Category GemStone III Quests, Sagas & Events (42)
Topic The Vvrael, Chosen, Stones & Terate (1)
Message Notes on Roleplaying (1666)
By HEATHERHAZE@PLAY.NET (Heathyr)
On Nov 11, 1999 at 17:16
Greetings all. :)
Roleplaying in a world such as Elanthia which contains certain boundaries involves more than just imagination. It requires an understanding of the world we "live" in and a good deal of thought about how we can fit into that world with other players.
Our characters are limited not only by their skills and abilities, but also by the extent of their knowledge. As an example, I may know as a player that I won't die by jumping off the ledge in Shadow Valley, but if my character had never been there (and had never been told) she would have no way of knowing this and would certainly be hesitant to leap to her seemingly certain death.
Likewise, when a player decides to roleplay a character with "inside" knowledge of some aspect of the world, extreme care must be taken that such knowledge is actually accessable to that character. Gemstone is not "free-form" roleplaying. There are limits and boundaries, set by the skills available to us and the situations presented to us by the Game Masters.
This is not to say we cannot roleplay aspects of our characters that haven't actually happened in-game. Quite the contrary, this makes Elanthia a colorful and interesting place to live. When those aspects, however, involve places, things, or situations which could contradict or conflict with actual events, we find ourselves walking a line which could become disruptive to the enjoyment of others.
To maintain believabilty, we must always try to confine the abilities and knowledge of our characters to what is theoretically possible within the game. You simply cannot "make" something true that is not, no matter how well you roleplay it. A good measuring stick to use is to ask yourself, "Does this action change something outside of my own character? Does it force an assumption to be made true in order to work?" If the answer to either of these is "yes", it's time to rethink your roleplaying decisions.
As an example, it is perfectly fine to roleplay a follower of a particular diety. In fact it is rare to find someone who doesn't. If, however, you then go further and state that you are a messenger of that diety and have been commanded to tell everyone the world will end on Tuesday, you are crossing a line. The latter action makes an assumption that the diety in question actually HAS given you a message and, for the roleplaying to work, it must be made true.
Alternatively, you could roleplay a character who BELIEVES he or she is the messenger of a diety, whether it's true or not. He may hear "voices" that he assumes belongs to his diety. The difference may seem subtle, but it is the key in determining what is acceptable roleplay and what is not. In one case, you force a diety to make an action (which is impossible), in the other you are only affecting YOUR character. Now, if Lorminstra actually appears before you *in the game* and tells you that you are her messenger, this would give you the credibility to truly roleplay the situation. In the meantime, however, you'll have to be content playing it as though your character may be, well...barking mad.
To a certain extent, we must be reactionary in our roleplaying. In Elanthia, just like in the real world, we can only control our OWN actions and reactions. To illustrate, look at these examples:
>(Ragnar casts his hollow, glowing eyes in your direction causing you to tremble with fear and apprehension.)
Unacceptable. This use of the ACT verb forces other characters to react in a particular way. I've actually seen people use these kinds of actions and they are quite often met with considerable contempt. Perhaps I simply wouldn't be afraid of Ragnar. Maybe Ragnar is 50 levels below my character. Here is a more acceptable alternative:
>(Ragnar casts his hollow, glowing eyes in your direction. His ominous stare lingers with bitter malice and utter contempt.)
I could live with this. This action would be much more likely to elicit the kind of response the player is looking for, yet doesn't make any assumptions of other characters in the room. It might also get his character in deep trouble, but that's okay too if it's all in roleplaying. :)
Player vs. Player combat should never be invoked without the consent of both parties. Recently, a well-intentioned player was roleplaying a particular situation which led him to kill two hunters in the Spider Temple. The deed was done in the spirit of roleplaying, but unfortunetly the two characters he killed were not involved with the situation. Naturally, they were both quite livid. I fogged the dead bodies out and tried to explain to them why they were killed (in whispers) but by then they were far too angry to care (and understandably so).
Later, I roleplayed a duel of magic with the character who did the killing. In this case, it was consentual and completely roleplayed. I killed him and, having avenged the enemies of Arachne, stated that justice had been served. The "duel" was quite entertaining and well-played. I think the player learned a valuable lesson and hopefully will consider his roleplaying actions more carefully in the future.
The point of all this is that we do not have an unlimited creative license in Elanthia. There are boundaries to what we can reasonably roleplay with our characters. The most important thing to remember is that we can ONLY control the actions of our own characters, never those of other players, dieties, or beings. This is the real challenge, and it seperates the truly exceptional roleplayers from the "good" roleplayers.
The way to create rich, colorful characters is by having rich, colorful histories. Those histories determine the personalities of our characters and thus guide their actions. Well thought-out characters with solid backgrounds will often play themselves. Just like our own backgrounds have molded us into the people we are today, so will the lives of our characters. Forcing actions or situations into the game is the easy way out and will usually fail in the long run.
When a situation arises in the game, consider your character's background when thinking about how to react. It's easy to get wrapped up in the moment and react the way you, the player, want to react. Fight this temptation. Keep focused on the personality of your character, his or her needs, desires, obsessions, strengths, fears, etc. Everyone has hang-ups. Your character must surely have some too.
I've experienced some VERY interesting roleplay based on nothing more than my character's irrational fear of gnomes. Luckily, she finally came to grips with her gnome-phobia after about thirty years of training. Before that, though, imagine a powerful sorceress freezing in panic at the sight of a filthy little creature she could have squashed with a thought. And that's just one tiny fragment of her personality! The more in-depth you get with figuring out just "who" your character is, the more fun you'll have with your roleplaying.
Unleash your imagination into your character and create a personality you can believe in. You can be anything you desire! Be a villain, a hero, a grumpy merchant, a kind old rolton herder, a babbling street person, an absent-minded magician, an out-of-work slayer of some non-existant monster...the possibilities are endless. Just remember, your creative license begins and ends with your character. Your character may be the best gardener in Elanthia, but a rose...is still a rose. :)
- The Player of Heathyr Hazelwood
Category Role-Playing (53)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: The Intransigence of the Children of Gods (817)
By PRESTIUS@PLAY.NET
On Feb 1, 2000 at 18:38
Someone wise had mentioned somewhere else that good RP was backing off enough to give others the space to roleplay into your scenario (badly paraphrased here, of course).
While it is all well and good (in fact crucial) to have a solid personal history, a well fleshed out persona, and all that, if you too strictly define yourself, you leave others no way to be creative in how they deal with you.
My view is not to say in the game, "I'm this way" (whatever this way is - fill in the characteristic). It's to exhibit the characteristics of someone who is "this way", to react the way someone who was "this way" would react .. and then let people say .. "Hey! You're 'that way'"
It allows others to define your character in their own terms, and react and interact in terms of their own characters. And that makes for good roleplay!
-Prestius
I put the "P" in Sorcerer.
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: Request for Advice (3056)
By C2261@PLAY.NET (Dazee)
On Aug 15, 2000 at 15:50
I am here to ask the advice of all of you on this board. My question is: how do you find people interested in roleplaying? It may seem like a very basic question, but I still hope someone will try and answer it for me.
I have played Gemstone for a fairly long time, and I joined Platinum when it first began. I left Gemstone entirely early this year. I have now come back to see if I can find a way to enjoy it the way I used to. But I find that if I ever knew how to separate the roleplayers from the mindless hordes, I have forgotten.
So how do you find each other? Is there some specific place where the roleplayers gather while resting? Or if not a place, do you have some other method? Or do you just rely on luck to encounter each other?
~ Martin
A few thoughts on my RP experience in Gemstone. Some of what I have to say is geared at a less experienced RPer than yourself but I wasn't sure where to start so please bear with me:
First - Create your character with a personality in mind. Know who your character is, how they feel about the world, their friends, their neighbors, right and wrong...good and evil. Is your character mean, sweet, cruel, defensive, obnoxious (errr...we already have plenty those fitting obnoxious I believe). Is your character noble and daring, faithless and treacherous?
Second - Be that character at all times. No matter if you have another person to RP with or not. Never let the lack of another player get in the way of your RP'ing. For example, if your character is clean and neat, fastidious? Make gestures to straighten your cloak, push your hair from your eyes, etc. Those that enjoy interaction will see this and make note of it. If they don't interact with you on that day they will certainly keep you in mind in the future. I know I will. My young character would probably accidently spill her Berry Juice on someone fastidious and then blush and try to wipe it from their cloak with her grimey hands...all the while looking for pockets to get her tiny fingers into...
Last - You may want to search out some suitable organization or House. There are a few houses that very actively support RP. I would look for a House that has a character background topic as part of the interview process and then hunt down the Officers to talk with them further about the house activity and interaction between members. I will not give a recommendation for a house as that I think is a personal decision and I think is part of the fun of the game...learning about the Elanthia and the people in it.
Good luck! I hope I find you in the game!
Cassandra ~ Dazee's player
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic What's in a Name? (9)
Message Re: Baises (2055)
By OBSESSION@PLAY.NET (Danay)
On Aug 15, 2000 at 01:03
I realized maybe I should have added a comment more to the positive side as well. In a case like this where the player wants something exotic sounding, but realizes that the specific word will have some negative connotations to anyone who knows it, use the word as a springboard for ideas.
In other words, don't use that particular word or another spelling that sounds like it, but use the word as an inspiration for a made up name. You could use the basic letters and/or the sounds to come up with something original that would never get sent to the LCI.
So you can't use Apadravya.
Play around and come up with:
Pradav, Dravyna, Apadray, Vynadryn, Padrynav, etc. etc.
You get the idea. I'm not saying any of my above examples are great, but I just sat here and came up with them in seconds while looking at the original word. It can be an excellent way to get an original name that won't get you into trouble.
Robin
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: Thoughts on Tolerance (3974)
By OBSESSION@PLAY.NET (Danay)
On Oct 5, 2000 at 04:05
If Simu approves such a marriage, it is a tacit statement of approval for homosexual couples, and a violation of Simu's attempt to maintain the contextual integrity of their game, which is based upon a world and time in which homosexuality was an anathema. If Simu denies such a marriage, it is again a tacit statement that the contextual integrity of the game will be upheld regardless of the consequences to the individual. It will essentially be a statement that the responses that people in medieval Europe had towards homosexuals is appropriate and in-character.
Heh Mnar, I see there are already quite a few replies, so I'm sure someone has told you that you are already way out of date. GM's have been doing weddings for same sex couples since before AOL. So that part of it is settled.
However, there's still the other issue you raised. I should probably read the replies first, but that's not a good habit I got into. ;) This is how I see it. If GS was actually a medieval earth game, as opposed to that just being the flavor, then I would agree with you that people interested in the same sex would be scorned and burned at the stake, etc. But the medieval period is simply what Simu uses to give the look and feel to Elanthia. Elanthia is its own fantasy make believe world with its own culture and history. It's the cultures and history of Earth that have dictated how people feel about gay people. So that same thing should hold true in Elanthia.
So given that, you have to use Elanthian history and culture to decide how characters deal with this. Well, with any topic really. You already outlined why racism is so prevalent. It's deeply ingrained in the history of the world. Same thing goes for another often controversial topic, that of religion. It's not just that Elanthia has a different religion than Earth, you have to understand how that would influence how our characters believe. I argued here that belief in a monotheistic type god would not make any sense for an Elanthian because there is NOTHING in any of the history or culture that would cause an Elanthian to really even think such a thing. Even the creation of the world was done by more than one.
The same things should be applied to same sex couples. Of course, there really isn't anything about it stated in official documents. But that in itself can be a key thing. There is nothing in the histories to indicate that there are worldwide negative attitudes about same sex couples. There is nothing in Elanthian culture as a whole either that would indicate that it would be seen in a negative light or as a perversion. I don't think so much that it comes from an ultra-modern viewpoint. (And I do mean ultra-modern since as little as 20 years ago the sentiment of the general American public was vastly different than it is now.) I do think however that it comes from the fact that there is a very long established history in science fiction and fantasy literature of worlds where no one bats an eye over the same sex couple issue. Since most of us have at least some experience with reading fantasy, it carries through into the mindset of players and helps form the worlds we populate.
I can only think of one "official" thing of the top of my head that touches on same sex couples, though it seems to me that hasn't been the only one. I just can't think of anything else right now. But in the old gods document Ivas was listed as one of Eorgina's lovers. It's also known that the Arkati can take on other forms, and the implication is that gender is not terribly important when it comes to romance or couplings. To the Arkati at least. I think that is a strong argument for that attitude being carried over into the mortals of Elanthia.
So my bottom line is, I don't see anything in Elanthia that would support a common cultural belief that there is something wrong with same sex couples. Rather it seems to me that in general, the world would take a live and let live attitude about it. That does not mean I don't think there's room to play a character who is bothered by it. For pretty much the same reasons. There's also nothing that strongly supports the idea that everyone is just peachy keen with the concept. I think it's one of those things that go ahead and have your character feel negatively about it, but have an explanation, just like anything else. Maybe they are from a small village that had very restrictive and conservative beliefs, not just about this, but all kinds of things. Like so many issues though, that character has to understand that in reality they may be seen as out of step with the Elanthian norm.
In general, when it comes to sexuality in Elanthia, I think the culture is very different than Earth. Well, to be more specific, very different than America. Americans get hung up about all kinds of things when it comes to people's bodies, romantic relationships, etc. Many players bring those attitudes with them into the game. But just like religion and other cultural matters, you really have to look at what fits in Elanthia. My experience has been that Elanthians are not as hung up about such matters, due in large part to their religion not making them hung up about it. Look at the Arkati, some of them are downright randy. :) Looking to cause and effect on these things is very important. The Christian influence on Earth is responsible for many of our attitudes about a great number of things. I think it would be safe to say that Elanthian religion would have a similar effect on Elanthian culture. Meaning that the end result is going to be different than what we see on Earth in a wide variety of topics. Another one being the position of women. There is no history in Elanthia that suggests women were ever seen in general as not equal to men, though various individual cultures may have had more restrictive ideas.
Robin
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: The Rules (6176)
By MNEVELL@PLAY.NET (Ruove)
On Jan 29, 2001 at 10:43
I prefer Lylia's version more than Klaive's myself, but I'd like to give this a try as well.
1. As a player, you only have control of your own character. This means that you cannot invent a large empire, or new race, or major new magical powers.
However, you can make small additions. A small villiage or outpost that fits in with the surrounding lands is perfectly fine. Being a distant reletive of someone important is also perfectly alright. The less effect any claim has on the world outside yourself, the more acceptable it is.
2. Do not demand respect. This also means you should not invent yourself a position and expect to get the respect it deserves.
3. Whatever the GM's say, goes. Its their world. You control your own character, they control EVERYTHING else. A good GM will not abuse this, but the whole point of having the GM there is to control the world beyond the characters. You can talk to them, you can reason with them, you can suggest things. They are still human, and can make mistakes. However, from an in game perspective, they don't exist. They are an OOC entity, not 'gods'. A good GM deserves respect, however, this is only because its not an easy job. Remember, they are NOT out to get you, they are here to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
4. Every other person's opinion is just as important as yours. This is more of a rule for real life, but it still bears repeating.
This also means that other people's way of looking at the game is not neccesarily wrong. Some people look at Gemstone the same way they look at Quake or EQ. Others see it as a hobby. Others put it someplace in between. None of these views are wrong. I personally see roleplaying as my hobby, but I don't think I'm so important that I need to tell other people that their way of playing Gemstone is wrong.
However, just because no one way of looking at Gemstone and RPG's in general is wrong, this doesn't mean that some ways of playing do not mix well. In particular, people who see gemstone as a 'computer game and comptetition for points' do not mix well with people who see it as a 'roleplaying game'.
Now, these are really more like guidelines than rules, but I think they bear mentioning at least once.
M/R
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: Roleplaying.....Dead or Alive? (6705)
By ZEBRA@PLAY.NET
On Feb 8, 2001 at 18:32
I hope that in some small way that my character serves as an example of the "gritty" roleplay you describe. I think that it would be a very noble goal to achieve.
There's a flip side you mention, as well. The cute and bouncy clerics and empaths. Not to harass those two professions, but the culture you describe is most prevalent among them. Sugar sweet and watered down, certain members consider roleplay a challenge of how cutesy they can be. I feel as if more members of the Empath, Cleric, Warrior, Ranger, and other professions to a lesser degree need to take on a more mature grasp of what it is that makes the man. Not to be sexist of course, my intent here is that the human condition is a very complex oddity. People have virtures, deep motivations, important emotions, and undying desires. Courage, honor, love, hate, devotion, respect, nationalism, racism, fury, true binding friendship, and a host of others can be named. How often do your characters roleplay this? How often are your characters passionate about something?
Ask one sorcerer why he feels that his guild is troubled and he may answer, "Snerts."
Ask another and he may answer, "Because they have lost the guiding principles of the true sorcerers, they have let go of the passion binding in our art and they fall short in the measure of eternity! I hate these mock sorcerers and I pity their meak, meaningless lives, as well."
These are both roleplaying, but one is moving and one is not. Now, not every character is educated and eloquent. I have rogues that shine with charisma and charm not based on eloquence at all. I have a cleric who is a beacon of virtue and he is horrified at the thought that his soul might be injured from a woman's touch and his own brief immoral thoughts.
Where are the warriors that fight for a cause? Where is the rogue that puzzles to his comrades on if he has chosen the right choice in life or if his lack of parents made him into a man of no morals? Where is the cleric who cries out to Lorminstra trying to understand the pain and suffering of our world? Where is the Empath constantly pained due to a conflict between her devotion to the human empire and her desire to help Elven loyalists in need?
Is your character as developed as those of a truly great novel? Does your character move you in the same way that those in a fantastic play, opera, or movie do? Why not?
Silvean's Player
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: "roleplayed" challenged.. (9360)
By CENGEL3@PLAY.NET (Welan)
On Apr 26, 2001 at 22:56
I don't do this myself, but here is some advice that might be helpfull:
1) Some people don't have a clear feel the genre or role-playing in general. If you find yourself in this catagory... pick up a really good book and read it to get a feel for the genre. You have to be a bit carefull because there are some fantasy books out there which are god-awfull. Personaly, I'd suggest Tolkien...or even one of the classics like Shakespeare (Macbeth, Henery V, etc)... even a nonfictional history text ..... they can provide alot of inspiration and give you a great feel for what the genre is like. I'm sure folks here can suggest many other good reads.
2) Read all the official GS3 histories and documents about Elanthia. That will tell you all you need to know about the world in which your character is living. Remember, your character knows nothing about our world.... the only things he/she knows about are what exists in Elanthia.
3) Figure out what type of character you want to play. When you've done that actualy sit down and start writing out a background story for your character. Write it out just as if you were trying to write a novel. Set your story in the world you learned about from the official GS3 documents. Use the novel you read as an inspiration. Force yourself to stop writing just as your story starts to gets interesting (before anything truely earth shattering or heroic happens)... if you've read the Hobbit, the point where Bilbo just sets off with the Dwarves would be a good example of a stoping point.
4) Read the story you've written back to yourself. Does it sound believable? Do the characters seem real to you? Does it seem well written? Edit your story until it does (almost anything anyone writes usualy takes 2 or 3 revisions before it really works).
5) This is the point where your character enters the game. Now you have some understanding of what they are all about, how they act, how they will react to various situations, what motivates them, what events have shaped thier outlook, what thier quirks and habbits are.
6) Relax and enjoy playing your character. Don't TRY to role-play. Just act the way you think your character would act, given what he knows about the world and what he has been through. If you make slips that's ok... don't beat yourself up about them....
7) Ask yourself if you are ENJOYING what you are doing. The whole point of this place is for people to have fun. If your not having fun role-playing then perhaps this really isn't the game for you. That's not a bad thing... and your not a bad person for feeling that way. Different people have different tastes.... some people like Chinese Food, others hate it.... however, if you don't like it, a Chinese resteruant probably isn't the best place have dinner.
Welan
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Conflict! (2)
Message Teaching Through Conflict (11711)
By OBSESSION@PLAY.NET (Danay)
On May 14, 2001 at 03:42
Between the conversation here in the cleric threads and something that was mentioned recently in one of the cleric folders, I was thinking about the whole concept of "teaching through fear". It used to be a rather common teaching tactic between characters within the game and I would argue that it was a rather effective one. Not only that, but as I mentioned in the cleric folder, it really fits my idea of a fantasy world where there are elders who can blast you out of your boots, and intimidation is often the norm to get people to shape up or get out.
Let me be clear that I am not discounting or disparaging gentle teaching methods at all. Many of us have fond memories of someone who took us aside and patiently spent time with us teaching what we needed to get along in this world. And that method of teaching is also important.
But what I wanted to focus on, since this is the conflict folder, is using conflict as a teacher. As a player I have found it rather disturbing to find that the hard edge of the fantasy genre is often being smoothed out and and glossed over in favor of sweetness and light in order to protect the sensative feelings of players. The reason I am saying it's a bit disturbing is because I think it dilutes the fantasy and creates a less complex and colorful world. The fantasy world is meant to be bigger than life and that means big bad people too. Though not just big bad people, but people with bigger than life egos, arrogance, and senses of self-importance. Elanthia is a harsh world for anyone wanting to take up the life of an adventurer and that should mean that sometimes lessons are learned in a harsh manner.
The example given in the cleric folder was Morgaine who was infamous among clerics of my generation for her harsh teaching style. She let young clerics know in no uncertain terms when they screwed up, how they screwed up and how she better never ever catch them doing that again. It was a VERY effective teaching style. Danay was afraid of having Morgaine yell at her so she was bound and determined to learn her craft so that Morgaine never had any reason to do so. Fear as the teacher. (As a player I tend to also have a high sense of responsibility for my role, so I can't say that as a player that was the only reason for who Danay is. But in character, it has a lot of weight.)
I ran across a typical Morgaine thing when I was looking for something else in an old log the other day. I didn't actually see the incident, but in the log Danay was relating it to someone else. A friend of Danay's had died and Danay was going for him, outside the entrance to the troglodyte/gnome caves. Morgaine happened to be there and knew that Danay was on the way to raise her friend. Another young cleric was also there who kept attempting to raise the dead friend, even though he had been explicitely told someone else was coming. Morgaine Silenced him twice in order to keep him from casting the raise spell, fiercely lecturing him all the while. I have no idea what became of that cleric (I don't remember the name) or if that lesson sunk in at all, but I know for most people it sure would have.
Dryxler was another cleric who was a harsh teacher of young clerics. He had
quite the reputation and most people who paid any attention didn't want to
get on his bad side. I actually did end up having him yell at me once. Though
by that time I had a bit of experience under my belt and was a bit more self-assured.
