Holy shit, every time I join an RP, it dies only weeks later.

It's like banging my fucking head against a brick wall.

THIS is why I just stick to Spam and be an idiot. At least when I'm being an idiot, I don't have to put any time and effort into it.

Frizan said
Holy shit, every time I join an RP, it dies only weeks later.It's like banging my fucking head against a brick wall.THIS is why I just stick to Spam and be an idiot. At least when I'm being an idiot, I don't have to put any time and effort into it.

I agree so much.

Frizan said
Holy shit, every time I join an RP, it dies only weeks later.It's like banging my fucking head against a brick wall.THIS is why I just stick to Spam and be an idiot. At least when I'm being an idiot, I don't have to put any time and effort into it.

It's a tough truth.

Just enjoy them while they haven't been miserably killed and murdered.

Then again, it's still shitty to invest your time in an RP only for it to die, but try to stick along for the ride. Maybe the RP will get a tough mudder award one day when you take the head of the evil king, winning the rebellion and ending the RP.

Derpestein said
Then after a brief fight involving punching, tackling, hell flames, chains, meat shields, the RP died.

That IS one hell of a way to go out though :')

---

Anyway, something that sometimes slightly bothers me is people hellbent on matching characters up. And when I say hellbent, I mean REALLY hellbent. As in repeatedly spamming me with images of potential love interests without any kind of personality description attached because who cares about personality when the person is hot, right? It was... slightly uncomfortable. Until I lost my patience. Oops.
Was on a forum once where it was quite common. Within two pages every character had someone to bang and so they did. For the next twelve pages. To each his own, but I found that is really not something I like in my RP's :')

DrawnIn said
That IS one hell of a way to go out though :')Anyway, something that sometimes slightly bothers me is people hellbent on matching characters up. And when I say hellbent, I mean REALLY hellbent. As in repeatedly spamming me with images of potential love interests without any kind of personality description attached because who cares about personality when the person is hot, right? It was... slightly uncomfortable. Until I lost my patience. Oops.Was on a forum once where it was quite common. Within two pages every character had someone to bang and so they did. For the next twelve pages. To each his own, but I found that is really not something I like in my RP's :')

Avoid 1x1
Avoid 1x1
Avoid 1x1

Has my subliminal messaging worked?

Derpestein said
Avoid 1x1Avoid 1x1Avoid 1x1Has my subliminal messaging worked?

Actually, funnily enough, my best RP's have been 1x1 (partially because I'm an idiot who gets easily confused in crowded RP's). On that forum, the fact that it was always group rp's made them even more fanatic, since there was somehow a certain competitive aspect in getting a character hooked up with the prettiest dude/girl around (which also resulted in everyone using the same models for faceclaims, which was kinda hilarious) and in my 1x1's I've mostly had RP-partners with similar views to mine, so I enjoyed that a lot more xD

DrawnIn said Anyway, something that sometimes slightly bothers me is people hellbent on matching characters up.

Not just an RP thing, unfortunately. Basically every TV show and film that isn't specifically a relationship drama normally has the hero/ine acquiring a love interest that is in some way integral to the plot or character arcs.

It gets dull.

DrawnIn said
Actually, funnily enough, my best RP's have been 1x1 (partially because I'm an idiot who gets easily confused in crowded RP's). On that forum, the fact that it was always group rp's made them even more fanatic, since there was somehow a certain competitive aspect in getting a character hooked up with the prettiest dude/girl around (which also resulted in everyone using the same models for faceclaims, which was kinda hilarious) and in my 1x1's I've mostly had RP-partners with similar views to mine, so I enjoyed that a lot more xD

I practically never go on 1x1, because probably all of them are romantic in some way.
Romance isn't fun when romance is ensured to happen.

Derpestein said
I practically never go on 1x1, because probably all of them are romantic in some way.Romance isn't fun when romance is ensured to happen.

Agreed. That is why I usually make the agreement with the other person that we'll just see what happens. If the characters have the right chemistry; cool, if they don't; fine as well. Works rather well for me

I generally dislike 1x1's. Even with the best of partners, you begin to understand characters so intimately you can predict almost every single thing that will happen. At a point, to me, it feels like you lose the element... of interaction. Even if you have a second person brainstorming ideas and plotlines, fact is, at some point your characters will be fleshed out to the point that other person might as well be an extension of yourself and vice versa.

