Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Terminal
Raw
OP
Avatar of Terminal

Terminal Rancorous Narrative Proxy

Member Seen 4 days ago

So hey, the following segue involves a description of an argument regarding practical and philosophical differences in roleplaying and writing in general, as a collaborative effort. It's sort of long and probably not of interest to anybody who doesn't care too much about literary theory or in managing interaction between thread participants. Also it's probably sort of divisive. I put it here because after pondering over what happened, I am genuinely curious regarding what other posters might think/feel regarding the positions expressed by the parties in the argument.


And so I am left wondering.

I would like to hear any and all thoughts or comments all of you might have on the positions/ideas being described above. What do you think was right?

Please keep any commentary constructive and try to be as objective as possible. I did not make this topic to start a flame war. I made it because I am interested in seeing what other members of the RPG community think about the situation and related problems, and also as to what reasoning others might have as to the validity of the positions/ideas described. I'll try to answer any questions posed to help clarify the exact situation, but please bear in mind that I was a fly on the wall, that the incident was a month and a half ago, and that I would like to preserve the anonymity of everyone involved. As such, there is not much more information I feel I can provide beyond what I have already laid out above.

You know. Assuming anybody even read through that whole thing and then actually wants to comment or ask questions.
Hidden 9 yrs ago 9 yrs ago Post by Nemaisare
Raw
Avatar of Nemaisare

Nemaisare

Member Seen 1 hr ago

Honestly, without knowing the exact situation(and I don't need to :P), that all seems very reasonable to me. At least, insofar as it doesn't seem to have escalated into a flame war or trolling effort. I can see the merit of both stances as well as what the rest of the players concluded. But if I were to look at each part individually, I'd have to agree most adamantly with the peanut gallery.

Poster A's inability to bend their plot towards an accommodation isn't exactly the cooperative working with the group that one generally expects and implicitly agrees to when joining a group roleplay. If you aren't prepared to let your plot be influenced by outside forces, then you shouldn't really be bringing it into a public forum like that. On the other hand, if you are willing to let influences occur, but can't find a way around them to a satisfactory conclusion to the plot(which is certainly still, at the heart of the issue, yours), then I can understand trying to avoid the influences you can't work around. However, if you already have the plot idea in your head upon joining and the complete avoidance of characters (more than one of which are not yours to control) is necessary to finish said plot, you should probably either not join, change your plot, or try to talk with the other rpers before things come to a head and they can't find a good reason to have their characters ignore yours.

Poster B's inability to control their own character is... not an exceptionally valid argument. I've encountered it before, where a writer says that they are merely reporting or letting their character write through them. I can understand the sentiment because I do know that when you write a character, you are writing a person who should remain consistent with how you want to portray them. If they do not like mushrooms, you would not write them happily gorging out on mushrooms with a huge smile on their face. But it is entirely possible that they've only actually eaten mushrooms once, and they were poorly cooked, and these are, in fact, very good mushrooms and they are surprised at how good they taste. If they would not ordinarily ignore suspicious or overt, or even just curious, behaviour that catches their attention, then why would they suddenly turn a blind eye? Bribery? Distraction? Sometimes, especially if you are suddenly in a corner and did not have the chance to prepare for the necessary actions, it can seem inevitable that your character should react one way and one way alone in order to maintain consistency and continuity. If that's the case, and backtracking was not an option(given as it's a group rp, it would be hard to manage), I can understand them being stubborn and possibly, probably, frustrated by a request to change their character's actions.

But for Poster B to say that they cannot make their character do anything different is rather silly in my eyes. They are a text based creation, and in your head, you are fully capable of making them do a 180 without any consequences. They aren't going to attack you while you sleep because you made the manliest macho man dress in drag and do the hula. It might make you and everyone else cringe to see it happen, but it is not impossible to manage. And if it allows things to continue peaceably, then maybe it is in the group's better interests that you sacrifice that character's momentary integrity and work together to find a retroactive reason for why the ignoring was a plausible action. I can understand being frustrated about it though, and the stance concerning contextual reality; consistency and continuity are important to any story, breaking them should not be done without thought and preparation and maybe a back-up plan.

I think that Poster A might be a little more in the wrong, but only if this issue came up after a lengthy period of time during which they could have been working, and weren't, to avoid it by discussing their plans and how to work around them with the other group members. But, along the same vein, demanding that someone's character interact with your own smacks of the sort of thing most people want to avoid. It should be a collaborative effort to entice characters into interacting together to further their and the rpers' aims ICly, not OOCly saying that this has to happen now, because it's going against one character's supposedly written in stone traits that can't be finagled by the writer to get them out of the situation without sacrificing either consistency or plotline.

As I don't know the rp, I'm not sure about the examples being brought up by the rest of the group, and can't say whether or not they're valid to the situation. I really don't know NRPs, at all, either. >.> But I should think that in any collaborative setting, working together is kind of, y'know, the key element.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Jig
Raw
Avatar of Jig

Jig plagiarist / extraordinaire

Member Seen 8 yrs ago

I tend to side with Poster B.

Poster A shows a disregard for the rest of the group and other people's characters by requesting that the universe be bent around their character, and seeks to 'godmode with permission' another player's character by denying them the chance to interact, infringing on that character's autonomy by design and forcing them to behave in a manner that is out of character. I don't see why Poster B should compromise their character so as to suit the plans of Poster A.
Hidden 9 yrs ago Post by Animus
Raw
Avatar of Animus

Animus I live in Singapore.

Member Seen 10 mos ago

Poster A was wrong.

Simple as that. An RP is a collaborative work to generate a fun and/or interesting story. We assume everyone as equals so to do something as "I have a plot in mind, ya'll are not to interrupt it and instead accommodate to me," sounds downright ridiculous. Who are you to dictate that you or your characters possess more importance than others? Why on earth should other people accommodate and compromise around you so you can your ideal plot out?

Some might argue and say Poster B was partially at fault for not accommodating. Well, if someone copied your homework without permission then you have the right to be angry. Would it make sense if someone told you that you shouldn't have gotten angry and instead have been mature about the matter? You could have but you are not obligated to nor are you in the wrong for not letting the matter slide.

I don't think this is really debatable.
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet