my heavy mental lifting for the parts of the RP that matter to me, not worrying about inventing a location, the mood and theme of that location, where it is in relation to other places, what's going on, etc. Yeah, this is a hobby that uses the imagination. YMMV, but mine is a limited supply. If I use half of it for the scene set, I only have so much left for the RP.
@faraday said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
@sunny said in Big city grids - likes and dislikes:
Because a code dug room is more real/lasting/permanent than a temp room. It exists as something more than a temporary description.
I guess this is where that immersion colorblindness comes in, because I just don't get that. The city exists ICly. It's permanent. Mama's Diner may have only been used in a random scene and not dug, but it's still there ICly (unless Meteor Chick burns it down). There's nothing temporary about it.
(Again please bear in mind I'm not trying to be "this is stupid!" about it, I'm honestly trying to understand because I just don't get it.)
I don't know how to explain to you in a way that you will understand. I've used all my words already in previous conversations and made no impact. I think it's just not going to happen.
Because a code dug room is more real/lasting/permanent than a temp room. It exists as something more than a temporary description.
I don't think anyone should have "repercussions" for accidents of this nature. Intentional griefing via spoilers -- regardless of when it happens in relation to the media in question -- should be swatted (fly swatted, not the other kind omg), though I don't know what kind of consequences are possible/enforceable. I don't think that anyone should ever be banned for this specific infraction, only breaking it many times (like, not for spoilers, but for repeatedly not following rules or w/e).
Two weeks out is reasonable mod-enforced (edit peoples' posts or whatnot), though I don't think people should be discouraged from being respectful about it after that. Like, there's no reason whatsoever to not put spoiler details behind a cut if you know you're going to blah blah a bunch of stuff. If set rules are written down, please include a clause that says something like 'two weeks is the hard and fast rule, but please don't take this to mean that two weeks out you should run all around the forum screaming THE TITANIC SINKS just because you can, it's disrespectful.' Or whatever.
This stuff isn't as hard for people as it's made out to be. Spoiler tags are easy. Not ruining things for other people is easy. It's really NOT hard to tell when you should or shouldn't give away major details of a book/movie. Nobody here is dumb.
if someone's a team leader or something if they idle for a week plus they get replaced or the like, but.
Can you please elaborate on this for me? Did you really mean a week here? What do you mean by replaced?