I staunchly believe that the fundamental and guiding principle of roleplay is interaction. If you can start predicting the outcomes of interaction with even just a 75% accuracy, it defeats the purpose of giving control to someone else, especially when you get up to the points where you're working on these literary tapestries instead of just weaving a few things together and hoping it doesn't fall apart.

Adding a third person changes the dynamic greatly. It only goes exponentially further from there. Increasing interaction within a roleplay strengthens it down to its very infrastructure. It's true that weak interaction can be detrimental, but so can an abrupt lack of it. This definitely relates to the point being made about forced romances, or just their likeliness. It's a strong plot element and really it's an aspect of human nature, too. They appear to be convenient, strong interaction between characters when they an easily be the exact opposite.

However, this does revert back to a previous point. Why 1x1's tend to bring forth some of the best roleplays between people, and the answer to that is simple. With just two people, if they're compatible writers, it's really easy to create a thriving roleplay and work off the low levels of interaction by manipulating the world around them for the characters. The plots can be so character-centric, the events full of character development and bonding. Essentially, it's easier to engage in more difficult aspects of roleplay because there are fewer factors. It is this relationship, this ratio, that makes it easy to respond to interaction in a healthy manner because there truly is less of it. At the same time, it's harder to keep a plot from running stale or a dynamic from getting old if there is such limited levels of interaction and factors being incorporated into a plot and/or setting.

Mm, that is all quite reasonable, Prince. I've never had any 1x1 partners, so in truth I wouldn't know, but I am convinced that the sweet spot between engaging interaction and manageable cooperative storytelling IS the 1x1x1.

If all three are equally compatible, it alleviates the worst of 1x1, and still retains the things that I have observed as lost in larger groups. It's a simple theory, but together with your points here it makes a lot of sense to me.

It does, actually, but in a way it also doesn't. I could go into roleplay theory for hours; I've spent ample time studying papers published by the Meilahti and Turku schools as well as became well-versed with GNS theory as well as basically all theories derived from the threefold model. I followed Ron Edwards for a long time after I immersed myself in tabletop-style roleplay, as well as simulations thereof (such as Baldur's Gate, Vampires: The Masquerade, etc.).

I would boldly say immediately that because this is purely text-based roleplay, it must be addressed with such an outlook. GNS theory would logically say that pure-text based gameplay focuses on the narrative, but the facts are there are still gamist and simulationist aspects, as well as several other factors. In short, when applying any of those theories, it must be done intelligently and with careful, careful forethought.

This is just the way I think. I use pre-existing structure and guidelines to understand things, including stories, books and literary technique. I believe at one time I even questioned debate technique. It's because there is, in fact, a formal way these things are done and observed for the sake of maximum effectiveness and understanding in an objective view.

Roleplay, whether it is an art or not, is no different. In any art class, you learn that there is a different between looking at art and seeing it. You can look at anything; you can even look at things subconsciously. But, seeing something involves the applications of memories, feelings and logic as you perceive it and that is the definite difference here. In this situation, I look at these aspects and these interactions using my memories (what I've learned through study) and logic to understand better what is happening, although I must admit as anyone should that I do have personal feelings and biases to some things. Just a fact.

When looking at 1x1's, I stop labeling them. It's important to understand what makes a 1x1 different, what the category is, instead of just titling it and moving on. A 1x1 is, most commonly, a roleplay without a formal moderator and with only two roleplayers. This is important because, as you just showed, you only looked at the number of people in it, not their relationship to the roleplay. It's true that I did the same, but that was because I was addressing the point of why I believe 1x1's get stale.

If you add a third person, you add in a whole new element. Once there are three, what if one person would prefer making plots, NPC's, etc. instead of a single PC? Does each person need to focus on a single PC? I've seen 1x1's, as I've just described them, that have the roleplayers against each other as often as they team up. What if it becomes 2v1 in IC, is it 2v1 OOC? If not, how are situations determined? If one person creates the main conflict, are they not an informal moderator in the sense they're mostly influencing the plot and setting?

In short, a 1x1 exists as it is because it is incredibly simple to create a roleplay, setting and plot that in general focus on two characters. The addition of a third changes the dynamic in the sense that it limits a few possibilities due to the complexity of their nature. I said before that a 1x1 limits interaction, and this is essentially what I mean. With the elimination of a large chunk of interaction and plot dynamics, you simplify an incredible amount of the roleplay and eliminate many of the leading needs for Moderation.

But, let's go back to why you are in fact on track in my opinion. With three roleplayers, you increase interaction, but you also create the need for more structure. All you have to do is create that structure and answer the questions that arise. If done cooperatively, you eliminate the need for further moderation and you can address the plot, setting and roleplay itself as it matures, and even reassess how things need to be ran or how the structure should be. Now, what did we add here? Was it just another player? No.

We added structure. We created something like an access point to a roleplay where a third person can come in and be part of it, and that's a huge task as well as a huge observation to take note of. It is neither an easy task or a common one, but it is possible and as a matter of fact it's the reason that most of the time roleplayers seek out the structure from the very beginning. A 1x1 rarely becomes a 1x1x1, yet a large roleplay can be dissolved easily into 1x1's and often times you could have multiple 1x1's existing within the same plot and setting but never actually interacting on an personal level - that's a hugely advanced roleplay concept most often called non-linear networking.

But I do digress and pose the interesting query: if you added a bit of structure to add a third person, what do you do for a fourth? Logically, you do the same. At what point does the structure become too complex, time-consuming or just--plain tedious for the group to do? At what point is there a need for an actual Moderator? A GM? That is a personal question related to personal preference; something I talk about a lot. If you stop looking at 1x1's as a different genre, it's a lot easier to see a relationship like this. Overall, compatibility, patience, attitude, creative outlets and personal preference all play huge roles in this. I know plenty of people in 1x1's that don't like the idea of only roleplaynig with one person as much as they just dislike the idea of a Moderation, whether they're polite or overbearing.

A whole different topic is one called a "Shared World", which is an incredible tool and roleplaynig concept, but it is rarely effective. If used, it has the potential to create large, interesting roleplaying scenarios, all bound together with a single context. A prime example would be Mizahar or any Final Fantasy and/or Naruto themed roleplay forum. They're a-dime-a-dozen, but they all have these immense amounts of characters and plot sharing the same setting. A 1x1 scenario here on RPGuild has nothing in comparison to the immensity, and that is because social engineering here is definitely meant for the small scale. I pose the thought that the social status here doesn't at all mean it is the best or most effective, merely serves a purpose. Some of the points I made here should easily highlight that.

I like you sometimes, Prince. I really do. Damn. Thank you.

