Prince said
#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.
It is entirely relevant. These RP's don't start out as republics, they start out as empires, and if you don't like the empire you're in, you can leave and join another empire with precisely zero repercussions.
If you tried to take power in the Roman Empire, in a way that threatened the emperor, you kind of died.
Horrible.
So, yes, it is entirely relevant to bring up that, as a comparison, it doesn't work on a base level, in that nobody had a choice in the Roman Empire but to be part of the Roman Empire. Attempting to leave or change it had very severe repercussions, that went all the way up to your potential demise. Whereas on Roleplayer Guild, if you don't like the Roman Empire authored by Julius Caesar, you can always leave and join the one authored by Commodes, or leave that one and go make your own Roman Empire--all with zero consequences to you, ultimately.
Prince said
#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.
It would also be completely abhorrent and disrespectful towards the game masters. The worlds and plots they created are
theirs. By
law, save in the case of fan fiction. Telling me that I couldn't kick someone out of my group because they have rights
in a role play is, sorry, frankly, ridiculous. The same kind of ridiculous as making that very same argument for game servers:
"Oh you kicked me out of this Call of Duty server? You don't have the right to do that!" Well what if I wanted to invite my friend? No?
Games, role plays, etc--these are forms of
entertainment. Making comparisons to states and giving rights to the players like they're somehow just as important as jobs or your rights as a human being is... Ahh... No. All you're going to do is clog the system, slow it down with needless rules. If you really don't like a GM, go find another one. If you really don't like a role play, go make your own. You are perfectly capable of doing this, don't punish everyone else with your system because there are some bad GM's.
Prince said
#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?
The GM's? However, he can plainly explain to the player that set of traits wasn't intended to be allowed, and offer to help the player make something else. No system is perfect and sometimes unexpected results occur.
For example: I remember in Pathfinder, I made a fighter who, at level
one, had +7 rolls to hit and +2 to damage. He was plain, outright one hit killing pretty much everything in his path, but if the DM made the rest of the monsters harder to compensate, my allies would have been useless, or worse still, slaughtered by SuperGoblins™. When the DM calmly explained that it was a flaw in the system that let me min-max that hard, I agreed to rework my character into something more reasonable so that everyone else could have fun and feel useful, and not useless.
All the while, the DM had absolute power, so if instead of doing that I decided to be a raging dipshit who refused to change anything about my precious character who is absolutely perfect in all things, the DM could simply remove my cancerous attitude before it spoiled the moods of everyone else.
Why? Because this is entertainment. If it's not, in some way, enjoyable, then it has lost its purpose.
Prince said
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?
The player. A mistake in the system does not warrant then granting an exception only for that one player. It warrants an apology to that player and an explanation. Nothing more. Otherwise you set the precedent that every other player should get game breaking system exceptions. Then what's the point of having a system?
Prince said
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.
And the system. You forgot the system. Role plays are in the weird territory of being both writing and games. The system side of things is just as important and if it wasn't, then we wouldn't have a need for turn orders, author control rules, bits about godmoding and metagaming, etc.
Prince said
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.
Life isn't really fair. This is as good a time as any to learn it. Something the player could do is ask the GM if there's any way to obtain that core concept, or preserve it whilst not breaking the system. Otherwise, if there isn't, simply ask the GM "hey, I have a list of other things I'm interested in doing here, how many of these do you think would work?"
Remember. It's a collective interest RP, if the player puts his foot down and refuses to change when the GM notes it was a bug in the system that allowed the character to exist, then the player is being uncooperative, and not working with those around him.
That's problematic.
Prince said
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?
No justice needed. Player did not fit in, player refused to change, player was ejected. Now the player can go find a different RP that could actually tolerate his or her creation. This is actually the best possible way to do it. Forcing the GM to put up with this character they straight up don't like will only make everyone miserable.
Including the person who made that character, because they will never feel welcome. Being kicked out, they can now try again in a new RP. Of which we have many to choose from. Or, if there are no RP's currently available that interest them, they can go make their own.
This is, by definition, an incredible healthy system at work. It ensures that everyone gets the choice to do as they wish over their "property". People who don't belong are kicked. Is that unfair? Yes. Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?
No.
Prince said
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.
The system is idealistic but it wouldn't function site-wide. The moderating staff would be insanely overwhelmed with report requests to deal with one DM or another over some sleight about how Jimmy Junior isn't allowed to be a telepath and what not.
Besides, part of what makes this site fantastic is that you have the choice to employ any system you want. Do you want to be a tyrannical megalomaniac who wantonly punishes people? Go right ahead, you won't last long, but you can go right ahead. Do you want a democracy, where there is no "true" DM or GM and everyone votes measures into place, like whether a player can join or not? Well, you can do that too, absolutely nothing is stopping you.
Forcing everyone to subscribe to the same system because it might be fairer is, ironically, the most unfair thing you can do.
EDIT
Also, to handle player deaths, I simply put in a little bit at the end of every character sheet where you sign your username. In signing there, you've plainly signed away any right you had to claim your character's life is immortal, which is plainly explained to you:
Sign this and I am allowed to kill you whenever, and however, I choose. The reason being is that death is a core theme of every role play I make. People die, all the time, I like to reflect this in my role plays. Especially since it raises the stakes:
Oh no, Jimmy Junior died! It really gives a sense of urgency and concern, and helps players learn very quickly that rash actions will get you killed. Bumrushing the main villain will get you killed. Planning and teamwork, on the other hand, will more than likely, repeatedly, save your life.
