The Rule of Roleplay

[Morreion]

RoleCraft: The Rule of Roleplay (WarCry)

However, after reading such an angry article by a fellow roleplayer, I am today going to break my rule of saying their are really no rules to roleplaying. If I had to vote on one cardinal rule for roleplaying, I would vote for the Law of Player-Character Separation.

Law of Player-Character Separation: You are you. Your character is your character. Be extremely careful of mixing the two.

This is a reasonable rule- though it can be hard to do. I've seen all sorts of drama come from this not being considered carefully!

[Rakul]

And rule two: you can only directly affect your own actions, not others. But, just because you say you do it, doesn't mean it happens. Although you can "try to" do it.

[sinaedh]

Both of these are excellent rules! The first, of IC/OOC separation is essential, but often broken. The second, which I call Merria's Law, was taught to me by an excellent roleplayer on AOL who gave me a love of free-form roleplay, but is unfortunately one that many folks also never learn.

[Regolyth]

I usually roleplay my characters with the same attitude and beliefs as myself. I don't really separate the two very much.

[Morreion]

I often have my own basic attitude character-wise, but with a dash of things I'd like to be more like in real life, or maybe things I'm working through in-game, anyway RP is like a living playground for me at times. If who I am affects me on some level, I feel better at RP when doing it. Even when I'm a comedic throwback like Reynald in WoW!

[sinaedh]

I'm not sure IC/OOC separation is mostly about how you play the character in terms of temperament. Some of your morals, viewpoints, etc will be those of the character as well. It's more about... you know things as a player that the character cannot know. You may know two different characters are played by the same person, for example. Your character would not know there is a link (unless, like many, this is explained by the player saying they are from the same family), but you as a player would know it.

I think that often it's the IC/OOC separation problem that stirs up misplaced feelings, drama (not roleplay, but personal) and other problems, whether the players are doing 'serious' roleplay or not. It also causes problems for those who use it as a crutch. For example the, "I'm not a jerk, it's my character" syndrome, which, in my view, is simply an excuse for being... a jerk.

I think there must be a careful balance between what the character knows and what the player knows. Sometimes OOC knowledge must be used, of course. For example, while playing Sinaedh the cleric, it would be foolish (no matter her feelings of ridding the world of evil) for her to attack a purple mob solo. I know that as a player, so she has a hint of it because I allow her to be dreadfully wary (and frightened) of it. But sometimes I let the character act as he/she would... and reap the consequences, even if I sort of suspect what they will be beforehand.

[Loendal]

I'm not 100% happy with Rule #2... Back in my Black Dragon Inn days (I got caught up in remembering those days tonight!) fights were done with a 2d20 system. You would describe your attack and roll. Anything over a 16 hit and anything else missed. 20's were double (Or as I played them, 20's landed in EXACTLY the way the attacker described; which cost some of my characters some serious injury!).

It was up to the defender as to HOW it missed or HOW it hit. i.e. Loendal cuts his blade across Aerik's chest with a snarl of defiance and turns to deliver a swift kick to his midsection to knock him back. Now how I rolled determined if those attacks hit or not and it was up to Aerik's player to describe the defense or failure of defense. I found nothing wrong with this at all. By way of Rule #2 mentioned above I'd have to type Loendal tries to cut his blade across Aerik and might kick him afterward. All the if's/but's/maybe's and "Ask permission" kind of stuff totally destroys the flow.

I understand that you can't really MAKE something happen to somebody else's character, but there has to be some leeway for artistic license. It's hard to create a good scene or something spectacular if you have to throw in alot of if's and's and but's.

Now I will admit that my writing style back then was alot more campy then it is now, but I never heard of this "Ask" business until well after the FFRP channel I knew for so long had turned to slop. Suddenly there's all these extra unwritten laws that I'm getting admonished for violating, even though in the past I was one of the more influential members of the old Inn's background (Not trying to sound cocky or arrogant, I just spent ALOT [ like 19 hours a day give or take a bit ] online in the BDI) and nobody had any issues with the proceedings before that! I didn't even make up the rules, that was the way it was presented to me.

A death was scripted, fights were not. I tried to avoid script as often as I could because that kind of defeats the whole purpose of FREE FORM Roleplaying, yes?

[Rakul]

Loendal... I can go with that. In your scenario, while specific and well-done, can be played as either a hit OR a miss.

What I'm saying basically pertains to what you stated in your third paragraph. When a person states, as a fact, that they caused your character to do something, "I throw a banana peel on the floor, accidentally causing Loendal to loose his footing, hit his head on the table and knocking him unconscious." It's silly, but you get my drift.

[sinaedh]

Jan 1, 2011 23:40:45 GMT -5 Loendal said:

I'm not 100% happy with Rule #2... Back in my Black Dragon Inn days (I got caught up in remembering those days tonight!) fights were done with a 2d20 system. You would describe your attack and roll. Anything over a 16 hit and anything else missed. 20's were double (Or as I played them, 20's landed in EXACTLY the way the attacker described; which cost some of my characters some serious injury!).

It was up to the defender as to HOW it missed or HOW it hit. i.e. Loendal cuts his blade across Aerik's chest with a snarl of defiance and turns to deliver a swift kick to his midsection to knock him back.

In my opinion, this is perfectly fine for either fighting with dice or without (which is what I'd call free-form). You can cut your blade toward another's chest, but it still might or might not inflict damage, and the damage might or might not be serious... either determined by the dice or by the opposing player.

I agree with Rakul's assessment.... it's more of the god mode that rule 2 is against. A character cannot come in, have a super (saiyan) weapon that is 100% deadly to my red dragon, for instance, and smite me dead in an instant (and yes, this has been attempted by poor adolescents against my not very happy red dragon in AOL chats).

[Loendal]

I think perhaps it's a symptom that has infected Free Form Roleplay in general. As the quality and quantity has slipped (I tried to find some last night, couldn't find it anywhere!) people have become so hypersensitive that you are an evil asshat if you dare do anything that isn't perfectly inside of straight narrow lines. It's irritating.

Here's a question, which may do for another topic all together, what KIND of roleplay is preferred now? Back in my day it wasn't unusual for people to use four or five entries to get something done or to explain something. Now-a-days (Or at least, last time I saw it) people use (no joke here) four and a half paragraphs walk across the room! An example:

Loendal steps in from outside, leaning heavily upon a tall wooden staff for support and pushes the door shut behind him, shaking the snow from his hood.

Loendal makes his way across the room towards a table near the fireside, his left leg all but dragging along behind him as he moves.

Loendal drops heavily into an old, well-worn chair and leans his staff against he wall. He draws in his leg under the table with an audible wince of pain.

Now bear in mind, these three entries have a bit of time in between them, I'm not just slamming the screen with them. I leave space in there in case anything happens in the interim or if someone wants to say something or help him or anything. This is my method.

In contrast, I have seen things like this:

Susan walks into the room with a grand flourish of her low cut elven dress, exposing cleavage of the finest white porcelain. She looks sad, her mind having wandered to memories of her recent past when she was attacked here the week before and given a scar of ungainly jaggedness upon her left arm. She touches it gingerly and her frown deepens, wishing it never happened because now the Prince Randy will find fault in her and may never propose marriage! What am I going to do, she thinks to herself, how can I explain this all to father?

Susan moves across the room, thoughts lost in contemplation of the secret meeting she has set for tonight with the Prince. Will tonight be the night he makes his proposal? She hopes so, it would finally be over; all the waiting and worrying. Maybe then the wars would end and finally she and others she knows will understand peace at last.

I've seen it go on for pages at a time when all they accomplish is coming in, sitting down and ordering a drink. How am I supposed to play off that? Her every inner thought is exposed, she has nothing to talk about since we read it all in the text already and nobody (IC) is likely to have heard of this War waging somewhere within carriage ride of the Inn. I can't even ask her how she got the scar because it's already been explained.

I've always been of the mind that you tell people externals and play off the rest. You can see that I'm leaning on a staff, you can see that my legs are crippled, you can see that it's snowing outside. What you can't see is the Dragonscale armor I'm wearing under the cloak nor can you actually see my face yet for a frown or scars or even the color of my eyes until I drop that hood. There are subtleties that need to be brought out via interaction. I shouldn't know every detail of your character just because you walked into a room.

That's just me though