Prince said
It does, actually, but in a way it also doesn't. I could go into roleplay theory for hours; I've spent ample time studying papers published by the Meilahti and Turku schools as well as became well-versed with GNS theory as well as basically all theories derived from the threefold model. I followed Ron Edwards for a long time after I immersed myself in tabletop-style roleplay, as well as simulations thereof (such as Baldur's Gate, Vampires: The Masquerade, etc.).I would boldly say immediately that because this is purely text-based roleplay, it must be addressed with such an outlook. GNS theory would logically say that pure-text based gameplay focuses on the narrative, but the facts are there are still gamist and simulationist aspects, as well as several other factors. In short, when applying any of those theories, it must be done intelligently and with careful, careful forethought. This is just the way I think. I use pre-existing structure and guidelines to understand things, including stories, books and literary technique. I believe at one time I even questioned debate technique. It's because there is, in fact, a formal way these things are done and observed for the sake of maximum effectiveness and understanding in an objective view.Roleplay, whether it is an art or not, is no different. In any art class, you learn that there is a different between looking at art and seeing it. You can look at anything; you can even look at things subconsciously. But, seeing something involves the applications of memories, feelings and logic as you perceive it and that is the definite difference here. In this situation, I look at these aspects and these interactions using my memories (what I've learned through study) and logic to understand better what is happening, although I must admit as anyone should that I do have personal feelings and biases to some things. Just a fact.When looking at 1x1's, I stop labeling them. It's important to understand what makes a 1x1 different, what the category is, instead of just titling it and moving on. A 1x1 is, most commonly, a roleplay without a formal moderator and with only two roleplayers. This is important because, as you just showed, you only looked at the number of people in it, not their relationship to the roleplay. It's true that I did the same, but that was because I was addressing the point of why I believe 1x1's get stale. If you add a third person, you add in a whole new element. Once there are three, what if one person would prefer making plots, NPC's, etc. instead of a single PC? Does each person need to focus on a single PC? I've seen 1x1's, as I've just described them, that have the roleplayers against each other as often as they team up. What if it becomes 2v1 in IC, is it 2v1 OOC? If not, how are situations determined? If one person creates the main conflict, are they not an moderator in the sense they're mostly influencing the plot and setting?In short, a 1x1 exists as it is because it is incredibly simple to create a roleplay, setting and plot that in general focus on two characters. The addition of a third changes the dynamic in the sense that it limits a few possibilities due to the complexity of their nature. I said before that a 1x1 limits interaction, and this is essentially what I mean. With the elimination of a large chunk of interaction and plot dynamics, you simplify an incredible amount of the roleplay and eliminate many of the leading needs for Moderation.But, let's go back to why you are in fact on track in my opinion. With three roleplayers, you increase interaction, but you also create the need for more structure. All you have to do is create that structure and answer the questions that arise. If done cooperatively, you eliminate the need for further moderation and you can address the plot, setting and roleplay itself as it matures, and even reassess how things need to be ran or how the structure should be. Now, what did we add here? Was it just another player? No.We added structure. We created something like an access point to a roleplay where a third person can come in and be part of it, and that's a huge task as well as a huge observation to take note of. It is neither an easy task or a common one, but it is possible and as a matter of fact it's the reason that most of the time roleplayers seek out the structure from the very beginning. A 1x1 rarely becomes a 1x1x1, yet a large roleplay can be dissolved easily into 1x1's and often times you could have multiple 1x1's existing within the same plot and setting but never actually interacting on an personal level - that's a hugely advanced roleplay concept most often called non-linear networking.But I do digress and pose the interesting query: if you added a bit of structure to add a third person, what do you do for a fourth? Logically, you do the same. At what point does the structure become too complex, time-consuming or just--plain tedious for the group to do? At what point is there a need for an actual Moderator? A GM? That is a personal question related to personal preference; something I talk about a lot. If you stop looking at 1x1's as a different genre, it's a lot easier to see a relationship like this. Overall, compatibility, patience, attitude, creative outlets and personal preference all play huge roles in this. I know plenty of people in 1x1's that don't like the idea of only roleplaynig with one person as much as they just dislike the idea of a Moderation, whether they're polite or overbearing.A whole different topic is one called a "Shared World", which is an incredible tool and roleplaynig concept, but it is rarely effective. If used, it has the potential to create large, interesting roleplaying scenarios, all bound together with a single context. A prime example would be Mizahar or any Final Fantasy and/or Naruto themed roleplay forum. They're a-dime-a-dozen, but they all have these immense amounts of characters and plot sharing the same setting. A 1x1 scenario here on RPGuild has nothing in comparison to the immensity, and that is because social engineering here is definitely meant for the small scale. I pose the thought that the social status here doesn't at all mean it is the best or most effective, merely serves a purpose. Some of the points I made here should easily highlight that.

Speaking of...

Does anyone know one of those 'shared world' type forum wide RP's? One with like a permanent world where, for example, if a statue was destroyed, it would remain destroyed in other roleplays.

Looked at Mizahar, wasn't interested.

I ask because I read a story about one.
There was this guy who found a cool permanent world RP thing and the 'magic' there was soul powers. Elemental, sure. However, there was a cap to spirit so you could only use so much before yo-
Just read it for yourself. It involves the protagonist travelling the lands with A Person Named Squid who is a half squid after they were shunned by the community as they try to train and kill the resident mod and admin ass kisser; Xero.

Which leads me to my next bitch:
In RP forums where fights and shit are settled by a GM, Mod, Admin, whatever, a guy sucks up to them...
And he gets his way.

Doesn't matter if he should in all ways lose that match and die, no, he has sucked up to whoever is in authority and gets to kill everyone and get uber loot.

As long as this thread isn't strictly RP related, I'd like to bitch about something I hate with a passion. Survival games getting turned into PVP fuckfests.

I'll use DayZ as an example. The mod, not the standalone, though the same does apply. I see DayZ as, to an extent, an RPG. It has no leveling system, no permanent inventory, no class selection, nothing like that, but the fact that it's such a well-done zombie survival game makes it a shame that everyone treats it like fucking CoD. I'd say about 75% of the players will just kill people on sight, which is not the way the game is meant to be played, in my opinion. Granted, there's no specific set of rules for DayZ, but when people rationalize dickhead behavior by saying "It's DayZ, I can do what I want, get over it," that does two things. A. that tells me they don't give a flying shit about the rest of the playerbase, unless they're on Teamspeak with them, and B. they take out RL issues on players in the game, specifically when spawnkilling.

Let me use an example, one time I joined a server. This was about three days ago, and I had never played on this server before, so I was a complete fresh spawn. Not even 30 seconds after spawning, no exaggeration, I got shot at. Not just shot, sniped. I had NO CHANCE to retaliate and was left to get nom'd by zombies and bleed out. I've been killed as a fresh spawn before, but never immediately after loading in. I bitched about it, and you know what? EVERYONE who responded to me called me a bitch, pussy, faggot, troll (yeah, I got that one, just for making my thoughts known) etc. So, on top of the fact that I wasn't alive long enough to tell which way is North, I got bitched at for a perfectly legitimate gripe in another player's behavior. Imagine if that were a brand new DayZ player, they'd instantly be turned off and possibly never play the game again. I could have lived with the kill if the players were at least somewhat respectful.

The above example is, in part, what leads me to my assertion that most DayZ players who do this have some sort of IRL issues that get translated into the game. If it were a game like Battlefield, okay, that's all well and good, people die within seconds all the time, but it's not. DayZ is not about seeing how many newspawns you can snipe before being counter-sniped, it's about trying to survive the zombie apocalypse. I feel like the meaning of the game falls on deaf ears most of the time, and it's a damn shame, because it ALMOST makes me not want to play it. Not only that, but it makes a whole group of people that I know not want to play it at all, and they're the only people I know, IRL or otherwise, who have DayZ.

So what do I do? I hunt down bandits and snipers. I devote my entire gameplay to doing that, because I feel like I have a moral obligation to make the game a little bit easier for normal players, but it doesn't fucking work. It doesn't dissuade the bandits because they just fucking respawn, and half the time they kill someone, they make them cold enough to become bandits themselves. It's a vicious cycle, and it's turned DayZ into nothing more than a PVP fucking circlejerk! Really the only reason I play it anymore is because it's the only FPS that I have that requires a good amount of skill to play, and I want to get better. I want to become an efficient bandit hunter, I want to kill them all, because they're all fucking pricks that make the game a bitch and a half to play! At least hackers and glitchers can be found and banned, but the bandits... they just keep coming. If they tried that shit in minecraft, they'd be banned for trolling or griefing, but it's become the fucking status quo in DayZ. What's the reason they all use? "This is DayZ, I can do what I want, and call you a faggot when you complain to me about it."

I understand that it's a game, but I also think it needs to be taken more seriously. I'm not saying everyone should be friendly, then the game would be boring as hell. What I am saying is that there should be a relatively even number of bandits to other players, because right now it's way out of balance; to the point that it makes DayZ unplayable to some people. DayZ is a game with excellent potential. Potential that is being squandered with the mindless PVP carried out by players who have played a few too many CoD games. The same goes for games like Rust, Nether, etc.

TheMadAsshatter said
As long as this thread isn't strictly RP related, I'd like to bitch about something I hate with a passion. Survival games getting turned into PVP fuckfests.I'll use DayZ as an example. The mod, not the standalone, though the same does apply. I see DayZ as, to an extent, an RPG. It has no leveling system, no permanent inventory, no class selection, nothing like that, but the fact that it's such a well-done zombie survival game makes it a shame that everyone treats it like fucking CoD. I'd say about 75% of the players will just kill people on sight, which is not the way the game is meant to be played, in my opinion. Granted, there's no specific set of rules for DayZ, but when people rationalize dickhead behavior by saying "It's DayZ, I can do what I want, get over it," that does two things. A. that tells me they don't give a flying shit about the rest of the playerbase, unless they're on Teamspeak with them, and B. they take out RL issues on players in the game, specifically when spawnkilling.Let me use an example, one time I joined a server. This was about three days ago, and I had never played on this server before, so I was a complete fresh spawn. Not even 30 seconds after spawning, no exaggeration, I got shot at. Not just shot, sniped. I had NO CHANCE to retaliate and was left to get nom'd by zombies and bleed out. I've been killed as a fresh spawn before, but never immediately after loading in. I bitched about it, and you know what? EVERYONE who responded to me called me a bitch, pussy, faggot, troll (yeah, I got that one, just for making my thoughts known) etc. So, on top of the fact that I wasn't alive long enough to tell which way is North, I got bitched at for a perfectly legitimate gripe in another player's behavior. Imagine if that were a brand new DayZ player, they'd instantly be turned off and possibly never play the game again. I could have lived with the kill if the players were at least somewhat respectful.The above example is, in part, what leads me to my assertion that most DayZ players who do this have some sort of IRL issues that get translated into the game. If it were a game like Battlefield, okay, that's all well and good, people die within seconds all the time, but it's not. DayZ is not about seeing how many newspawns you can snipe before being counter-sniped, it's about trying to survive the zombie apocalypse. I feel like the meaning of the game falls on deaf ears most of the time, and it's a damn shame, because it ALMOST makes me not want to play it. Not only that, but it makes a whole group of people that I know not want to play it at all, and they're the only people I know, IRL or otherwise, who have DayZ.So what do I do? I hunt down bandits and snipers. I devote my entire gameplay to doing that, because I feel like I have a moral obligation to make the game a little bit easier for normal players, but it doesn't fucking work. It doesn't dissuade the bandits because they just fucking respawn, and half the time they kill someone, they make them cold enough to become bandits themselves. It's a vicious cycle, and it's turned DayZ into nothing more than a PVP fucking circlejerk! Really the only reason I play it anymore is because it's the only FPS that I have that requires a good amount of skill to play, and I want to get better. I want to become an efficient bandit hunter, I want to kill them all, because they're all fucking pricks that make the game a bitch and a half to play! At least hackers and glitchers can be found and banned, but the bandits... they just keep coming. If they tried that shit in minecraft, they'd be banned for trolling or griefing, but it's become the fucking status quo in DayZ. What's the reason they all use? "This is DayZ, I can do what I want, and call you a faggot when you complain to me about it."I understand that it's a game, but I also think it needs to be taken more seriously. I'm not saying everyone should be friendly, then the game would be boring as hell. What I am saying is that there should be a relatively even number of bandits to other players, because right now it's way out of balance; to the point that it makes DayZ unplayable to some people. DayZ is a game with excellent potential. Potential that is being squandered with the mindless PVP carried out by players who have played a few too many CoD games. The same goes for games like Rust, Nether, etc.

Madass.
Sir.

Which one are you playing, mod or standalone?

Because either way, when I get enough money, I'm helping you on your quest to rid the DayZ world of the fucktards that plague it as a bandit hunter.

Like a skyrim companion but alive.

But yeah. The people that shoot on sight...I think that's what would happen in an actual zombie apocalypse. There would be bandits.

But spawn camping circle jerk duck hazards are assholes.
Also people who kill fresh spawns who don't have gear.

I mean, if you kill someone for gear, food, whatever then you can just justify it as you need food. If they shot first, well, self defence.

But killing a guy who only has clothes and his hands is just...No.

I have both, but I prefer the mod.

Pretty sure that, being in the RP Discussion area, this is meant to be about bitching and gripes for RP related matters.

Pachamac said
Pretty sure that, being in the RP Discussion area, this is meant to be about bitching and gripes for RP related matters.

Sorry about semi-derailing.

BACK TO BITCHING ABOUT ROLEPLAYS.

When people speedpost speedpost.

As in, many, many posts in quick succession and when you write your post, something has already happened and your post is out of order.

And when you edit, someone already responded, so THEY have to edit...

Derpestein said
Sorry about semi-derailing.BACK TO BITCHING ABOUT ROLEPLAYS.When people speedpost speedpost.As in, many, many posts in quick succession and when you write your post, something has already happened and your post is out of order.And when you edit, someone already responded, so THEY have to edit...

I remember I use to (and may still) speedpost. I really hate doing it but I only realise AFTER that it was far too fast :/