There are infinite roleplay permutations, choices, avenues, angles, decisions, and roles within the boundaries set by pre-existing Game Lore and Game Mechanics.

Anyone?

^^this.

One doesn't sit down to a game of Monopoly with 2d8.

When I posted above, I imagined someone biting, and me replying with a proof that any continuous subset contains infinity. (Then I remembered the insanely smart group of RPG fanatics I was talking to!)... But I was going to include a planar fractal-recursion proof, too, and that's a lot nicer than 'infinity between 1 and 2', which seems like small consolation.

Consider a fractal with tentacles that stretch all over a plane. There are areas of that plane the fractal does not touch, but you could section the plane into various smaller blocks, and every block could have a part of the fractal running through it. It doesn't only have to be "smaller and less consequential RP options left by imposed limits"; there are threads of possibility running through a lot of different areas. Someone said earlier that that which is not prohibited is allowed. That's still true in a sense. It just has a somewhat more implicit and common sense definition of prohibited.

Not trying to be pollyanna. I just like the mathematical model, and I know this group can follow.

Role play in a manner that brings you enjoyment (within the bounds of policy) and tell everyone else to jump in the river. As long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your role play, meh...who cares.

Madigan

<<I think there's a range of allowance, and we've been given incredibly wide and lax parameters in which to operate in. If you can't figure out a story within the bounds of the games 'realism', you're not trying hard enough. Conversely, if your story requires ignoring or breaking big chunks of the games lore, you're not trying hard enough. It's one thing to RP an Empath who hates their patients; it's another entirely to RP an empath who, using act/smile chokes you to within an inch of your life as a warning.

"Within policy" means to be in genre. That is what killed your example (which was a real example by the way) and was killed at the GM level.

What do you think of someone that worships turnips, believes they are gods, collects them and buries them in some secret place? Heh, sounds stupid and "doing it wrong". There are no turnip gods and any assertion of such goes against all game lore we know. Interestingly enough, this is a role play of one of my favorite characters in the game and I would rate this player and character as an excellent roleplayer to have taken this concept to a very cool level.

As long as someone is within policy, there is no right or wrong way to role play. Your opinion is just that, an opinion of role play that someone may or may not agree with. Frankly, the majority of people and GM's that profess an opinion of role play (talking about a personal opinion and not a policy determination) have very little or no history of excellence in role play that distinguishes them from anyone else. At the end of the day, someone pays for the paintbrush to paint on this canvas and as long as they are following the rules and accepting IG consequences for their actions...then more power to them.

For those that can't stand a role play that is not "doing it right", then react with your character IG. If some empath emotes or "smiles" your character death, then go kill them or react in whatever way your character would react if offended.

Madigan

<<Fine by me up until said turnip-worshipper starts using smile/act to have the turnip rise from the dirt after three days.

Yeah, whether it is fine by you or not is really not relevant to the discussion. If it is within policy, more power to him. Not my cup of tea, but hey that player pays the same as me to paint his/her own canvas.

FWIW, I think using SMITE and ACT outside of their intent can cause GM intervention or at least grant consent. I am fairly confident extreme uses of SMILE and ACT will be considered outside of policy (or at least grant consent).

By the by, much respect for many folks in this thread. I am a big fan of letting people do their thing under the theory that any role play is good role play as long as it is within policy. Sometimes I state my opinion on that matter a bit more aggressively than I post regularly...so no offense intended, just my passion on the topic coming out.

Madigan

>>Yeah, whether it is fine by you or not is really not relevant to the discussion.

Considering "what counts as good RP" essentially does boil down to opinion, my opinion is pretty much as relevant as everyone who isn't a GM, and the GM's opinion is only relevant if/when something goes from being bad RP to a level of OOC that constitutes an outright policy violation.

"I was trained by Xerasyth and had an internship with the Bone Elves on Qi" isn't a policy violation: it's just bad RP that doesn't follow any logic at all, including GM-created in-game lore, ooc knowledge, and all other practical advice on the subject.

>>If it is within policy, more power to him. Not my cup of tea, but hey that player pays the same as me to paint his/her own canvas.

I agree and disagree. I think it's poor personal policy as a whole to create a persona that is just not compatible with in-game reality, explicitly because you're expected to have that persona interact with other players. If I'm creating a character that is completely implausible, I feel that would create a bad IG experience for others and, in turn, that I should reevaluate what my character is all about.

It's like showing up to play in a baseball game dressed in hockey gear. Sure, you can play that way, but it kinda makes no damn sense and creates an awkward experience for everyone, including yourself.

Take the whole "I never joined the guild or spoke with Book" thing. Saying that ICly is one thing, because your character may just be a liar and/or outright crazy. I think that's a good/great/awesome RP to do. But, having it as part of the OOC character profile you created ("no, really, my character really never did those things ever") is another matter entirely. It just violates all the logic behind what characters can and can't accomplish. It's the equivalent of your character profile saying "My Barbarian can cast Ease" and literally RPing your barbarian preping and casting it using SMILE/ACT.

