Is -not- thought emoting bad?

PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING!
User avatar
Danika Stenvaag
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:31 pm
SL Name: Danika Stenvaag
Caste: Panther
Role: Valkyrie Torva Chieftess
Home Stone: Valkyrie Forest
Contact:

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Danika Stenvaag » Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:55 pm

Oor wrote: Recently(ish), my Gorean FW character had reason to try to use tassa powder on someone. She made enquiries IC about obtaining the powder (with the story that she suspected a house slave of stealing wine and wanted to prove it conclusively since the slave was one of her father's preferred girls), and OOC I sent a message to the sim admins to see what the admins' preference was - whether I would need to emote about the (pre-prepared) wine being laced with tassa powder before handing over the wine, or would be able to not mention the powder until after the other character had drunk (or left).

And the admins decision was that it should be mentioned in narrative before the target character drinks. My opinion is that mentioning something in narrative that the other character cannot know gives an opportunity for metagaming that is unnecessary.



This really isn't complicated. The administrators are right. Dropping any kind of powder into someone's drink (without narrative) that will result in a change to the other roleplayer's condition, health, consciousness without their roleplay permission is godmodding the roleplay.

"God Modding" is in essence when someone’s character has the ability to do practically anything to another character like killing or injuring or poisoning or knocking out a character without the player's express permission. It isn't your job to police potential metagaming from the other player if they have a fair narrative of your "intent" to spike their drink. Roleplay is a two way dance, not just your own, and everyone deserves a chance to share in and write the story together. I've been in a couple past roleplay situations where men tried to dupe me into drinking beverages spiked with gorean ruffies to knock me out and rape me (with no rp warning). They later revealed their intentions all along were to get me pregnant and keep me. That's some pretty serious life changing roleplay. I was like, so I don't have a choice in this roleplay?

But back to the point of the topic, it also isn't cool to resort to ooc trickery by using insincere thought emotes that contradict the characters true intentions. That's gerrymandering the roleplay. Of course, if the roleplayers agree ahead of time to this kind of surprise roleplaying, want to play it that way, especially if they know each other, are ooc friends, then off course, all bets are off and you can do anything you like together.
Image
What is hidden in snow, is revealed at thaw. ~ Viking proverb

http://www.valkyriepanthers.com
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Oor » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:15 pm

Danika Stenvaag wrote:
Oor wrote: Recently(ish), my Gorean FW character had reason to try to use tassa powder on someone. She made enquiries IC about obtaining the powder (with the story that she suspected a house slave of stealing wine and wanted to prove it conclusively since the slave was one of her father's preferred girls), and OOC I sent a message to the sim admins to see what the admins' preference was - whether I would need to emote about the (pre-prepared) wine being laced with tassa powder before handing over the wine, or would be able to not mention the powder until after the other character had drunk (or left).

And the admins decision was that it should be mentioned in narrative before the target character drinks. My opinion is that mentioning something in narrative that the other character cannot know gives an opportunity for metagaming that is unnecessary.



This really isn't complicated. The administrators are right. Dropping any kind of powder into someone's drink (without narrative) that will result in a change to the other roleplayer's condition, health, consciousness without their roleplay permission is godmodding the roleplay.

"God Modding" is in essence when someone’s character has the ability to do practically anything to another character like killing or injuring or poisoning or knocking out a character without the player's express permission. It isn't your job to police potential metagaming from the other player if they have a fair narrative of your "intent" to spike their drink. Roleplay is a two way dance, not just your own, and everyone deserves a chance to share in and write the story together. I've been in a couple past roleplay situations where men tried to dupe me into drinking beverages spiked with gorean ruffies to knock me out and rape me (with no rp warning). They later revealed their intentions all along were to get me pregnant and keep me. That's some pretty serious life changing roleplay. I was like, so I don't have a choice in this roleplay?

But back to the point of the topic, it also isn't cool to resort to ooc trickery by using insincere thought emotes that contradict the characters true intentions. That's gerrymandering the roleplay. Of course, if the roleplayers agree ahead of time to this kind of surprise roleplaying, want to play it that way, especially if they know each other, are ooc friends, then off course, all bets are off and you can do anything you like together.



Surprising nobody, you're wrong.

The answer is that no, you do not get a choice in the role play in the way you describe, no matter how life changing it is. When you enter the role play world, you consent to anything that can happen, happening. If, when faced with a spiked drink, you make the OOC decision to have your character not drink it based on that OOC information, you are metagaming. There is nothing "godmoding" about not referencing something another character would have no clue about, in narrative. The fact that there is a pre-spiked drink in the scene is not relevant to any character until such a time as that character has interacted with it. If your character takes the risk of drinking from a cup prepared by someone else and dies, or gets raped, or gets pregnant, or gets enslaved - well, there's your new story direction,or it's time to reroll. That's how ICA=ICC works.

I get that you're a dyed-in-the-wool SL Gor player, but it's really not a very difficult concept.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Qingwen
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:32 am
SL Name: Akane Nacht

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Qingwen » Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:02 am

Oor wrote:
During the scene, opportunities for the target to become suspicious would have existed, and would still have allowed the target to decide to decline the wine, or to not drink, or to spill it, or to switch the cups - but we'd both have known beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no metagaming going on. If the tables were turned and my character was the target, I'd also rather not know about the tassa powder (or poison or whatever) until my character would.


I see nothing amiss with that. Hints would have been dropped, and it's up to the other player to be alert to them. I still tend to give a heads-up for anything major, simply because I would rather sound out the other player first than butt heads later. And I still can't make them play the scenario no matter how logical and legit it is. Just being practical.
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Oor » Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:11 pm

Qingwen wrote:I still tend to give a heads-up for anything major, simply because I would rather sound out the other player first than butt heads later. And I still can't make them play the scenario no matter how logical and legit it is. Just being practical.


I used to play more like this, but I play mostly in genres other than Gor now so I guess I just got used to another way of playing. I don't think there's anything wrong with laying everything out in narrative to the extent that there are very few surprises - I just think it's less interesting.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
BlueConover
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:38 am
SL Name: Blue Conover
Caste: Red
Home Stone: Torcadino
AkA: Blue Conover
Location: Uk

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby BlueConover » Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:00 am

Any thought emote that gives me information my character a) can not know at all b)means I have no way of responding to.

I hate with a passion of an infinite suns
If your thought emoting in the sense of "Smiles lightly grinning his evil plan is working"

Slightly different. I can respond to the strange grin.
Blue out
He Lives....
Happiness is like Orgasms... The More you think about it.. The less you get...
Tantus
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:55 am
SL Name: Inactive
Caste: Scribe

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Tantus » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:34 pm

Consider this scenario. It begins in a paga den, seated opposite a strange and hooded figure.

[10:00] Strange Fellow creepily strokes the side of your hand and produces a silver tarsk from between his fingers. "Watch, and follow." Comes the challenge from the depths of his cowl. With three cups set before him, he covers the coin with one. Then shifts the cup from the right in simultaneous motion with the left, the action repeats swifter and swifter with all three cups joining the fray, scuffing across the counter into that hastened motion before the end. Strange Fellow leans up, he knows the coin is beneath the Middle cup, no one ever chooses that one, they always go Right or Left. "Pick wisely and you may keep the coin."

Now it's your turn to emote, so which cup will you pick? Think about your decision before reading on.



When you throw in these thought-emotes, then you are inadvertently affecting the other player's decisions. A minority will always pick the Middle cup. I've roleplayed trivia games as an experiment against people who always want to win, and when you know they're googling every answer for their character, then you word questions in a way for Google to give the wrong result. And when it matters most, you make them lose the game :twisted:

Other types of people roleplay too fairly and will never pick the Middle cup, and by thought-emoting you're manipulating them too, thus, restricting their options.

I'm of the opinion of keeping my RP-Cards close to my chest, and should a scene go that way... you reveal your hand and stump the other player into a genuine 'WTF' moment. That's a whole lot more satisfying than leading someone down a pre-warned path and padding the ground for them to fall on.
User avatar
Anarch Allegiere
Posts: 984
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:01 am
SL Name: Anarch Allegiere

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Anarch Allegiere » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:14 pm

Tantus wrote:I'm of the opinion of keeping my RP-Cards close to my chest, and should a scene go that way... you reveal your hand and stump the other player into a genuine 'WTF' moment. That's a whole lot more satisfying than leading someone down a pre-warned path and padding the ground for them to fall on.


Yeah, I kinda agree. But when I think back on the example that made me post this thread, that doesn't always seem completely fair either. Some small subtle hints perhaps sometimes should be given that everything isn't quite alright or are what they seem to be, which then again could slightly be offset with other hints that try to claim they are. It's a complicated matter.

As long as we don't narratively lie.
User avatar
Sasi
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
SL Name: Sasi

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Sasi » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:01 pm

I would roll the dices in such a situation. Three cups? Fine, so if the total of dices is 12, I would have to roll at least 8 (4 points per cup) in order to make my character win. The hazard, through the dices, would decide for my character. Not me, the typist.

And your emote will prove that you are not the one who will decide if my character will win or lose. You put your coin under the middle cup, too late for you change your mind after I rolled the dices.

Simple, no? ;)
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: Is -not- thought emoting bad?

Postby Glaucon » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:48 pm

Seems pretty obvious to me. Both are fine. Whatever you think will make the RP most interesting.

It is just like actual fiction writing. Sometimes the writer decides we should know the thoughts of one or more of the characters. Sometimes not. Sometimes, a scene that might be bland otherwise might be made far more interesting because we know things the protagonist or other characters in the scene don't know. And sometimes, we only get what they do and say and need to puzzle out what they are thinking ourselves. Many writers do both, depending on the scene. I see no reason to object to an RP-er making similar choices about their characters. Of course, some idiots (or really inflexible types that follow some principle of stubbornness) will godmod if your RP lets them know you think anything adversarial. But hey. Idiots be idiots.

Regardless, I do prefer it if they don't spend half a book-page talking about their character's feelings, backstory, private thoughts when that doesn't give me anything to react to. But then again, plenty of people don't do inner narrative/thoughts etc., but still manage to fill half a page with 'description' of how exactly they smoke their cigarette, that doesn't give me anything to RP off either. But that is more of a para-RP problem.

Return to “Debate It.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron