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

[Kestrel]

I actually really like the ideology that the GM calls the shots. It shortens arguments. If I disagree with something as a player, I make an appeal instead of a drawn out argument, then I have the choice of either accepting a decision or leaving the roleplay. As a GM, this means I have to put up with a lot less arguing and people going BUT I HAVE RIGHTS! Instead of giving me reasons why they should have X. Most GM's are decent people and open to player input. There's a few bad eggs out there, but most of them love their own game and understand that they need players who want to be a part of it. So if you phrase your stuff right and aren't a jerk about it, you'll find you actually get a lot of what you want most of the time. tl;dr Less shit, same result.

That doesn't mean GM's are infallible, by the way, but it's important to treat them and their content with respect, even if they make a mistake. You want the same from them, I'm sure. I mean I don't know how you handled it personally, but I can tell you that the least effective way for anyone to call me on 'my bullshit' is by causing a riot doing it. Then you'd be ruining something constructive by putting it in a disruptive package. I'd have to deal with neutralising the disruptive to stabilise the OOC, before dealing with the constructive, by which time I'll not unlikely want to crush someone's skull with my bare hands and that may be a time where I'm kinda biased in my judgement with the instigator.

Better ways to approach this tend to be "Hey man, great post. I just wanna say noticed X, which is in contrast with Y I posted earlier. Think we can work it out?" And if you want to be really, really safe do it by PM instead of post.

[Jig]

ASTA said GMs like these seem to be badly confused as to what their title truly entails, for their station is really only guaranteed true legitimacy so long as they have players that are willing to stick around for the ride. Typically, no one's going to persist in a thread when there's a shitlord on the loose in it, and I don't think a GM is really much of a GM when his or her thread has nothing to show for itself other than a cool breeze and some chirping crickets.

Doesn't this problem solve itself? The GM's word is law to those players in their RP, but if the GM behaves like a tit, there won't be any players to behave like a tit to?

Obviously being a tit is being a tit and should be discouraged at all times, but a GM's role, to me, is to present their idea and persuade others to come along for the ride. Ultimately, the core content is (usually) the GM's, and, as such, they have creative ownership over it. This means, surely, that they have the right to control, if they so choose, those things that affect their creation: the players, the players' characters, rules, gaming systems, plot directions, etc.

As you say, if a GM does this over-zealously, there won't be any players, and, thus, very little RP, so you'd think they'd learn not to. Then again, they do surely have the right to reject an addition to their RP that they don't like without even having to have reason or logic, and citing personal preference? That can, of course, be done in the polite form of:

I don't feel like it's right for this RP

rather than

It's a bad idea because X

Isn't it just basically about manners, at the end of the day?

[ASTA]

Unsurprisingly, I probably worded myself wrong. I don't have an issue with GMs calling the shots or having the final say in things pertaining to the RP. If they didn't, the RP would be about arguing and not about roleplaying. However, I do have an issue with the GMs who are proven wrong on certain--or many--points and then use their status as the owner of the roleplay as their go-to defense against these sorts of challenges.

Honestly, the points Prince made about this sort of behavior pretty much cover what I'm trying to say.

[Prince]

A common theme I see to support the ideology of "GM supremacy" is the fact that it shortens arguments or simply makes resolution conflict easier. This same idea applied to a Roman Emperor, did it not? During times of war or civil unrest, the Republic was turned into a totalitarian oligarchy with a single, central leader?

Each situation and scenario is going to be different. At times, the word of a GM being law not only opens up the system to abuse, but allows for toxic and detrimental decisions. If the system was so inherently perfect that every GM that abused their power would have unpopular roleplays, then you would never see them around - at least, not for very long. Yet, I'm almost sure that everyone here knows of at least one thriving or living roleplay with notably abusive GM's.

I believe, in essence, that there deserves to be a checks and balances system. Even if a GM creates every aspect of a roleplay, they did so to interact with others. The existential purpose of a roleplay is to have others in it, and with that said I believe that at some point a GM and a roleplayer should be considered equally important, just as that GM may be a roleplayer in a different roleplay. The idea that each GM is god within their domain is great for the sake of simplicity, but ideally a system to diminish that mentality so that a GM will always be given a sense of sympathy and incentive for a roleplayer would yield a far healthier community. If a GM makes a mistake or has a flaw and it interferes drastically with the work of a roleplayer, it is best to compromise instead of demand alteration.

If we lived in a world where most people weren't egocentric tits, not having a system of checks and balances wouldn't have a purpose, but it could really serve a good one and most likely help in a more advanced, healthy atmosphere. It would never hurt to have a set of 'basic human rights' for roleplayers to insure fair treatment, or a method of definitive compromise.

someone criticising your role-playing skills isn't like someone walking in on you during a single-player game and criticising your skills,

Opinions are not universal. Even if a majority shared an opinion, that does not mean they should get to dictate the literary art flow of another. In a situation where stylistic techniques conflict so greatly that one party does not wish to engage in roleplay if they cannot use at least a certain degree of their style and another one cannot tolerate that minimal degree, then one party should simply leave,.This is different in essentially every case. It could end up being a question of whom is the more healthy individual for the roleplay, whom is more skilled, whose style is better suited or just plain whom has more friends in that active community. However, most of the time, making polite requests instead of critique is a far better method of solving this error. Instead of saying, "to improve this aspect of your writing/roleplay/debate/painting/sketch, you should do X" simply saying "I have difficulties following your lengthy sentence structure, could you please avoid run on sentences?" or "I would be more comfortable if you had less detail in your posts for now" does a far better job. If they choose to ignore those requests, then you move to more drastic measures. Thus, even if roleplay involves interaction, I find unwanted critique or criticism without permission to still be quite rude and out of place in any setting. There is no point whatsoever in actual critique, constructive or not, if it is not communicated in a healthy way to promote said constructive habits. It is, for all intents and purposes, at that point nothing more than a rude annoyance and by far from a basic right one gains simply by 'interacting' with someone.

[Jig]

Prince said However, most of the time, making polite requests instead of critique is a far better method of solving this error. Instead of saying, "to improve this aspect of your writing/roleplay/debate/painting/sketch, you should do X" simply saying "I have difficulties following your lengthy sentence structure, could you please avoid run on sentences?" or "I would be more comfortable if you had less detail in your posts for now" does a far better job.

Oddly, I find the former to be more polite. I'm not sure why. I think it might be because, in the second, the critic seems to be presuming that the writer is writing for the sole benefit of the critic and so should tailor their writing to the critic's benefit. The request, by concept, seems inappropriate to me.

The former is more obviously constructive criticism, and, when such constructive criticism is politely given to somebody receptive to it (and sure, there are people that can't take it) - well, surely they'd welcome the insight if it's explained to them, and be more likely to willingly implement it to improve their own writing, rather than to please a nit-picking critic.

[Brovo]

On phone. Excuse typos, just figured some quick responses.

#1: An empire =\= a role play. There was one Roman Empire. (Then two if you count west Rome and Byzantine). There are several dozen/hundred role plays. Also, anyone can be the emperor simply by saying so. And by making a thread.

#2: the site operates on the idea that the person who makes the thread owns it. Especially Rp threads. So if the GM makes a rule, you don't obey it, and you become obstructive, the GM is allowed to jettison you. In fact, the GM can do so without a single reason, even... And I don't see any riots here. Usually the response to being booted is someone is angry for a couple days, then joins a new Rp, or makes their own.

Kind of hard to argue that the system can be punitive and abusive when its more like a job market. The GM is the person hiring you. The character sheet is your resume. Etc. If corporate doesn't like you, one way or another, you're gone. Except IRL we have laws dealing with this because the repercussions of employers firing you without warning or reason is a major life devastating event for most people. Being kicked from an Rp, or being forced to quit because the GM is terrible, is, at worst, an inconvenience on your way to the next Rp.

#3: that being said, most good GM's do have a checks and balance system. I employ co-GM's and ask for opinions from my players sometimes. It's a dictatorship but I do listen to "the people" because I know I need them to run my body slaughterhouses stories.

[Gat]

Brovo said ...because I know I need them to run my body slaughterhouses stories.

You had it right the first time.

[Brovo]

Gat said
You had it right the first time.

Yes, well, you seem to do well enough to avoid the saw blades... For now.

[Pachamac]

How would you even employ a checks and balances system o.o An RPer thinking someone is doing something right or wrong is purely subjective? Unless you're the GM considering you made the rp and thus know it and its rules etc intrinsically enough to know if a player is doing something wrong on an rp level. Personality/attitude wise, as has already been mentioned... if a GM is an asshat, then a player should just leave and join another rp or make their own.

I'm curious to know what rps you're thinking which are living and thriving with notably abusive GMs, because having kept an eye on the forums and noting which rps are long lasting and thriving and the type of GMing and communication that goes in them... there aren't any abusive GMs. And if there was, I'd like to give the players the benefit of the doubt to know that this is the case and they wouldn't be subjecting themselves to anything like that and already know to just leave and find another rp. Unless they were masochistic or something, lol.

[Prince]

Oddly, I find the former to be more polite. I'm not sure why. I think it might be because, in the second, the critic seems to be presuming that the writer is writing for the sole benefit of the critic and so should tailor their writing to the critic's benefit. The request, by concept, seems inappropriate to me.

The former is more obviously constructive criticism, and, when such constructive criticism is politely given to somebody receptive to it (and sure, there are people that can't take it) - well, surely they'd welcome the insight if it's explained to them, and be more likely to willingly implement it to improve their own writing, rather than to please a nit-picking critic.

I'm not denying that either could be effective. I am stating, however, that just PM'ing someone with some critiques or posting messages in a thread with a few criticisms of issues you believe are there is blatantly rude. There are alternatives and the difference between the two is that the former doesn't at all state that the error exists in both the writer and the reader. If you have issues reading or enjoying a specific style and wish for alterations and state immediately that you are having such problems, it gives a polite writer more reason to alter them. As a matter of fact, a critique and criticism are different. A critique is merely a detailed analysis while criticism is to judge something based on its merits and flaws. A critique itself is neutral; just an observation and that is what a lot of people believe constructive criticism is. It's not. In most constructive criticism, you are looking at 'flaws' and attempting to get a writer to improve them; that's if you're just plain not being a dick. Fact is, it is rude to just 'judge' someone - especially publicly - and begin pointing out flaws. If an individual has no desire to deal with that, improve or merely alter the aspect you have a problem with because you think it is a flaw, chances are you could have circumvented that if you explained that it was causing a personal issue.

#1: Your statement was true, but has no real parallel to mine. I pointed out a mechanic involved in a system of people, and a roleplay is in fact still a system of people. Stating a roleplay is not an empire is completely irrelevant to that. The entire point was that a republic would give up its authority to a single person in times of civil unrest, and that is an apparent issue here.

#2. Diluting the purpose of a system like mine because 'the worst case scenario isn't that bad' isn't making its use any less meaningful. If each GM knew that they couldn't just kick out players because they 'wanted to', they would be forced to go through a more significant screening process, roleplays would most likely be smaller, there would most likely exist a) more close-knit inner communities and b) higher level of social stratification. I do firmly believe that making GM's accountable would weed out weaker ones as well.

#3. There is no real checks and balances if there is no way to usurp your decision. An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it? If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character, who should have to give in here? In most cases, I say the GM should simply allow said character in, as long as it doesn't otherwise hurt the plot, interactions with other characters and is a quality creation. Yet, if a GM retains the ability to reject a character that cannot be edited without diluting its core concept when it was their lack of communication and foresight that made way for the character, then it is still unfair in that sense. It is a situation as simple as this that I do firmly believe a GM should be held accountable, or the countless similar scenarios when allowing one exception then enforcing the rules would be the 'fair' way to handle it. Yet, if that player is just jettisoned from the roleplay and it goes on, was there any real justice done there?

The type of system I would like could only ever be implemented on a site-wide range, so it would never come to fruition unless there was another incentives system. If everyone was 'cool like the Fonz', then you'd never need any real system. But, we all know, that's not the case.

[Scout]

I believe, personally, that while a balance can easily exist between GMs and Players, that the issue being discussed here isn't quite so cut-and-dry. GMs need the last say - somebody does, because Roleplays tend to be small groups and things need to be run harmoniously. For instance, I tend to run my roleplays as invite-only because I know a lot of people (people that I trust very much) who are interested in such fandoms and I know will passionately play along with them. I love to see the enthusiasm my players bring to the table. I also love to see new ideas displayed in a character, but when a thread is still in planning and is quite clearly labeled as closed, as a GM, it's quite aggravating to see somebody post a character with only the intention of making one and then completely 360 and claim that they have earned a place in that roleplay which was full long before their character was made. Furthermore, these roleplays tend to have queues because I don't like to push the limits on the number of people playing based on the different worlds.

