Dervish said So just reject them if they aren't willing to work with you or they aren't able to meet the standards. You can do everything you just said without rejecting them and then asking them back because you wanted to test their character. I stand by what I said.

... Uh... The rejection -is- the test. If they're willing to fix something that is "wrong" with their sheet, after I rejected them, so they can be accepted, and they do that, and they're willing to wait a couple days for a response, then they pass the test.

...This is really simple. Like... This is GM 101 stuff right here. Rejecting someone's CS because it doesn't meet standards and offering a critique that they can learn from, resubmit, and become accepted. This is... Very normal. I honestly don't understand why you think it's dickish. Do you just reject people and never, ever let them try again?... Is this somehow efficient to you? I mean, obviously, I've got to be doing something right, when my RP's consistently last for months or even years... It's not like I'm telling them that they're horrible human beings, I'm critiquing a fictional character.

Dervish said It's a rather shitty way to go about doing things, in my humble opinion, since there's plenty of other ways of judging someone's character without resorting to bullshitting a reason to reject them even though you have every other intention to accept them. It's not being "evil". It's just being a dick.

It's a test. A very simple to pass test. That works in ironing out people who throw up five minute characters and have no real intention to stay, or people who get really defensive about their characters.

This isn't being a dick. This is common sense.

Dervish said Say what you have to up front and be done with it.

...That... Would defeat the purpose of the test... You're assuming people will always be truthful. They're not. At all. If they were, then why the hell is the player drop rate in RP's so absolutely obscene?

Dervish said I have two games that have been around for around a year each and I have rejected several applicants for each game for a variety of reasons. The ones who remain are the ones who have proven to be good characters and capable of meeting my standards without complaint.

...Same with mine. That's pretty normal. I'm not sure why this was brought up.

Dervish said I am more than a little familiar with what it takes to run a game and chose people who are well suited for it, so believe me when I say that there are plenty of other very effective methods a GM can use that doesn't revolve around what you're advocating.

...Critiquing someone's fictional character to see if they will get pissed off about it and rage quit, or refuse to fix it, or if they'll just go and fix it?

Seriously? You'd take offense to someone throwing a critique out about your fictional character at random?... Really?... Um... I don't think you and I will see eye to eye on this if that's true.

Dervish said If you told me that I was rejected for a really silly, made up reason and then told me it was a test of my character three days later and you wanted me back, I'd refuse flat out. If you couldn't tell I'd be a dedicated and easy person to work with another way, then why would I want to participate? It's just rude.

I can't though. Dervish I'm not a mind reader, I can't automatically know how "dedicated" you are. You may even sincerely believe that you're this fantastic role player or whatever, but for all I know, you create a billion Mary Sues and have them make incestuous love to each other. Especially since the posting history on this site at the moment is limited.

Now, to clarify, no, I'm not saying that's what you do. I'm sure you're a great role player, but I'd rather you not go about telling me that my methods are a cruel and unusual punishment and that I'm being a dick and all that... Because I offered a critique on a person's character sheet at random to see if they would flip out or not.

... Character sheet. Not even of the person in question, their fictional, not-real character, in as non-offensive a manner as possible.

Anyway, I'm sorry that all it would take for you to leave my RP is my telling you that I was testing your reaction to being rejected and offering you reasons why you were, even if I didn't really care about those reasons, because I wanted to see who you were as a person.

Miss Gallagher said

What's your issues with partners lately?

None with partners recently. But then, 1x1's tend to have more problems finding partners. Especially with a page of rules and, let me guess, only accepting one gender behind the writing?

So no kidding you're frustrated.

Brovo said
Oh, that reminds me, two other things I'll do.1) Check posting history. If they have a habit of jumping out of RP's, keep that in mind.2) Reject some people for (I can make up bullshit as well as the next guy) and wait 3-4 days to get back to that person. This tends to vaporize 50% of the problem players right there, since most of the impatient ones also tend to have fragile egos. Bonus points in that it also works against people who cannot stand criticism, which if you have a long lasting RP, will invariable occur to everyone at least once.

You can rationalize this however you want, it is manipulative and dishonest. But each GM treats players differently.

This is just a rather disturbing window into how you treat your players. ^_^

I typically don't need a passcode, or some clever 'test.' If you're a writer, and a GOOD writer, odds are you can spot quality from non-quality. For Group game GMs needing to screen players to make sure they get that quality player...know your setting, present a CS that asks for what you want to see, post your own CS first to give people a good example...then wait.

No tricks, no gimmicks, no passcodes...notta. Just letting people's writing speak for itself, and not being afraid to turn people away as a GM if they fail to meet your previously established standard.

I suppose I fail to see the need for anything more complicated than that.

Ruby said
None with partners recently. But then, 1x1's tend to have more problems finding partners. Especially with a page of rules and, let me guess, only accepting one gender behind the writing? So no kidding you're frustrated.You can rationalize this however you want, it is manipulative and dishonest. But each GM treats players differently. This is just a rather disturbing window into how you treat your players. ^_^

Uh... I further clarified what I do already above, but I suppose I can repeat myself again.

I give a random critique to a fictional character to see if the player in question can handle criticism. The fact that you find that disturbing, says volumes.

Brovo said
Uh... I further clarified what I do already above, but I suppose I can repeat myself again.. The fact that you find that disturbing, says .

Didn't read it. I have your earlier text to go off of. And you originally wrote:

Brovo said
2) Reject some people for (I can make up bullshit as well as the next guy) and wait 3-4 days to get back to that person. This tends to vaporize 50% of the problem players right there, since most of the impatient ones also tend to have fragile egos. Bonus points in that it also works against people who cannot stand criticism, which if you have a long lasting RP, will invariable occur to everyone at least once.

If the above is true, I stand by my opinion. If it isn't, I guess I don't care that much. =)

Ruby said
Didn't read it. I have your earlier text to go off of. And you originally wrote:If the above is true, I stand by my opinion. If it isn't, I guess I don't care that much. =)

Alright. Let me highlight a piece for you.

Brovo said Bonus points in that it also works against people who cannot stand criticism

Criticism. The test is one to see if you can handle having your character criticized. Now whether this means you change your character, or you explain, calmly, why you think the character is good enough and try to defend it, either way, you pass, because you handled the criticism well.

It's the people who can't separate criticism of a fictional character from criticism on themselves that don't usually pass.

I apologize if that was unclear. I hope that clears it up nicely.

Brovo said
Alright. Let me highlight a piece for you.. The test is one to see if you can handle having your character criticized. Now whether this means you change your character, or you explain, calmly, why you think the character is good enough and try to defend it, either way, you pass, because you handled the criticism well.It's the people who can't separate criticism of a fictional character from criticism on themselves that don't usually pass. I apologize if that was unclear. I hope that clears it up nicely.

Don't apologize.

Let me put it this way: I don't know you. We've had some group interactions, enough to where I feel comfortable enough assuming you're mature enough. So since we have this common ground of 'mature enough'...sure, I can understand where you're coming from. But, me personally, it seems unnecessary, and the afore mentioned words you don't seem to like having thrown your way (dishonest and manipulative in particular).

If someone proves themselves incapable of handling criticism (and what GM hasn't ran into this issue before?) then they're out, gone, kicked. It's simple, easy, honest, and straight-forward. I'm not shy, I don't need premeditated hoops for a player to jump through.

You and I are, no kidding, different in this regard. So be it. Not a big deal.

I don't know if I misread or misinterpreted what you wrote, I was simply going off of what it sounded like, which was "Make up reason to reject somebody, ask them back a few days later to see how they handle rejection." What you're bringing up now sounds more in line of regular ol' GMing stuff, which I'm personally A-okay with.

Because I never got the hang of multi-quoting a message, I'm just going to italicize your points because I'm lazy. <3

... Uh... The rejection -is- the test. If they're willing to fix something that is "wrong" with their sheet, after I rejected them, so they can be accepted, and they do that, and they're willing to wait a couple days for a response, then they pass the test.

...This is really simple. Like... This is GM 101 stuff right here. Rejecting someone's CS because it doesn't meet standards and offering a critique that they can learn from, resubmit, and become accepted. This is... Very normal. I honestly don't understand why you think it's dickish. Do you just reject people and never, ever let them try again?... Is this somehow efficient to you? I mean, obviously, I've got to be doing something right, when my RP's consistently last for months or even years... It's not like I'm telling them that they're horrible human beings, I'm critiquing a fictional character.

Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If someone doesn't meet the standards you have set out or has some kind of glaring personality flaw that is going to drive you or somebody else insane, then by all means turn them away. If someone's willing to work with you and edit their sheet as requested, then I don't see a problem with giving them multiple chances to work things out (unless they really aren't getting it or are just shoe horning in throw away lines in hopes that justifies something, then nope). I'd say about 3/4 of the people who apply to my games usually have to revise their sheets and resubmit it. I never reject somebody outright unless their sheet is ABSOLUTELY abysmal or they have a totally shit attitude out the gate, like a major Sue for example. I had somebody apply to my Elder Scrolls RP wanting to be a half werewolf/ half dragon hybrid. I had another who wanted to have an immortal character in the sense of Kenny from South Park. Neither had any references to any of the big events that happened in the world in their sheets, anywhere.

But once again, as far as actually critiquing a character sheet goes, I pretty much do what you're saying.

It's a test. A very simple to pass test. That works in ironing out people who throw up five minute characters and have no real intention to stay, or people who get really defensive about their characters.

This isn't being a dick. This is common sense.

...That... Would defeat the purpose of the test... You're assuming people will always be truthful. They're not. At all. If they were, then why the hell is the player drop rate in RP's so absolutely obscene?

If somebody posted a five-minute character, it's pretty obvious from the get-go. Those are the kinds of people you say outright it's not what you're looking for and invite them to try again, and give them hard, but fair critique.

You can't assume anyone's anything over the internet, but I have a fairly decent judge of character based on how somebody writes and responding back and forth a few times. So far, I've only really been bit in the ass by one particular player I accepted in the game because they kind of went Dr. Jakyll/ Mr. Hyde on me months after they joined, and that was over IM. There's nothing you can really do about those cases.

As for why the drop-out rate of RPs is insanely high, it's a bunch of reasons that could be a thread all of it's own. But if we're talking strictly about characters here, usually it's characters that are accepted because the GM has a low bar of entry or isn't willing to enforce it, players who have short attention spans and take five minutes to write up a sheet and quit as soon as a game starts to slow down, and so on so forth. Basically, the GM has to try and keep things moving and players interested and do their best to accept players who put in the effort to keep a game running. I accept I'll have drop outs over the course of the first few weeks or months, but it's like polishing a gemstone. What you're left with, after you clear away the impurities, is beautiful.

I'm just saying from one successful GM to another that I don't really see a point in doing that little test of yours when there's a bunch of other methods I've done and have seen done that works just fine. Once again, this part of your post,

2) Reject some people for absolutely no reason (I can make up bullshit as well as the next guy) and wait 3-4 days to get back to that person. This tends to vaporize 50% of the problem players right there, since most of the impatient ones also tend to have fragile egos. Bonus points in that it also works against people who cannot stand criticism, which if you have a long lasting RP, will invariable occur to everyone at least once.

Made it sound like the sheet's totally fine and the person seems like they're good. So why make up a reason to reject them? Why not just say you need some time to go over the sheet? I mean, I can see why you do it, but as I mentioned, there's plenty of other ways to judge someone's personality that have worked rather well for me, and testing how somebody handles rejection's only a part of the grand scheme of what's going to make a player a good player. You can honestly do the same thing by picking apart a character sheet and point out what's wrong with it and request they make those changes. If they do without being confrontational about it and they get it to a point where you and the other GMs are happy, then it pretty much does the same thing as "reject them and see what happens", you know?

...Critiquing someone's fictional character to see if they will get pissed off about it and rage quit, or refuse to fix it, or if they'll just go and fix it?

Seriously? You'd take offense to someone throwing a critique out about your fictional character at random?... Really?... Um... I don't think you and I will see eye to eye on this if that's true.

On the contrary, I want critique on my characters when I apply. It makes me a better writer and helps me trim the fat off of the sheets I submit. If someone picks a sheet I worked hard on apart, sure it stings at first, but if a person's being fair about it, I actually prefer it, especially if the person isn't being an asshole about the whole thing. I like to know where I can approve, and I'd much rather have a character that fits in the story than one I think does but is clashing in some way somebody was too polite to tell me.

I can't though. Dervish I'm not a mind reader, I can't automatically know how "dedicated" you are. You may even sincerely believe that you're this fantastic role player or whatever, but for all I know, you create a billion Mary Sues and have them make incestuous love to each other. Especially since the posting history on this site at the moment is limited.

Now, to clarify, no, I'm not saying that's what you do. I'm sure you're a great role player, but I'd rather you not go about telling me that my methods are a cruel and unusual punishment and that I'm being a dick and all that... Because I offered a critique on a person's character sheet at random to see if they would flip out or not.

... Character sheet. Not even of the person in question, their fictional, not-real character, in as non-offensive a manner as possible.

Anyway, I'm sorry that all it would take for you to leave my RP is my telling you that I was testing your reaction to being rejected and offering you reasons why you were, even if I didn't really care about those reasons, because I wanted to see who you were as a person.

I kind of used "you" in a general catch all rhetorical way, not necessarily you in particular, Brovo. Should have specified or changed my wording, so apologies.

You must have been replying before I edited my post, I put in a little paragraph at the end saying I wasn't meaning that to be an attack on you for one of your many choices of a GM, just one choice I took an issue with, so don't worry; I still think you're fine and a person I quite like and your games obviously wouldn't last as long as they have if you weren't a good GM and a fun person, so please don't take all that as an attack on you. I just put swear words in as garnish a lot, not to make my posts bile.

What you wrote in that first post that kind of started all of this off just made it come across that you were more going after what the person was like rather than the content of their character sheet, the point I am hopefully illustrating in this particular reply is that I find you can get the exact same result in picking apart somebody's sheet in a fair manner, as well as replying to any questions they have and having a few back and forth exchanges via PM or even in the OOC. If someone's got some personality flaws that just won't work out, they usually show up pretty quickly. As I said, I've had only one person I had an issue with after I accepted them on a personal level. I've had some players do things in the game that I had to address as a GM to resolve and/ or have them change, and they complied without an issue.

But yeah, I'd hope that if you (once again, the rhetorical any GM) wanted to see what I was like as a person (rhetorical any person who has the perspective of an applicant), I'd hope that simply asking questions of what I should address in a flawed character sheet and asking for advice while I was working on it would be enough for you to take a chance on accepting the character.

Honestly, the way you wrote your point made it sound like you'd be doing that even if you had absolutely no problems with the character submission. Since there seems to be some confusion, do you mean if a sheet wasn't up to snuff and you waited a few days before asking a person to submit again? I am kind of getting that that's what you were meaning to say, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd personally just go over the sheet, say what was wrong, and say if they want to resubmit the sheet with the requested issue addressing then I'd be more than happy to let them try again.

Ruby said If someone proves themselves incapable of handling criticism (and what GM hasn't ran into this issue before?) then they're out, gone, kicked. It's simple, easy, honest, and straight-forward.

To my understanding, this is what he has been saying though.

Dervish said
Honestly, the way you wrote your point made it sound like you'd be doing that even if you had absolutely no problems with the character submission. Since there seems to be some confusion, do you mean if a sheet wasn't up to snuff and you waited a few days before asking a person to submit again? I am kind of getting that that's what you were meaning to say, correct me if I'm wrong.

If he has no problem with it, he has shown that he would accept it. But, absolutely no problem with the submitted char in the first glance usually meant either 1) He helped making it in the first place, 2) The creator of the char has been with the GM that they each know the other's preferences. Unless you have one of the two, then you would have a problem, minor or otherwise.

Also, no, if he had problem with the sheet, he outright say it after he read it, tell what's the problem is and then wait.

I'd personally just go over the sheet, say what was wrong, and say if they want to resubmit the sheet with the requested issue addressing then I'd be more than happy to let them try again.

That is what he has been saying though?

Brovo said It's not manipulative to ask them to change something just to see if they are willing to be cooperative enough to work with me.

Actually, yeah, that's kind of textbook manipulation. You're manipulating people by prodding them with something supposedly wrong about their sheet just to test their reaction and see if they have problems with cooperation or criticism. Seriously, dunno why you're trying to deny that.

The thing about it that people seem to not understand is that manipulation is not a negative thing in and of itself. Just because you're being sly about testing their commitment to the game doesn't mean it's bad. I doubt anyone would call bullshit if you just asked them about their future plans for their character development to see if they've considered long term involvement. This thing you're describing is just a subtle and indirect way of getting that answer, whilst also getting the bonus of finding out whether or not they're likely to be cooperative or open to criticism. I see no problem with it.

Dervish said Say what you have to up front and be done with it.

Who exactly is going to say "yeah, I don't really give a fuck about this RP and I can't deal with criticism" when asked directly?

Part of the reason manipulation is a useful tool is that since it's indirect, they'll be less likely to see what you're really aiming at and thus be less likely to hide any of the bad things you're looking for. Ask them if they work well with others and they will always say yes, even if they're a total prick who tries to ride roughshod over everyone to get what they want. The only thing you can really get out of directly asking those things is weeding out the people who are the least interested and just threw a sheet together because they wanted to kill five minutes. Anyone more determined than that will bullshit their way past your questions (which is super easy to do online, mind you) and then go about their merry way doing shitty things until you have to kick them. Better to use a little misdirection at the start than to deal with those problems later, I'd say.

Jorick said
Actually, yeah, that's kind of textbook manipulation. You're manipulating people by prodding them with something supposedly wrong about their sheet just to test their reaction and see if they have problems with cooperation or criticism. Seriously, dunno why you're trying to deny that.The thing about it that people seem to not understand is that manipulation is not a negative thing in and of itself.

^

Although I have to call that last bit subjective.

@ Jorick

I didn't mean like, interviewing them or something. "Where do you see yourself in this RP in 5 months?" "What would you describe as your greatest weakness?" "Do these business trousers make me look fat?"

I meant more along the lines of their character sheet, say what you have to say about the sheet or if you notice that there's something particularly off about them that you're concerned about. No use beating around the bush. I never ask somebody about any of the stuff you're talking about, because that just sounds silly. I judge someone entirely off their character sheet and how just talking to them turns out. So far it's worked out rather fine, I don't need to play 20 Questions with them and decide if they're decent enough to get along with. Like you said, you don't just outright ask somebody about what they think they'd do or whatever, you just play it by ear and trust your gut. If something sets up a red flag, then you should be worried. If not, see where it goes if they make a good sheet. Easy peasy.

Eh, people, let's keep egos in check. Agree to disagree, please. Peace in the thread...

I don't think I would reject for no reason, but sometimes if I'm 'unsure', I will wait a few hours to reply. This also helps me find the impatient people. You know, those people who PM again in under 2 hours going; "You could have just said no!"

And I reply; "I am multitasking right now and was contemplating RPing with you, but you clearly are impatient and I don't feel we'll work well together."

Honestly, I give people 24 hours to reply to me if I message them first. If I do not get a reply, I assume they had no interest. If they message back later, yey, if not, again, I accept they didn't care. Sure, it is polite to say 'no thank you', but sometimes...like when people break rules in their first post to you by asking for things you don't want, it's hard to say 'no'. They often come back with "Why not?". Then you have to tell them and they get all mad that YOU don't like that THEY ignored the rules...

I remember when I had a group chat. Very big. I ran the screening like I ran the RP (very organized style due it being an organization, war, military style RP). They had to fill out bios. I would reject any female bios that focused more on talking about how 'hot' their character was instead of why they were in the organization to begin with. As the rules stated, it's a 'war' roleplay, not a beauty pageant.
I'd also tell people I wouldn't accept it if the 'reason' they came to the organization wasn't a decent enough reason.
People who cared and REALLY wanted in would rewrite and understand. Those who were children, impatient, or just immature, would vanish or become brats and be mad at me.

