Recent discussions have really struck a chord with me and character development. As players we all try to maintain that perfect balance of what is ic and how we feel ooc. There is no shortage of passion when it comes to how we play our character in certain situations. Frankly, I am little timid to enter storylines because of what I see happening, yet again.

Good points are made then painted with opinion. I'm going to use a reference I thought was a good lead in. Improv. The idea of improv is to say yes to all situations. This is an exciting and incredibly open way to play. This would open up so much and leave you spinning in growth. It's a brilliant way. HOWEVER, what of the structure you have built already? Does a character completely abandon all things to play in this incredibly dynamic way even it means leaving all behind? No. I'm sure this is a very simplistic way of seeing it, just as seeing all bad guys twirling mustaches and all good guys in shining armor. It's just not like that.

It's a great story to follow because what people might pigeon hole as the good guys, aka Knights, are seen as the villian (GO HOME EMPIRE) and Rysus the new antihero with so much potential. The theories are all thrown up in the air like confetti. There are NO right choices in this it seems. There are choices characters make and believe in determined by that players decision on how they will react. There is no shame in those decisions unless lines are crossed. If someone paints my character as a bad guy even if I don't see them that way, I don't think I would be offended. I think it's just the environment of play.

That being said, I would like to hear how people believe development and character background should play into the here and now. Should structure be abandoned to the curiosity of the player? Is there wiggle room in morals to see more of something even it's really ooc?

I will admit, I'm completely uncomfortable with someone saying I'm playing too black and white and should change for MORE FUN. I am having fun. Do I wish to see more of the "bad" guys story, sure do. Do I want to see more of the "good" guys getting their hands dirty? Only if that character has the ground work for it and the player really wants to play that up. Some characters are just evil, some characters are aligned to all they think is good, some characters fall all sorts of in between. I don't think any of them are simple in design.

RP and especially the rules that govern how a PC reacts to a situation is one that will have infinite answers. Each PC is unique. I think the biggsst take away is to accept that the next pc will not follow the same rules. I do believe its up to the player to decide how flexable or inflexible their PC will be. Will they see the world in black or white or will they see it in many colors. Will they bend their own rules and flow with the current of the day or will they stand strong on their convictions?

In my views the only thing that needs to be true is consistency. Pick a direction and go with it. If the path changes there has to be a valid rp reason for it. Why? To me how can others rp aith you with out consistency? If one day its kill all elves....next week you marry an elf....week after that you hate empire but de ide to live in haven. When you bounce around extremes its hard to build rp around you. Another piece to remember rp is two parts. Its how hour characfer behaves but also how the world interacts with that PC. Remember when you rp to not ignore both halfs as you have to show the world your PC but also need to provide the means for the world to interact with your PC.

I'm glad you started a discussion here; I would love to see this folder get a little more active again.

In my earlier post, I might not have been clear when I talked about improv's "yes, and" concept. That absolutely doesn't mean saying yes to everything other characters want to do! That'd be disastrous; moreover, it would be hypocritical. There are certain things my character won't do, just as there are for almost all our characters no matter where they fall on the good/neutral/evil or lawful/neutral/chaotic axes.

This discussion puts me in kind of a strange position because I've had other discussions with players I respect tremendously about how much structure there should be in shared roleplay, and I'm generally the one who takes the side of more structure. It makes me itchy when someone insists he is a literal donkey when I can look at him and see a dwarf or when someone comes up with an origin story that contradicts known lore. When I encounter these characters in the game, I can't come out and say "no, you aren't" -- or rather, I can, but that's not particularly sporting of me. Instead, it's on me to find a way to give them the "yes, and" that lets us share a virtual space without either of us toppling the other's stack of blocks:

"I am an actual donkey."
"Yes, I see you have on hooves and a tail, and I acknowledge that you believe in your donkeyness wholeheartedly."

"I believe Elithain Cross will make the Landing great again."
"Yes, I can see how you might think so, and I will argue that point with you as though you believe it."

"I have this great idea involving a picnic with Raznel so we can settle our differences."
"Yes, I understand how you came up with this, and now I will tell you why mouli deviled eggs sound unpleasant to me."


"Yes, and" doesn't mean "Whatever I say, you now have to do." You're right; that would be simplistic and boring. The phrase just means you acknowledge the other person's roleplayed reality as it's defined and proceed from there, which may well mean saying no to the idea -- but not the character, if that makes sense. If I don't play my character as lacking in any moral or ethical code, then someone who shuts down anything she says because it comes from an "immoral" person becomes difficult to roleplay with. Now the only "yes, and" I have to work with is:

"You are a person of low character."
"Um. Hm. Yes, I can see where you might think that, and I'll...just stop interacting with you because there's not really anywhere to go after that, is there?"

I see what you're saying here, and I agree somewhat:

>If someone paints my character as a bad guy even if I don't see them that way, I don't think I would be offended. I think it's just the environment of play.

But I think there's a limit to it. Players and their characters are certainly entitled to see our characters however they like and act accordingly, but if it gets taken too far, if someone's too insulting, then it starts to feel personal -- especially in the absence of any OOC remarks to the contrary. Sometimes I've pushed an IC discussion too far and stepped on players' toes, and I've had to apologize, so I'm well aware that how we portray our characters isn't always how they're perceived. Playing a morally gray character who's sometimes a jerk is one thing; it feels awful to find I've actually been a jerk. :)

That's probably going rather far afield of your original post, but to get back to it, I absolutely agree with "My character's rules are made by me; they exist for a reason," too. That's also true of my character, who does have rules and a moral code, just as it is of characters who are steered by a more traditional moral compass. Characters can still be moral if they don't share the same morals, and that's where I feel the whole discussion fell apart the other evening. That's the "yes, and" I felt was missing: "Yes, and I know you think this is the right way to get there, but here's why I believe it isn't" versus "No. You're a person of low moral standing and I'm not." That closes the door on further positive interaction, and as I don't particularly want negative interactions with that character/player, I'm kind of left at loose ends.

--- Lauren, Lylia's player

>In my views the only thing that needs to be true is consistency.

Because in reality people tend to behave consistently? :)

--David, just causing trouble

"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"