In addition, I wasn't in the wrong and knew it.
Another example is the one discussed here that took place between Danay and Tilone. While it's obvious to me now that as a player it bothered her and that makes me feel badly, it does go to the discussion of conflict oriented teaching styles. She still remembers that incident and she said it was the first wake-up call she had about that issue, even though it had to have been about two years ago or so now, maybe even more. That conflict and the harsh words affected her character in such a way that eventually she changed how she did things. I would doubt that the one incident is entirely responsible for that (only she can say), but from her words it appears that it made a significant contribution. So while it was harsh and caused bad feelings, the intended end result was met. A lesson was learned.
So for discussion then, is it always a bad thing for those sorts of lessons to be learned? Is a polite whisper or a soft word spoken kindly going to have the same results? Don't these hard lessons become part of the fabric of our characters and help shape who they are, how they view the world and others in it and how they see their place in it? I know a LOT of people who play characters who would never raise their voice to anyone. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing that sort of character. But, how much impact do they have when they are transgressed in some way? I have seen it time and time again where rather than say something to the offending party, they just swallow it in order to avoid conflict and then the offending party turns right around and does the same thing again and again.
How seriously do most characters take a whispered polite comment on their behavior? If they don't feel embarassed or chastised, do they feel any real pressure to change? Some do of course, but I suspect they are the minority. And while thinking of all that, keep in mind the whole part I talked about at the beginning of a fantasy world where if you really think about it, people who don't learn their lessons fast would be destroyed or left to their own devices. Because in a hard world, there isn't a lot of room to step on powerful people's toes or to go against the grain without being trampled into the dust.
Well that's enough rambling from me and I'm not sure I really voiced exactly what I wanted to get at since there are various aspects of this entire issue, including player feelings, genre, RP styles, etc. I will be interested to hear what other people have to say.
Robin
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
Message Re: Player Run Storylines (10236)
By OBSESSION@PLAY.NET (Danay)
On Jun 13, 2001 at 07:22
A lot of interesting posts on this. I tend to be firmly in the RP as improv camp. Nevrek said something about you don't make a storyline out of mundane life, and yet almost all of my characters in game histories are the compilation of mundane life. By that I don't mean their visits to the outhouse or the trip to the bank, but just living life day to day and seeing what comes their way. Much of what comes their way is based on whatever people they run into. I would never ever want to involve one of my regular characters in a storyline where I was informed of what the plot was ahead of time and told what I am supposed to do at any certain point.
For me the joy of RPing is finding out at that exact moment what my character will do or say. They surprise me half the time. :) The excitement for me is playing my character off another where neither of us knows where it's going to end up, what will happen next or what is going to be said. It's being able to know our characters so well that we can portray them in any situation that confronts us and further each other's characters through those unscripted interactions.
I know, and this thread proves, there are a lot of fans of more scripted type RP. Usually when I hear the term player storyline I immediately think of a person or people who have gotten together and decided, okay, Jane is gonna be possessed, Tim is gonna try and save her, and Jack is gonna try and interfere. Then Bob will show up two days from now and pose an even bigger threat and everyone will turn on him in a united front. I also picture Jane, Bob, etc. being people's regular characters. While I know that a lot of people enjoy that sort of thing, to me it's being in a directed play, not facing something with unknowing eyes like would be reality for your character.
I think the best player storylines are ones where the players running it create NPC's just like the GM's do. The idea is to have a starting point and a goal, but it is the drawing in of other regular characters and interacting with them that actually MAKES the story. As others pointed out, the story is for them, not the people running it. This way you don't run into that falseness of doing something with your own regular character where you know what the end result is going to be and you just engage in a lot of drama to get there.
By creating NPC's you free yourself to take on whatever role is needed for the story, you are free to speak OOC with other NPC players to make sure things are going okay, while the regular PC's involved get to participate fully in whatever you throw at them without it feeling staged to them. (If done well anyway.) It also gives you a chance to focus on interacting annoymously with characters you may have never met before or even having positive interactions with characters that either you or your character despise.
Most of this is just a matter of personal preference and tastes. There is no wrong or right way. It's just that I have never really understood the attraction of participating in something when I know that the outcome has been predetermined by the main player. If it's a case like I said above where I know that even though Jane is possessed, she's gonna be saved in the end, then really nothing I do makes any difference. I'm not even saying that people are told outright that Jane will be saved. But it's always assumed since it's known that the player of that character has no intention of spending the rest of their days in GS playing a possessed character. You don't have to be told to figure it out.
I know a lot of people enjoy staged fights, and again I just never saw the attraction. I would much rather have a fight come along because of an unexpected interaction with another character where we find ourselves angry and coming to blows or harsh words than to know that at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, Sam and I are going to pretend to get mad at each other. I want my character to really be mad because of something that set her off, not just, oh I think I will stage something to upset her because it sounds like something fun to do.
I also want to underline something that Kadesha said. No matter what sort of story you are running, DON'T get carried away! Don't be something you really can't be. (I thought the story with the sorcerers that Parfyon wrote about was creative in that much of it happened "off screen" so that in at least some of the parts they didn't have to stretch people's credibility and they didn't try to pull off something that they couldn't really do. As in summoning and controlling a demon.) So yeah, don't play Arkati, don't abuse mechanics to create special effects (it's a lot more creative to work with what the game allows anyway), don't ruin the experience by forcing people to decide whether their character can even acknowledge if it happened or not.
This is already long, but I will give another example of the above. One time quite a while back, at least a year ago I think now, someone approached Amazon Tribe members saying it was important to meet with some of them. Always intrigued by such things I and one or two others met with these two men. The scene quickly degraded into Danay exclaiming that the man was crazy or talking blasphemy or both. I'm sure that's not at all what the creator of the story was wanting or expecting.
But he didn't stick within the established guidlines of who the Arkati are, how they operate, and really blew it by telling Amazons of Leya that he had been sent as a messenger to them. Since Leya has always been relatively active with her followers, no one is going to believe some other guy who seems ignorant of the gods was given a special message for them. If you want people to play along, you have to give them material they will believe, that fits within the Elanthian framework and they will be willing to work with. Otherwise you just get dismissed as a lunatic and it goes nowhere.
Robin
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
By SHADDIM from PLAY.NET
On Mar 9, 2002 at 12:40
Subject Re: Ah yes, the loathsome 'IES'... (18820)
PS: Lest you think I'm defending the use of the word "massies" or any "-ies" words, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the major flaw in this part of your post. This is a roleplaying game where we act different than we are in real life. ~shrug~
Let it not be forgotten that though we ACT differently in real life than our characters, our characters should not BEHAVE contrary to real people.
~Legaris
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
By SHADDIM from PLAY.NET
On Mar 9, 2002 at 14:40
Subject Re: Ah yes, the loathsome 'IES'... (18830)
Of course they behave contrary to real people. I don't know many real people who comb the hair on their feet, like some halflings I know. Don't know many real people who wave their hand to make a stream of water appear to clean themselves, as Solen does.
Geez, talk about taking what I said out of context.
The whole key to role-play is creating a REAL person. It has nothing to do with the peculiarities of a race in a fantasy environment(i.e.--your halfling example of foot-combers).
For the most part, adults do not speak using baby-talk. THIS was my point.
Let's all remember that the line between a fantasy setting and Never-Never land is in part established by the realism of the CHARACTERS in the environment. To distinguish between these settings, characters in fantasy should be that much more *believable* to balance fantastic (unbelievable) elements like magic.
Elves are people. Halflings are people. Dwarves are people. Don't turn them into silly cartoon characters in the name misunderstood role-play.
~Legaris, Gets flustered when people equate fantasy with anything goes
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Half-Elven (24)
By OBSESSION from PLAY.NET (Danay)
On Jul 16, 2002 at 11:34
Subject Re: Roleplaying (650)
As far as character separation goes, I don't really think that's something that can be taught. It's a process like everything else in roleplaying. A lot of people basically play themselves in the game and that means they probably have little separation between themselves and their characters when it comes to things that happen in the game. If that is the kind of character you are used to playing, you have to learn to think in whole new ways.
For me the easiest way to get some of that separation is to realize when I am having fun, even if my character is upset about something or in conflict with someone. There have been times that my character has been fighting with someone or verbally sparing, and yet I was enjoying every minute of it because the other character was witty, made a particularly creative dig at the expense of my character, etc.
Interestingly enough, the reverse can also be true. There are times where my characters are friendly with people in the game because of character history or because they have no in-character reason to not be, when as a player I cannot stand the other character and/or the character's player for any of numerous reasons. But in order to be true to a character you have to go by what makes sense for them, not how you feel as a player.
What Darcen's player mentioned was good advice. This is much easier to do around people you KNOW are roleplaying. There is a certain amount of trust that is exchanged between roleplayers about that separation and that it is indeed all RP. If that trust hasn't been established, it's a lot trickier because you don't know if the other person realizes what you are saying or doing is RP or you as a player being a jerk. If your character is a snob, then RPing around other snobs (I'll try to steer clear of that thorny word "elite") can help enhance that trust and your experience.