Woah. When'd this thread explode?

Crimson Flame said
So basically we're all competing for spots. :/ From my experience, this always comes down to, "what kinds of characters the GMs like." Because the people that are willing to be judged like that are all good writers who have read the rules and know what's expected. So, what do you go on? :/I really don't want to be competing against people for a spot in an RP. :/

I'm not saying people need to compete for the same spot. A competition for a small number of spots with a due date sucks. It's a pain in the ass, a potentially large waste of time, and, yes, encourages a favoritism from the GM('s). If the third case is true, it's easily possible someone that put in less work gets a spot that someone who did more work doesn't, strictly because the GM likes the character idea or player more.

But I'm not talking competitions. I'm talking critical analysis of a bio that goes beyond "Is there at least a sentence(/paragraph) for every section of the bio?" A lot of GMs accept anything that meets a low and basic requirement, or don't push a player to fix a character sheet even when the GM thinks there's flaws that need fixing. That floods in bad characters, bad settings, and bad players.

The GM doesn't pick what they like. They make a standard, and they stick by it. E.g. A standard for how well a personality/bio is written (is the character a Gary Stu? are they realistic? will they make sense existing in the plot, with the other characters?) Or a standard for how they write the character into the setting(if a player tries to force an idea that does not fit the setting, don't let them).

Technically, a GM can always show favoritism, with or without serious review of a bio, with or without bio competitions. But those are bad GMs that think running a roleplaying campaign is equivalent to using human players as their dolls in a puppet show. You don't play with them.

Tick said
Woah. When'd this thread explode?

Uh. When I showed up?

^_^

Miss Gallagher said Eh, people, let's keep egos in check. Agree to disagree, please. Peace in the thread.

As you wish. I'll just leave a final, clarified statement then, as to what I had intended to say, but which was obviously lost in translation... Somewhere.

2) To give someone a piece of criticism on their sheet at random--and no, this isn't impossible, no sheet is perfect--then asking them to repair it. Then don't check back for a couple days. If they handle the criticism well (ex: defend it in a civil manner, change it, etc,) then they pass. If they don't, then they can find another RP that will better accommodate their needs and you can find a role player to better accommodate yours.

That is all I really ever meant to convey.

Also, I suppose a quick correction to Jorick and Ruby about the textbook definition of manipulation: "Exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous"". It has inherently negative connotations--that I'm using someone for my own advantage--instead of what it truthfully is: That I'm giving them a test and seeing how they react to it. That's not manipulative: I'm not using shrewd or devious influence, I'm committing to an act that is not based within a slander (you can reject someone for no reason, or for reasons you find otherwise minor--that's not slanderous), the nature of the act is not devious, nor is it shrewd. Therefore, it's not the textbook definition of manipulation.

I suppose, in hindsight, the confusion could have come from the line "bullshit reasoning", wherein some might interpret that to mean non-existent errors, that would be slanderous, but bullshit reasoning to me was simply any reasoning at all: Slanderous or not. So hopefully the cleaned statement makes it clearer that I'm not manipulating people.

Oh, and one final thing before I do agree to the amicable "agree to disagree" just to help Dervish and Ruby in the future with their communication skills: When you question a person's methods, you are questioning the person's character. When you call my methods cruel, or disturbing, you are in turn by extension calling me cruel, or disturbing, versus if I were to critique a fictional character: A person who does not exist, a physical work, an object, a thing, the result of a method, not the method itself.

Your intentions were not malicious, ergo why I didn't react with maliciousness in turn and instead using sarcasm and dry wit, but to claim that it wasn't offensive is nonsense. It was offensive: It was unavoidable attacking me as a person, but my being offended by no stretch of the imagination means that you were in the wrong to call me out, or wrong to point out how you felt about my methods.

tl;dr: Sometimes it's okay to be offensive if your intent is to try and point out something that is wrong to you, just don't then claim that you were, somehow, not offensive. It actually doesn't help things.

