Let's B!tch. I feel it's a healthy release for our roleplay annoyances 2.0

[notdeadyet]

What about an arena rp where he clearly stated "to the death" is the wrong place to kill someone? XD

[Rilla]

Nope. as long as they rightfully should die. None of that. lol deathmove5000000cataclysm

[notdeadyet]

It was a 4 way fight, i got the first kill... The 3 of them got but hurt cuz i actualy killed him, then they voted me to death... Is this idiocracy or...

Fuuk this urks me

[Dedonus]

When you press the most recent post, it says "Page 14 of 13"...

[Jig]

Dedonus said
When you press the most recent post, it says "Page 14 of 13"...

When people's unfonzcool behaviour results in posts being removed causing this problem.
___
Tbh I didn't see the original posts so I'm not having a go at people. But, yes, it's annoying. xD

[Mirandae]

I can sometimes get annoyed with the phrase "it's just a game," which of course applies to roleplaying as well. Obviously, it's not just a game, it's recreational devices that a lot people invest quite a bit of time (and sometimes currency) into, and when those who think that "it's just a game" take things for granted by ignoring rules, not responding, or otherwise undermine everyone else because the device is dog shit to them, I can get pretty cranky.

[TheMadAsshatter]

People who can't spell properly. Especially on a forum with spell checking, like Jesus, how much effort does it take to look back through your post to make sure you spelled everything correctly!?!

I've been hanging out in the casual section for too long.

[Derpestein]

TheMadAsshatter said
People who can't spell properly. Especially on a forum with spell checking, like Jesus, how much effort does it take to look back through your post to make sure you spelled everything correctly!?!I've been hanging out in the casual section for too long.

[2]

Terrible spelling and grammar is more suited for free. Just paragraphs don't get you into Casual.

[Brovo]

Jig said
When people's unfonzcool behaviour results in posts being removed causing this problem.___Tbh I didn't see the original posts so I'm not having a go at people. But, yes, it's annoying. xD

Prisk said I can sometimes get annoyed with the phrase "it's just a game," which of course applies to roleplaying as well. Obviously, it's not just a game, it's recreational devices that a lot people invest quite a bit of time (and sometimes currency) into, and when those who think that "it's just a game" take things for granted by ignoring rules, not responding, or otherwise undermine everyone else because the device is dog shit to them, I can get pretty cranky.

Well, it is just a game. That doesn't exempt the other party from responsibility though: One agreed to join the game and follow a set of rules. Failure to follow the rules results in the player being exempted from the game.

So yes. Those people annoy me too, though altogether for different reasons.

EDIT

New Gripe

A lot of evil characters are actually written poorly, often given no motivation for why they do the things that they do, or coming up with hair brained schemes that any fifth grader could defeat with a little bit of common sense. Most often evil is used as a shitscreen shield for doing random, depraved acts for no more reason than to be "edgy" or "cool". It's to the point that when people say they want to join any of my RP's with an "evil" character, I will probably shoot them down unless I know them well enough to trust them.

Because, really, no, it's not cool to join a story for the sole purpose of wanting to murder your fellow players when that's not the purpose of the plot whatsoever.

[Prince]

Brovo said A lot of evil characters are actually written poorly.

I see that far too frequently. In my opinion, a villain should be the best-written character in any story. If human nature is to somehow abide by whatever rules or concepts the society within a roleplay develops, then a good villain should be given a plot or story of their own that explains why their nature is so different that their moral compass is off to the degree of what other characters consider 'evil.' Furthermore, I don't often even like characters that are meant to be villains. I'm a huge fan of just having a shit-storm of different cultures and factions with opposing views and traditions where the idea of protagonist and antagonist only exist in the perspectives of the character involved. Some ofmy favorite plots are like these little snapshots of a huge world, and there's no need for their to be a 'grand scheme' that involves world domination or some huge antagonist that makes the entire world shit its pants.

Brovo said Because, really, no, it's not cool to join a story for the sole purpose of wanting to murder your fellow players...

Intentionally omitting the last half of this quote, I find this line sad. Mass Murder Makes Me Happy...

[Cuco]

Brovo said A lot of evil characters are actually written poorly, often given no motivation for why they do the things that they do, or coming up with hair brained schemes that any fifth grader could defeat with a little bit of common sense. Most often evil is used as a shitscreen shield for doing random, depraved acts for no more reason than to be "edgy" or "cool". It's to the point that when people say they want to join any of my RP's with an "evil" character, I will probably shoot them down unless I know them well enough to trust them.Because, really, no, it's not cool to join a story for the sole purpose of wanting to murder your fellow players when that's not the purpose of the plot whatsoever.

This used to be one of my chief gripes. I once ran with this group where more than a few people would create, as I called them, "generic psychopaths". They generally just happened to be insane and capable of all kinds of cruelty, yet also balanced and logical enough to fight efficiently and make sound decisions in general. It was even worse when they made a small group of them that had no real reason to show loyalty to one another, but fought as a pack because, of course, they were all the writer's little pets >.> And naturally, they found any excuse they could to start a fight and get someone killed. No one ever seemed to get terribly fussed about it until they were explicitly targeted, though XD

It's been a really long time since I've actually encountered someone who's done this, however.

[Prince]

@Cuco: IT'S AN AKATSUKI FULL OF JOKERS!!! F'real though, there's only one Joker, but way too many people try to recreate his dynamic.

[Brovo]

Cuco said This used to be one of my chief gripes. I once ran with this group where more than a few people would create, as I called them, "generic psychopaths". They generally just happened to be insane and capable of all kinds of cruelty, yet also balanced and logical enough to fight efficiently and make sound decisions in general.

This in general pisses me off for personal reasons, straight into the special kind of evil category and dropkicked off my RP's without warning. One does not simply generic psychopath. Now this doesn't stop me from allowing others to try making genuinely mentally unstable characters, but I'm plainly uncomfortable when others make mindless monsters out of those who have traits that I also have.

If that makes sense.

[Cuco]

Prince said
@Cuco: IT'S AN AKATSUKI FULL OF JOKERS!!! F'real though, there's only one Joker, but way too many people try to recreate his dynamic.

How appropriate, since it was a Naruto RP I was talking about XD

Amazingly enough, the Akatsuki wasn't that bad in that particular game. To me, the worst was the three characters made by one guy to comprise the highest level members of Kumogakure. All prepared to fight and kill for whatever reason, and also loyal to one another for whatever reasons (given it was 2.5 years ago this happened, you might forgive my hazy memory).

Brovo said
This in general pisses me off for personal reasons, straight into the special kind of evil category and dropkicked off my RP's without warning. One does not simply generic psychopath. Now this doesn't stop me from allowing others to try making genuinely mentally unstable characters, but I'm plainly uncomfortable when others make mindless monsters out of those who have traits that I also have.If that makes sense.

I'm not sure I follow you. Like, you reckon you're a bit unstable, and find it offensive when people poorly represent such a thing?

[Brovo]

Cuco said I'm not sure I follow you. Like, you reckon you're a bit unstable, and find it offensive when people poorly represent such a thing?

Well, actually, I am. Unstable. Technically. Not nearly as bad as I used to be but I quite clearly remember it. So when others use it as an excuse to make horrible violent monsters that have no reasons for what they're doing it drives me nuts. Because I realize those people probably, genuinely, think that unstable = horrible bloodthirsty monster that should be put down. The ultimate of all evils. The truth of it is that most are absolutely suffering horrible shit. They aren't monsters: they're victims.

Edit

Note: I don't mind people playing unstable characters when they've done research and understand what it actually is. I am somewhat disturbed by people who think, say, all psychopaths are mass murderers. (More psychopaths kill themselves than commit murder.) Because that tells me they might actually think all the Hollywood movies portraying mentally unstable people as insane monsters with amazing intellect made only for killing are true... o_o

[Cuco]

Well, I do apologise for using the word psychopath to describe them. It's just that, of course, those people would always play the insanity card to justify killing and raping and doing as they please. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone make a character that could be described as a legitimate psychopath and also be something other than a murderous creep or at least exceedingly aggressive. Kinda made it easy to think "oh look another generic psychopath" when, yet again, someone made a character that wants to run around killing people.

So yeah, sorry in case the phrase was a poor choice of words on my part.

[Jig]

Isn't it kind of sinister, though, when a multi-genocidal serial rapist puppy-kicking total bastard is able to, you know, function normally and generally come across as an affable, polite individual? It's not realistic, but it's done, as you note, even in Hollywood. There's a reason for that: the juxtaposition is really effective.

That doesn't mean, of course, that everybody can do it or do it well. I have experienced truly awful 'evil' characters and find the female ones in particular tend to talk like dominatrixes. It comes across, to me, as more comically naff rather than threatening.

[Brovo]

@Coco: Don't apologize! I wasn't blaming you or anything like that. I was mostly just expanding about bow irritating it is for me personally from your comment.

@Jig: Funny story, a lot of top tier business men immitate psychotic behaviours. The wolf in sheep's clothing is a very real thing: it's typically sane people who train themselves and overpower their empathy until they can simply switch it off on a whim. There are also psychopaths who learn how to emulate normal emotions, but unless they have a way to escape social situations to disguise any mental breakdowns they typically get caught at some point.

To me, it is far more interesting to dive into the head of an otherwise sane person who emulates the behaviour of a psychotic or sociopath, who struggles to retain some shred of humanity and sanity while still being capable of becoming a cold blooded killer on a switch. Such as a hitman, or an assassin.

But nobody does that they do generic psychotic monster people that show just how little they understand about this stuff. x.x

[Jig]

Brovo said But nobody does that they do generic psychotic monster people that show just how little they understand about this stuff. x.x

You are right in that most people know nothing about it and b!tching about a societal ignorance is fair game, but complaining that people don't always write psychologically accurate characters is a bit like complaining that Pikachu isn't biologically viable.

When you say generic psychotic monster, I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the word monster. These characters are destructive to the world around them in a way that reminds me of slasher movie monster/villain - they are armed with the designated role of villain that both automatically justifies their violence (in an RP, this may be social violence rather than literal) and makes a contract with the audience that they will perform with that violence in ways that allow them to be just slightly more powerful than their victims. When you go see Hallowe'en, you expect Michael Meyers to do some stab-stab-stabbing.

For me, what makes this fail as a concept is that the 'villain character' is usually the player's input. In those works where you can get away with having an almost two-dimensionally psychotic (forgive the use of the word; you know what I mean) character, the character is basically a plot device to give the real characters something to overcome or be destroyed by. Unless an RP has been founded around that antagonist (or had the antagonist tied into it), the antagonist has no role; the conflict is already there. Therefore, the antagonist's primary role reduced to being pointlessly belligerent in a way that typically seems out of place and usually obnoxious.

The great and massively under-celebrated thing about RPing is that it's one story told from every character's perspective. Because of this, a character (like the antagonistic-by-design ones) that is not deep or developed feels egregiously empty. With all the space there for exploration, why isn't there any?

I don't think it's that a 'generic antagonist' is a bad thing by design: I just feel they typically feel out of place in RPs.

Also: I recommend the British series Utopia to you. It's full of people getting slightly too comfortable with fighting against a government conspiracy and being able to break into houses, torture and kill people. That and the colours and soundtrack are beguilingly bizarre as well. The plot's a kind of generic government conspiracy one, but it's done with aplomb.

[Brovo]

Before I do a reply I'd like to quickly note that I predisposed my annoyance with "personal reasons" instead of "this is". Instead of making the statement one of fact, I made it one of personal feeling, ergo I didn't imply that someone else doing it and enjoying it was necessarily wrong, simply that it agitated me in particular.

Anyway.