You should always RP in all situations with all people. But when it comes to turning it up a notch, so to speak, with a less than friendly or amiable character, it's much easier to practice and establish yourself around people you trust are roleplaying. It can give you a certain confidence that will then translate over into your interactions with other people. It can also help teach you to recognize when others are roleplaying or taking it personally as players.
I will not back off with my characters when I come across someone who obviously has no character separation. They have entered a roleplaying game and I'm going to remain true to my character if they have engaged me, even at the expense of them not understanding and thinking that I the player need to get a sense of humor, lighten up or am being a jerk. But I don't intentionally engage people like that or try to draw them out, because we aren't both on the same page with the same understanding. So that goes back to trying to seek out people you know or sense have that understanding.
Most of roleplay is simply practice. The more you do it, the more you come to understand and the better you get at it. It's a process where you are always learning and evolving and the only way to do it is to do it.
Robin
Category Role-Playing (4)
Topic Thoughts on Role-Playing (4)
By MOURNE from PLAY.NET (My evil twin...)
On Aug 14, 2002 at 19:11
Subject Re: Weather, trainings. (23150)
I've yet to have to refer to lag in-game, out loud, I think. If I'm with friends and it's pertinant, I'll whisper. If I'm not, I just do what I'm doing and ignore it. If I felt the need to refer to it out loud, I'd probably comment on feeling muddled, or my thoughts being a bit slow, so bear with, or something along those lines.
With regards to level, I'm with Starsnuffer on this one. A general relative idea with regards to hunting areas in particular is enough info for me. If -exact- numbers are requested, I hope to goddess it's in whispers. When I'm asked aloud 'what level/training are you?', I tend to ignore it outwardly, pretend it was in whispers, and whisper back.
What gets me the most is people talking about how close they are to leveling or the state of their field experiece. "I'm almost ready to train!" like you have to stand around and get your nerve up or something, or "I've got (x number in the thousands) pages left!" or "I'm red!" or "I'm fried!" just rub me the wrong way. I politely ignore it as best I can, since it seems fairly prevalent.... it'd be a waste of my time to get up in arms about it, at this point.
Whispers and group whispers are -so- my friend, and there are more than a few ways to hint at some of these, if you must out loud, in a way that makes sense in a medieval-fantasy environment.
"I've got some studying/practicing to do."
"I think I'm getting the hang of something new, I'll show you later."
"I've had my fill of this, let's head back to town."
"No, you help this next patient, I'm exhausted."
"Give me a moment to recover from this casting..."
...et cetera. Too many mechanics find their way nearly completely unmasked into the vocabulary of our characters. Sure, it's -shorter- to use one-word euphamisms for most mechanics, but most, if not all of them, make exactly no sense in any given situation.
But I'm just preaching to the choir here. Don't mind my babble.
-Avidleigh's player.
1/19/04 Thoughts on Roleplaying - Tone
IS there any legitimate reason why TONEs should be permanently set? At the very least, could they be made session-only?
I'm not sure I understand your question but I do know that I have to SET a tone if I want to speak directly to to someone.
I think part of the general objection is that folks get lazy and leave very inappropriate tones on, which carry on indefinitely.
While some few tones are fine to leave on - soft comes to mind foremost - some are oft-overused to begin with, particularly seductive and mysterious.
Being mysteriously asked where the pawnshop is.. is the asker a Bregand spy, perhaps, waiting for a countersign? Always tempting to provide them with one - "The fenvaok flies westward at midnight," or somesuch.
And one shouldn't use seductively for many things... Seductively telling a rolton to shoo, are you playing hard to get, perhaps? And I don't care if you're touched by Ivas herself, there is nothing seductive about telling someone your guts are falling out, and you'll die without the aid of an empath.
All ones I've heard, of course, just the first to mind- I'm sure most could provide a few examples of their own.
--two silvers more
Tolwynn's player
Re: Missing Archetypes? · on 8/9/2005 7:35:52 PM
Oh, and to add to the good guy thread...one aspect of good guys that is often overlooked, in my opinion, is certain strong principles. The way I see it, and portray my character (who is one of the good guys through and through), those who are truly good hate truly evil acts. I see quite a bit of rationalization of heinous crime among some good guys. So I have my own little "good guy" guidelines.
1. Good guys cannot get along with serial murderers, rapists, slavers, or really any type who victimizes those weaker than themselves.
2. Good guys cannot accept excuses for performing such actions. A Luukosian who kills people is a murderer first and a Luukosian second, and the god they serve has no bearing on how the good guy treats him.
3. Good guys will offer mercy, but not blindly. Blind mercy is just as good as cruelty, when the ones to whom you offer mercy go on to harm more people.
4. Good guys are rarely pacifists, as they are ready to protect those they can.
-mark