EDIT

Anyway if either of you would like the closing word, it's all yours, I'll read it and keep it in mind but otherwise not continue the discussion as the thread creator requested. I just felt this final response might be useful to clarify a potential error of mine and see if the repaired statement does not improve upon what I had meant to convey. Also to clarify a couple other things, like what manipulation means.

Uh. When I showed up?

^_^

Ha. :] Congrats on getting an RP discussion thread going.

Oh, and one final thing before I do agree to the amicable "agree to disagree" just to help Dervish and Ruby in the future with their communication skills: When you question a person's methods, you are questioning the person's character. When you call my methods cruel, or disturbing, you are in turn by extension calling me cruel, or disturbing, versus if I were to critique a fictional character: A person who does not exist, a physical work, an object, a thing, the result of a method, not the method itself.

Sorry if you were offended/felt attacked by the discussion (I wasn't involved, but I know that sucks). And I get how the comments on your actions were perceived as translating to yourself. But this sentiment does not work. It ends up: "Don't criticize me." If you can't question a person's actions or analyze the actions and make a critical conclusion, what can you criticize?

The common point about debate is to criticize an individual's actions and ideas, not their character. This makes the former equate to the latter.
They're not calling you twelve, or a nazi. People have right to evaluate your actions as wrong.

Tick said
Ha. :] Congrats on getting an RP discussion thread going. Sorry if you were offended/felt attacked by the discussion (I wasn't involved, but I know that sucks). And I get how the comments on your actions were perceived as translating to yourself. But this sentiment does not work. It ends up: "Don't criticize me." If you can't question a person's actions or analyze the actions and make a critical conclusion, what can you criticize?The common point about debate is to criticize an individual's actions and ideas, not their character. This makes the former equate to the latter. They're not calling you twelve, or a nazi. People have right to evaluate your actions as wrong.

Brovo said but my being offended by no stretch of the imagination means that you were in the wrong to call me out, or wrong to point out how you felt about my methods.tl;dr: Sometimes it's okay to be offensive if your intent is to try and point out something that is wrong to you, just don't then claim that you were, somehow, not offensive. It actually doesn't help things.

...

Nah, Tick. Brovo's not saying 'don't criticize' me. Although I'm not sure I agree methods=character. Methods are just as much a result of environment, and with that in mind...yeah, like I said earlier, I can certainly see where Brovo's coming from here. Being a GM can be frustrating. Being a GM with standards can make you want to set death traps for players you're certain are only going to waste your time. But perception=reality, and questioning the morality of someone's method could be seen as a question to their character.

Did I know Brovo might take some offense? Yes. Did it stop me from calling the method uncool? Obviously not.

Varying perceptions. I think the GM method in question is uncool, but not that big a deal. I'd feel the same way if it was Dervish or Jorick presenting the method, Brovo.

Are some of my GM methods screwed? Probably. lol No one's perfect.

I can't say I agree with Brovo's method, but I will say that the way I read it, is to find a point to critique that wouldn't automatically be a reason to outright reject them. I understand the motive, because let's be honest, you can't read into a person's character just by reading their character. That's bullshit, there are limits to what you can tell about a person based off a character sheet. Me, I roll with giving everyone a shot, but this means I also deal with a good amount of players that drop within a few days because of it. I've recently had to deal with a person I could've plucked out by using Brovo's method. That'd been a lot easier (although subsequently also not as much fun due to the death scene we wrote for said dude's character.)

The main reason I don't do like Brovo is because people can grow into RP's. I've seen a number of players who started out needing help and maybe even had some meagre sheets, grow into valuable contributors. I've interacted plenty with people who wouldn't deal well with critique well initially, but when given time managed to be co-operative regardless. Now I'm not saying to drop all your standard for sheets, but just like you give people a chance to change their sheets when something's wrong, you should also give them a chance to change when their initial reaction is wrong. Usually it's a lot of extra effort for nothing, but the chance of the opposite being true is a victory for the RP as well as any other RP said user will join in the future.

Wisdom, Kestrel!

In either case, thanks for sharing Brovo. <3 That's what RP discussion is for, and I'm sorry if you felt attacked. Please don't let it keep you from offering your takes in the future!