Jig said You are right in that most people know nothing about it and b!tching about a societal ignorance is fair game, but complaining that people don't always write psychologically accurate characters is a bit like complaining that Pikachu isn't biologically viable.

Except Pikachu isn't real. This would be like if I wrote that all Chinese people want to eat babies and murder Americans and literally nothing else ever crosses their minds. See how that might be offensive?

Note, too, that I didn't call for it to stop. I said that I don't tolerate it very well in my RP's. My offense, my feelings on something, are not justifiable means for which to call others to stop doing it altogether. If that's what gets your plot rolling, and you enjoy it, fantastic, but I won't enjoy it.

Jig said When you say generic psychotic monster, I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the word monster. These characters are destructive to the world around them in a way that reminds me of slasher movie monster/villain - they are armed with the designated role of villain that both automatically justifies their violence (in an RP, this may be social violence rather than literal) and makes a contract with the audience that they will perform with that violence in ways that allow them to be just slightly more powerful than their victims. When you go see Hallowe'en, you expect Michael Meyers to do some stab-stab-stabbing.

Ironically, you mention Halloween. A film where the main antagonist has a back story. He was born evil and empty and everyone knew this. He has a particularly livid hatred of teenagers and thus goes after them. He has a motif, a motivation: Something which most generic villains in RP's lack. Like, badly.

I mean, it says a lot when even most slasher flicks will go out of their way to give at least five minutes to explaining why the monster is murdering people if it wears a human face.

Jig said For me, what makes this fail as a concept is that the 'villain character' is usually the player's input. In those works where you can get away with having an almost two-dimensionally psychotic (forgive the use of the word; you know what I mean)

I don't mind you using the word to explain something. It's not like it's a dirty word.

Jig said character, the character is basically a plot device to give the real characters something to overcome or be destroyed by.

Yep, which still doesn't excuse poor character execution as, if you're going to use the antagonist as a plot device, you need to tell players why the antagonist is their enemy. Develop him so they don't just feel like it's a generic adventure to slay a generic villain. This is how you make memorable stuff that people feel inspired to stay with.

Jig said Unless an RP has been founded around that antagonist (or had the antagonist tied into it), the antagonist has no role; the conflict is already there. Therefore, the antagonist's primary role reduced to being pointlessly belligerent in a way that typically seems out of place and usually obnoxious.

Yup.

Jig said The great and massively under-celebrated thing about RPing is that it's one story told from every character's perspective. Because of this, a character (like the antagonistic-by-design ones) that is not deep or developed feels egregiously empty. With all the space there for exploration, why isn't there any?

Exactly. There should be some. I mean, here's the real crux of it: Western fiction is character-based 99% of the time. If you don't have humans, then you anthropomorphize something in the environment, typically animals. The plot is built around the characters. The story progresses because of the characters. If any of your characters are weak, you are damaging the entire story, which results in forcing other characters to pick up the slack.

Jig said I don't think it's that a 'generic antagonist' is a bad thing by design:

Anything that is generic is stereotypical. Anything that is stereotypical is generally overdone and boring. You at least want to put a unique twist to something, to make it yours, or just to make it different. You can use generic for unimportant things, but for something as important as a main antagonist? You better give them a personality, a history, a face--something. Something which players can spot and remember as unique. Otherwise there is no reason why a player should join your RP and not someone else's generic fantasy RP, or generic Naruto RP.

The same thing happens in films. There are a lot of generic films out there that are not memorable whatsoever. For every Lord of the Rings there's a dozen fantasy B-grade knockoffs that deservedly die off in the public memory due to just being so abhorrently uncreative and generic.

Jig said I just feel they typically feel out of place in RPs. I recommend the British series Utopia to you. It's full of people getting slightly too comfortable with fighting against a government conspiracy and being able to break into houses, torture and kill people. That and the colours and soundtrack are beguilingly bizarre as well. The plot's a kind of generic government conspiracy one, but it's done with aplomb.

I'll think about it.