>>FWIW, I think using SMITE and ACT outside of their intent can cause GM intervention or at least grant consent.

Agreed.

>>I am fairly confident extreme uses of SMILE and ACT will be considered outside of policy.

IIRC, they are, and the penalty is usually losing the ability to use them.

>>Sometimes I state my opinion on that matter a bit more aggressively than I post regularly...so no offense intended, just my passion on the topic coming out.

I'd rather disagree over specific nuances with someone who cares about the game and wants the best for it than someone arguing for the sake of just wanting things their way because that's what they want so there.

>>Without opening too big of a can of worms, there are certainly people in real life who believe things that other folks would consider to be wrong or crazy, and it's not stopping them. Why would Elanthia be any different?

I think an important distinction needs to be made here.

If your character is just a bold-faced liar, crazy, in denial, or whatever, that's good. That's fine. That's awesome RP (you have my approval of your existence, I know this matters so much).

If you, as a player, even though you acknowledge that your character had to join the same way every other player has to join, do not consider that entire process as part of your OOC knowledge about your own character and claim that your character gained everything he or she gained through a method that is just not possible based on what your character should be able to ICly accomplish... I think it's a bit unfair to push that RP onto other players. Sure, players could just ignore it/just not look/decide the character is just loopy, but I think that it's unfair to have to make others deal with the fact that you're doing something wrong.

I feel like while the distinction is there, it can be considered irrelevant, at least to me personally. I'm going to IC treat you the same whether you're playing a character that's crazynuts in denial, or whether you're a player making up their own lore. From the perspective of my character who doesn't know the difference, I'd just RP it out the same way. I'd just also facepalm if I found out it was the latter rather than the former.

Sometimes it gets through to someone more to have someone ICly reject their ideas/dismiss them as crazy, than someone OOCly telling them they're doing it wrong would. In a pretty egregious situation where someone was outright inventing lore/ideas (I'm Lanival's brother and I joined the necromancer guild because Sidhlot is my brother's second cousin's uncle twice removed), if my character found that out, after lighting said necromancer on fire, he'd probably just tend to be like "Of course you are. Sure." and pat the delusional little pile of ashes on the head. The person obviously is inventing all of this improbably stuff to get a reaction, to stand out, to be different, to be a unique snowflake. If they see that they are a unique snowflake, but more because people think they're delusional and don't take them seriously, rather than because they're Sidhlot's brother's second cousin's uncle twice removed, they are more likely to change things for the better than if they got any sort of OOC prodding to do so. People have a harder time with direct criticism than they do with molding things because the things they are doing get a reaction they don't like. It's a completely passive aggressive way of handling it, I admit, but it keeps things IC and in my experience, at least, it works.

I want to clarify that I am using this whole discussion to talk about someone who knows the proper lore and chooses to deliberately disregard it, which at least I think is what is being discussed here. I am completely forgiving of people who are new and just don't have the background to make those choices with sufficient knowledge.

- Starlear -

>>I'm going to IC treat you the same whether you're playing a character that's crazynuts in denial, or whether you're a player making up their own lore. From the perspective of my character who doesn't know the difference, I'd just RP it out the same way. I'd just also facepalm if I found out it was the latter rather than the former.

Definitely agreed.

ICly, the response would be the same ("Oh, so the person is just a blatant liar. Hope Book and his enforcers don't take issue with that.").

OOCly, it can't hurt to make sure a player is aware that they're not really RPing in a plausible manner, so they should/could refine their character and create a better experience for everyone.

>>I want to clarify that I am using this whole discussion to talk about someone who knows the proper lore and chooses to deliberately disregard it, which at least I think is what is being discussed here. I am completely forgiving of people who are new and just don't have the background to make those choices with sufficient knowledge.

That too. No reason to just be a jerk to people who don't know better; no one should be expected to know everything on ePedia and the nuances of guild lore.

Really...we're still on this two days later? While I tend to agree with Raist(the post right after Raesh's in this case), I took the red posts as the final word on the topic.

Given that you didn't respond to anything posted by the GMs, I'm curious what your stance on the matter is now.

>>I took the red posts as the final word on the topic.
So where do you stand on the topic now?

>>So where do you stand on the topic now?
I stand as a general non-fan of limitation. That said, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to adjust the character to the character to the limitations. Playing it as a lifetime of completely irrelevant and non-existent past experiences wouldn't be a stretch, considering, (or frankly even that difficult), but also not something I would like to do. I also don't generally like the idea of redefining a character in "the middle of his life". I've rolled up another pre-nec at this point. Shatter still exists at the present, but I'm not sure that's going to continue. Besides, I have a nec/pre-nec with a better name now.

You could always just keep doing everything you're doing, only have your own OOC-level character profile pointing out that your character is either a serial liar or absolutely insane and/or in denial.

Would you need to continue playing 'a serial liar'? Surely not. If making another character is what you want, go for it. Maybe that's what you really want to do. As a fellow player, I would like to express that I do not think it's necessary. I agree with PB: it only requires some fine tuning of the OOC conception of what's going on with in the roleplay.

Again, moot point if you really want to start over. Have fun!

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>>And I'm curious how you frequently hunt with a zombie, if you don't consider yourself a Necromancer.

A.) Character is wrong, doesn't like using a zombie, but does so for expedience. Almost every hunt had a construct (or 12, short life span), zombies came into play when working than was paramount. TM was locked most of the hunt anyhow due to ACS-spamming/viv-sniping.

B.) The character concept wasn't entirely formed until around 25th either, so zombies were pretty heavy between 20th and 25th, though if I were to claim otherwise no one would know.

>>it only requires some fine tuning of the OOC conception of what's going on with in the roleplay.

I am not sure how to reshape the remaining pieces of the character into the one I'd like to play without exceeding the limits of the Philosopher mold. I know characters CAN be redefined, (it happens almost every time one is sold, which is a topic I should probably save my complaints about for another thread in another folder) I just don't enjoy doing it. It's not a matter of being unable to keep the character working, its a matter of enjoying playing the character. To play without enjoying it would make the game a serious waste of money and time.

>>Character is wrong, doesn't like using a zombie, but does so for expedience.

If you want to have a character profile, don't half-ass it.

My Necro is in the mid 50s, has yet to become Forsaken, still has favors, and never summoned a zombie.

>Among many, many, many other examples Sartre uses, he points out that the freedom to choose how to react to a mountain in your path presupposes the existence of a mountain you are not free to wish away.

Though it hurts my soul, I will begin with a quote from Sartre:

>"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."

It seems Sartre is stating one is not free to wish away responsibility for one's decisions, or more pointedly, one's actions. (I wonder what an existentialist would say about such a distinction.)

I'm not sure if you are implying a negation of my assumption of "limitation" in RP decision making. Or if you're being more zen, circumspect. I read your quote several times, trying to decide if the 'mountain' were the same object in both your mentions, or if different cases. After several readings, I've decided they are the same case; therefore, you mean to say limitations are illusory. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

Yet responsibility implies limitation.

Responsibility is a term not often used in regard to outcomes affecting the decision maker; the term more points to the effects of our decisions upon others. (The term approaches meaninglessness if discussing a "responsbility to one's self".) I think Sartre states we are "condemned" to freedom because we are condemned to be responsible for how our actions affect others. That can be a heavy load, sometimes sisyphusean, or at best, one with a steep learning curve. We often learn our boundaries by transgressing those boundaries, as defined by how our actions affect others. That responsibility is even more apparent in the present case, where one is not "thrown" into the world, but in every case making the conscious decision to JOIN it by logging on.


It's often said we "have a right to our own opinion". I've never heard anyone seriously suggest we have a right to our own facts. Were this a solipsistic world, there would be no difference between the two. But (almost) every adolescent, achieving late stages of what Piaget term 'concrete operational thought', realizes he or she is not alone in the world; that there are others who have similar wants and needs, and the same rights and freedoms, and that we must all coexist in a roiling complexity, a bubbling cauldron of sometimes-conflicting desires. But we learn to cope. Freud called it "sublimation" of desires. We adapt our personal wants and needs into the reality of a multiplicitous world.

People love to quote Yoda: "Do or do not. There is not try." I always tell them to lift their cars with their minds. No one has yet succeeded. (Demonstrating the weakness of misapplying science-fiction to real life.) They usually suffer from cognitive dissonance as one of their romantic ideations is crushed by an objective reality. (The learning curve is painful. Agsin with the Sartre: "Life begins on the other side of despair.")

Try to interact freely while staying out of each others' ways. Perhaps lifting a car with your mind may seem easier, yet we must each learn how to do so.

I think we all have a responsibility to the virtual world we are continuously creating. That responsibility is largely: not to impede or intrude upon others' responsibility to freely choose within the same limitations. Given that we players in DragonRealms all share this responsibility, it can be reduced to: do not contradict the shared (even if perhaps 'received') understanding of the nature of that world.

Even you, Armifer, are not so free to simply remove a mountain, unilaterally. I could ignore the mountain, pretend that my Climbing skill is sufficient to reach Snaer Hafwa in Aesry. But why bother logging into DragonRealms if my mental state has no intersection with the game world? I could save the subscription fee and just pretend I'm there.

Of course, I could have read you wrong, and be wasting my time on defining a single word, "limitation", for no reason. Your post was sufficiently ambiguous that I am still not sure.

I knew you were Evil. :D

(I'm leaving this post somewhat less comprehensive than I would were it another forum. I am looking at the 'field' and not the 'holes' in this case.)

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'

>Er, I think he's saying that you shouldn't use SMILE/ACT to do things your character can't do, and you shouldn't manipulate/ignore the lore to craft your own characters.

I don't see how that fits.

>And I think you paid too much attention in Freshman philosophy.

I intended this thread to be philosophy-oriented, and it's kinda hard to marginalize someone on an website for furry cat-people and pointy-ears elfs to argue about the proper way to make-pretend they're creating undead zombies out of monsters that are just words on a screen. :D

---

"4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." ~Wittgenstein, 'Tractatus'