Brovo

Let's B!tch. I feel it's a healthy release for our roleplay annoyances 2.0

Well, I'm sorry life isn't like high school.

On-Topic: Has anyone else encountered someone proclaiming their version of magic is more realistic than someone else's version of magic? Because this bothers me to no end.

Let's B!tch. I feel it's a healthy release for our roleplay annoyances 2.0

On Topic: I hate it when a player has a Neo complex. They can't just be farmer joe's daughter set off to try and stop the problem at hand, no, they have to be the chosen one. They can't just want to help people out of an inherent sense of human empathy, no, they need to do it because destiny or their baller baller wallah wallah mentor told them to do it.

Also min-maxing, and people who set out to "win" a story. Those people confuse me.

Also, to quick-fire some stuff here, more in-depth other stuff.

Prince said It would diminish abuse. It would let you create a republic or an empire without fear of true tyranny

You already can.

Prince said I know people, on the other hand, request a re-roll because a strong character is NOT what they enjoy playing. That's just personal preference and if a game flaw allows it, so be it.

Addendum: The pathfinder sessions I join tend to use point buy, not random roll. It wasn't a gift from the RP Gods, it was me abusing the system to make a godmode character while everyone else made fun stuff. The DM caught on and pointed it out, I rerolled something else, because everyone else felt too weak to enjoy themselves when I resolved all their problems effortlessly.

Also, how your group feels does not then invalidate the fact that my group felt like crap in the same situation and didn't want to play. Universal standards like this don't work, ergo choice, which RPG gives you.

Prince said In fact, Brovo, I expected a lot more from you as our back and forths are slowly growing entertaining, but this was just pitiful.

Can you even logic, bro? In all seriousness though? Sorry you feel that way.

Also, please use logos and explain, if you can do so without calling me pitiful, what it is you are thinking. Why do you feel this way about the example? What do you think would be a superior or more logical example?

Prince said Fuck right life isn't fair. I never said it was. Yet, we have systems for justice and fairness placed into life each and every day. Using the statement, "Life ain't fair" to ever shut down a system of governing is just... well, weak. I expect a lot more than these diluted responses. You were doing so much better, and I'm not even being a dick here. What the Hell happened?

Because you don't need a system of governing for what is otherwise a very simple equation.

Player joins server/group. Player is not welcome. Player is ejected. Player goes and finds a new server/group. Entire process takes anywhere between five minutes to two days.

Versus a system where checks and balances are forced on everyone, causing people to become paranoid about accepting players they don't know. After all, what if someone trolls the system? There are lots of people who do that in real life, such as copywrite trolls. In fact, the system in real life takes ages to resolve cases in general. Now, it should, because cases can vary from anything between monetary fines to the electric chair, so you kind of need to be extremely certain of that. The system's complexity matches the consequences that the system can deal out. Tit for tat, it measures up.

A role play is not going to send you to the electric chair.

Prince said You're just made this far too extreme for its context. I never referred to it as game-breaking or even detrimental. The rule could have been arbitrary. You just completely ignored that. What the fuck, man?

You should probably calm down.

If the rule was arbitrary, the player can argue it. If the GM sees it their way, the GM changes the rules. If the GM does not see it that way, the player is removed. Pretty simple, not sure why you hate this so much.

Prince said I just plain have to tack this on. Do you realize how FAR you warped that original statement? Do you realize you are implying that a 'grandfathered' aspect could ruin an entire game without knowing anything past the concept basis here? I even used words like "small dysfunction" and "slightly off-the-wall", and you go on acting like I'm throwing a rabid pit bull into field of kittens. You just did that to EVERYTHING I said. It's so extreme and radical. I couldn't take half of it serious. I won't take that serious because it is literally raping my words. You took valid arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Addition #2

I didn't ever even MENTION that neither party here refused to compromise or change. You added that on yourself. That is an assumption. You could have asked, 'well, did they try to compromise?' or 'Well, how important was this change?', but instead you immediately jumped to the defense of any GM and acted like it was a roleplayer with absolutely no desire to meet in a middle ground. That's how far you are twisting my words. I feel like you just raped my post.

You realize that degrading the opposition's words without actually explaining what is wrong with them doesn't make a good argument, right?

Also, speaking of strong words: Literally raping my words, turning my arguments into propaganda. In fact, how can we have a discussion if you, quote, "can't take half of it serious". If you can't treat your ideological opposition with some manner of civility and seriousness, what kind of sincere argument are you supposed to present beyond "lol ur dumb". Seriously I'm not attacking you or trying to turn your words into propaganda or anything else. I used an example for why your idea wouldn't work: Players who refuse to change and thus abuse the system by swarming the moderation staff with countless facile reports. You replied by calling my arguments pitiful, extreme, radical, that you couldn't take it seriously, that I was literally raping your words, and that I took your arguments and turned them into propaganda.

Then I displayed that in the current system (GM's own their threads exclusively), you can make anything you want to. If you want your system, for instance, you can make it in your thread alone. Nobody is stopping you from enforcing your system in your threads. Nobody is stopping you from making a republic, a monarchy, an anarchy, a fascism, a communism--you are assumed to be perfectly capable enough of deciding for yourself what system it is you want to create and enforce on your own. It requires minimal moderator interference, even, which is great because the mods get tired enough dealing with spam's shenanigans as is. I'm sure they also get tired of me sometimes.

Really, that's all. It's an argument. I'm sorry you see it as some violent raping of your words into some horrible propaganda. I just saw it as a counter argument that used an example.

Let's B!tch. I feel it's a healthy release for our roleplay annoyances 2.0

Prince said #1: Your statement was true, but has no real parallel to mine. I pointed out a mechanic involved in a system of people, and a roleplay is in fact still a system of people. Stating a roleplay is not an empire is completely irrelevant to that. The entire point was that a republic would give up its authority to a single person in times of civil unrest, and that is an apparent issue here.

It is entirely relevant. These RP's don't start out as republics, they start out as empires, and if you don't like the empire you're in, you can leave and join another empire with precisely zero repercussions.

If you tried to take power in the Roman Empire, in a way that threatened the emperor, you kind of died. Horrible.

So, yes, it is entirely relevant to bring up that, as a comparison, it doesn't work on a base level, in that nobody had a choice in the Roman Empire but to be part of the Roman Empire. Attempting to leave or change it had very severe repercussions, that went all the way up to your potential demise. Whereas on Roleplayer Guild, if you don't like the Roman Empire authored by Julius Caesar, you can always leave and join the one authored by Commodes, or leave that one and go make your own Roman Empire--all with zero consequences to you, ultimately.

Prince said #2. Diluting the purpose of a system like mine because 'the worst case scenario isn't that bad' isn't making its use any less meaningful. If each GM knew that they couldn't just kick out players because they 'wanted to', they would be forced to go through a more significant screening process, roleplays would most likely be smaller, there would most likely exist a) more close-knit inner communities and b) higher level of social stratification. I do firmly believe that making GM's accountable would weed out weaker ones as well.

It would also be completely abhorrent and disrespectful towards the game masters. The worlds and plots they created are theirs. By law, save in the case of fan fiction. Telling me that I couldn't kick someone out of my group because they have rights in a role play is, sorry, frankly, ridiculous. The same kind of ridiculous as making that very same argument for game servers: "Oh you kicked me out of this Call of Duty server? You don't have the right to do that!" Well what if I wanted to invite my friend? No?

Games, role plays, etc--these are forms of entertainment. Making comparisons to states and giving rights to the players like they're somehow just as important as jobs or your rights as a human being is... Ahh... No. All you're going to do is clog the system, slow it down with needless rules. If you really don't like a GM, go find another one. If you really don't like a role play, go make your own. You are perfectly capable of doing this, don't punish everyone else with your system because there are some bad GM's.

Prince said #3. There is no real checks and balances if there is no way to usurp your decision. An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it?

The GM's? However, he can plainly explain to the player that set of traits wasn't intended to be allowed, and offer to help the player make something else. No system is perfect and sometimes unexpected results occur.

For example: I remember in Pathfinder, I made a fighter who, at level one, had +7 rolls to hit and +2 to damage. He was plain, outright one hit killing pretty much everything in his path, but if the DM made the rest of the monsters harder to compensate, my allies would have been useless, or worse still, slaughtered by SuperGoblins™. When the DM calmly explained that it was a flaw in the system that let me min-max that hard, I agreed to rework my character into something more reasonable so that everyone else could have fun and feel useful, and not useless.

All the while, the DM had absolute power, so if instead of doing that I decided to be a raging dipshit who refused to change anything about my precious character who is absolutely perfect in all things, the DM could simply remove my cancerous attitude before it spoiled the moods of everyone else.

Why? Because this is entertainment. If it's not, in some way, enjoyable, then it has lost its purpose.

Prince said If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character, who should have to give in here?

The player. A mistake in the system does not warrant then granting an exception only for that one player. It warrants an apology to that player and an explanation. Nothing more. Otherwise you set the precedent that every other player should get game breaking system exceptions. Then what's the point of having a system?

Prince said In most cases, I say the GM should simply allow said character in, as long as it doesn't otherwise hurt the plot, interactions with other characters and is a quality creation.

And the system. You forgot the system. Role plays are in the weird territory of being both writing and games. The system side of things is just as important and if it wasn't, then we wouldn't have a need for turn orders, author control rules, bits about godmoding and metagaming, etc.

Prince said Yet, if a GM retains the ability to reject a character that cannot be edited without diluting its core concept when it was their lack of communication and foresight that made way for the character, then it is still unfair in that sense.

Life isn't really fair. This is as good a time as any to learn it. Something the player could do is ask the GM if there's any way to obtain that core concept, or preserve it whilst not breaking the system. Otherwise, if there isn't, simply ask the GM "hey, I have a list of other things I'm interested in doing here, how many of these do you think would work?"

Remember. It's a collective interest RP, if the player puts his foot down and refuses to change when the GM notes it was a bug in the system that allowed the character to exist, then the player is being uncooperative, and not working with those around him. That's problematic.

Prince said It is a situation as simple as this that I do firmly believe a GM should be held accountable, or the countless similar scenarios when allowing one exception then enforcing the rules would be the 'fair' way to handle it. Yet, if that player is just jettisoned from the roleplay and it goes on, was there any real justice done there?

No justice needed. Player did not fit in, player refused to change, player was ejected. Now the player can go find a different RP that could actually tolerate his or her creation. This is actually the best possible way to do it. Forcing the GM to put up with this character they straight up don't like will only make everyone miserable. Including the person who made that character, because they will never feel welcome. Being kicked out, they can now try again in a new RP. Of which we have many to choose from. Or, if there are no RP's currently available that interest them, they can go make their own.

This is, by definition, an incredible healthy system at work. It ensures that everyone gets the choice to do as they wish over their "property". People who don't belong are kicked. Is that unfair? Yes. Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?

No.

Prince said The type of system I would like could only ever be implemented on a site-wide range, so it would never come to fruition unless there was another incentives system. If everyone was 'cool like the Fonz', then you'd never need any real system. But, we all know, that's not the case.

The system is idealistic but it wouldn't function site-wide. The moderating staff would be insanely overwhelmed with report requests to deal with one DM or another over some sleight about how Jimmy Junior isn't allowed to be a telepath and what not.

Besides, part of what makes this site fantastic is that you have the choice to employ any system you want. Do you want to be a tyrannical megalomaniac who wantonly punishes people? Go right ahead, you won't last long, but you can go right ahead. Do you want a democracy, where there is no "true" DM or GM and everyone votes measures into place, like whether a player can join or not? Well, you can do that too, absolutely nothing is stopping you.

Forcing everyone to subscribe to the same system because it might be fairer is, ironically, the most unfair thing you can do.

EDIT

Also, to handle player deaths, I simply put in a little bit at the end of every character sheet where you sign your username. In signing there, you've plainly signed away any right you had to claim your character's life is immortal, which is plainly explained to you: Sign this and I am allowed to kill you whenever, and however, I choose. The reason being is that death is a core theme of every role play I make. People die, all the time, I like to reflect this in my role plays. Especially since it raises the stakes: Oh no, Jimmy Junior died! It really gives a sense of urgency and concern, and helps players learn very quickly that rash actions will get you killed. Bumrushing the main villain will get you killed. Planning and teamwork, on the other hand, will more than likely, repeatedly, save your life.

The Last Bastion: Bunker Chicago

PCSutfin said
Just threw down a new post. Took a bit more time with it than normal because I like to get fancy when reading a lot, and I think it shows.Guess everything in the sewers right now comes down to Eira's decision. Might be a nice way to button up that story if it concludes in the next post.

Yeah I deprived you of some of the other actiony bits that everyone else got by sticking you in the sewers. So I decided to give you like, an actual choice that like, has an actual, meaningful story impact and like, will affect your characters in the future, like, oh, my, gooooood.

Sorry. Had to spend time with some family members of mine that are quintessentially valley girls. Their method of speech rubs off pretty quick.

Let's make the biggest Mary Sue ever.

Her name is xXxHolixiamariasantoinetteoromoshitachixXx, but most just call her Meinu-Chan. (If you understand even a lick of Japanese this joke will make sense.)

Translated

Meinu means Bitch.

Am I the Only One...

Prisk said
I miss high fantasy that has rats as a sentient race. All hail the Horned Rat!

I prefer high fantasy that let's me make up my own shit and then incorporates it, at least in some small way. That way the legend of Ratticus is known by many.