These roleplays tend to open while they're still in progress because I like my invitees to make their own suggestions and start on their characters early. It also gives them a chance ot get to know each other and discuss how their characters are connected pre-roleplay. So, sometimes, the rules are a bit thin and have to be compromised as time goes on. I try very hard not to fully reject an idea that one proposes because i htink there's always an angle that can come from it. However, sometimes a compromise is required to make it actually fit the world that has been created.

As for an Iron Fist type of regime... I've never seen a GM run things that way. All GMs that I know, including myself, have at least 1-2 Co-GMs and definitely take into consideration what their friends and fellow players think of a situation. I also know fora fact that when I act out of line or am being unreasonable, my friends don't hesitate to tell me, which is why keeping a mostly-invite or closed RP is just a safe thing to do. Are there flaws in the system? Sure. But usually, I notice people making flaws where there are none. If only a single person in the thread thinks something is wrong, but the other six or seven see absolutely nothing wrong, then that one person doesn't get to have the power of the GM just because they disagree. It doesn't mean they're always wrong, but it also means that they have every right to leave, make their own Roleplay, or join another.

This all ties in to the reason that the "Roman Empire" metaphor becomes moot. Socrates was the first philosopher to make claim of the "Social Contract" - a duty that one has to their home country simply because they were born there. It does not mean you follow your government, it means you do what is best for your fellow people because oftentimes, especially in Ancient Rome, one could not easily abandon or leave their country, so it was everybody's job to ensure that their home was liveable. It didn't always happen. On the Guild, there is no "Social Contract" because you aren't forced into any of the worlds that have been created and it isn't your job to tell a GM off simply because you're the only one who disagrees with them. If you don't like the way the "government" of a thread is run, then it's just as simple as not playing in that thread. The Guild itself is home, not each individual Roleplay. If a GM is out of line, it's the Moderator's job to tell them so, I believe, or several people who are all in agreement. The majority isn't always right, but their advice carries merit, because there is indeed a reason that the majority is on a certain side.

Everybody has good points, because there isn't a debate if you don't have solid arguments for each, but that's simply my take and my own, personal complaint when it comes to GM'ing. ^^

[Prince]

A whole lot of the information presented was irrelevant. As a matter of fact, there are a whole lot of contradictions found within those specific statements.

Regardless, you overlooked the aspect of a Checks and Balances system to be the counter-action for the Word is Law Regime.

I do digress from that even to point out that you have one very, very good point, and that is if the majority isn't always right, neither is a minority. A flaw has to be present and influential to matter, and at times a flaw is in fact existential then the point of responsibility comes into play. Apologizing and later editions to rules or guidelines are not a replacement nor are they always a sufficient answer. At times, even a GM must bend their will and admit that they and their actions were wrong, even if they were wrong solely because they did not foresee the need to, state the issue of or simply get around to curbing the possible complications. In such a case, compromise is needed and the actual lack thereof on a GM is something I feel they should be reprimanded for. I have spent hours working hand in hand with roleplayers to absolutely perfect the integration of a character into a setting, bent a few rules and creatively came up with methods to justify something. Was it always powerful? By far, no. A lot of the things that merit bending the rules are done so for unique dynamics and interactions, all of which - for the most part - strengthen a roleplay.

Something that does irk me is also when someone falls back on their initial 'this is closed' statement after even acknowledging different, or better yet when they warp their words or present public information that is not necessarily true. Acting innocent or acting like fruitful statements mean nothing in the scope of what one does isn't only rude, it's truly detrimental. More annoying to me is the ignorance someone can have in not believing that actions they made influenced another, or misconstruing statements. Sometimes, outright lies. I absolutely hate someone whom would publicly post or shame someone or something when they intentionally make sure the information that would make them just as guilty isn't there, or better yet the information that makes them the obvious instigators or individuals at fault.

In my case, if someone goes as far to say something and disregard their statements later as well as justify themselves with rules that didn't exist at the time, it literally disgusts me. That has nothing to do with governing style, that has nothing to do with GM'ing; that is an individual action and choice that is made in ignorance. Almost as bad as those whom literally put words in others mouths or act as if someone commit an action they never did, which might also just tie into the counter position of your argument.

Overall, there is a time and niche for everything, and most people often ignore that because they get their feelings hurt or refuse to acknowledge their own issues. That is why I believe GM's should not only be held to higher standards, but require being checked into place. We're all human, so it should be a collective effort to make things better, not just a singular person and I do passionately believe this goes as far as those who are in the highest positions of power at times being reminded that they aren't all powerful, and at times will have to answer to someone - if not everyone.

[Scout]

My apologies, everybody, it seems that this has become less of a complaint thread and more of a turn-it-all-into-an-argument thread. Most of all, however, Prince, I'm sorry if I have ever wronged you in any way, for I did not realize that by Your Grace can we derive true Enlightenment. Your Omnipotence, I see now (for my eyes have been opened by that wisdom which can best any adversary) the error of my ways and I bow to your argument. For surely none other than the Prince of The Roleplaying Guild could ever be bested by a lowly pion such as myself. If only I had realized sooner that any perspective that is not yours is the wrong one... then perhaps I could have saved mine self the embarrassment of groveling at your gracious and forgiving feet. Yea, for it is written that "Mahz so loved the world that he gave his one and only son [Prince], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16, The Holy RP Bible). Thanks to you, Prince, my cup runneth over... You make me to lie down in greener pastures... You are my shepherd, I am the lamb, and I shall follow your Word to the end of time until such a day that we may all be united in your loving embrace. You are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Prince, your lordship, and I shall forever worship you until the end of my days, now that I have seen the light. Your opinions and words are laws and we are but your loyal subjects, surely, and in your light we bask in the holy redemption... for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.

Amen.

[Prince]

Brovo, Brovo, where for art thou? I miss thine intelligent replies to mine.

[Scout]

Deleted post.

[Orpheus]

Everyone calm your uniboobs.

Completely unrelated note, but ah well this is originally a thread about about complaining before y'all went cray, so I'll shoot. I hate it when RPers murder an OC without permission. :D

[Pachamac]

Orpheus said Completely unrelated note, but ah well this is originally a thread about about complaining before y'all went cray, so I'll shoot. I hate it when RPers murder an OC without permission. :D

Their own character or another player's? If another player's that should be close to instant grounds for rp removal if they're unable to edit that crap.

[Scout]

Pachamac said
Their own character or another player's? If another player's that should be close to instant grounds for rp removal if they're unable to edit that crap.

I believe the latter, but killing anything but their own character without permission wouldn't be fair unless the guidelines stated they could in something like a zombie RP, where the enemies come in hordes and it would be too annoying to wait for permission on each kill.

[Rexcalibur]

Joining an RP is like joining a club. The person hosting the club has rules they expect you to follow. Sometimes club-leaders are lenient, sometimes they're not. If you join the club and are well aware of the host's rules and disagree with them, you are more than welcome to find a different club that appeals to you. No need to start an argument and potential drama over their (subjectively) nonsensical rules when you can just as easily find a better club, or host your own club with your own (subjectively) better rules.

I think this is a valid bitch for me too since I've had this happen twice to me: in a club I was a part of in high school, and in an RP as well. Thankfully I was just a bystander in both situations lol. Imho, it shouldn't be this hard to live a drama-free life and to just... idk, leave if you don't like the rules there. *shrug* Just thought I'd introduce a different perspective while we're on the topic.

EDIT: I type really slow orz. Also Orpheus, I hate that too, when the killing is done to another RPer's character, especially if it was uncalled for / wasn't forewarned. :/

[Kestrel]

Orpheus said
Everyone calm your uniboobs. Completely unrelated note, but ah well this is originally a thread about about complaining before y'all went cray, so I'll shoot. I hate it when RPers murder an OC without permission. :D

I've murdered several PC's without permission. Whenever a player drops there will be a gruesome death. I've also killed off characters who pretty much set their selves up for death, like running around town while suffering heavy bloodloss or directly charging towards city-sized monstrosities with nothing but a plain bastard sword. Would you have an issue with this?