Derpestein

The Pacific Wave

LowKey123 said
hey guys this looks good and I can out effort into it leggo

I liked your old avatar better :|

Bollywood movie trailers

BrobyDDark said
You can't stop him.

He'll destroy the world with Bollywood.

Broby, help me save the universe and get the ancient Macguffin.

mecha rp?

Rookery said
ehm... just another update, I think I'm actually almost done (don't take my word for it >.>), just adding a few finishing touches.Here's a preview of the CS I'll be providing* to participants (I'm putting way a lot of work into this), the CS also provides a view of the universe Prototype is set in:*providing, I mean the image style CS, not the characters....

Can't wait.

The Pacific Wave

I will make a CS soon. Probably.

What is "CRACKA LACKING"

Silent Resonance said
VK wins the internet!

He wins two internets.

School for Mages and Knights (pair RP) Drama! Fighting! and other stuff!

Stern Algorithm said
Finally got back in the groove of things, sorry for the long wait.Won't be a problem, as should be obvious, Maya has her own eccentricities.And yes, let's just skip dinner.

Dinner skip, hurrah.

Question, Var, what time do we skip to? Next day?

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

TheMadAsshatter said
As long as this thread isn't strictly RP related, I'd like to bitch about something I hate with a passion. Survival games getting turned into PVP fuckfests.I'll use DayZ as an example. The mod, not the standalone, though the same does apply. I see DayZ as, to an extent, an RPG. It has no leveling system, no permanent inventory, no class selection, nothing like that, but the fact that it's such a well-done zombie survival game makes it a shame that everyone treats it like fucking CoD. I'd say about 75% of the players will just kill people on sight, which is not the way the game is meant to be played, in my opinion. Granted, there's no specific set of rules for DayZ, but when people rationalize dickhead behavior by saying "It's DayZ, I can do what I want, get over it," that does two things. A. that tells me they don't give a flying shit about the rest of the playerbase, unless they're on Teamspeak with them, and B. they take out RL issues on players in the game, specifically when spawnkilling.Let me use an example, one time I joined a server. This was about three days ago, and I had never played on this server before, so I was a complete fresh spawn. Not even 30 seconds after spawning, no exaggeration, I got shot at. Not just shot, sniped. I had NO CHANCE to retaliate and was left to get nom'd by zombies and bleed out. I've been killed as a fresh spawn before, but never immediately after loading in. I bitched about it, and you know what? EVERYONE who responded to me called me a bitch, pussy, faggot, troll (yeah, I got that one, just for making my thoughts known) etc. So, on top of the fact that I wasn't alive long enough to tell which way is North, I got bitched at for a perfectly legitimate gripe in another player's behavior. Imagine if that were a brand new DayZ player, they'd instantly be turned off and possibly never play the game again. I could have lived with the kill if the players were at least somewhat respectful.The above example is, in part, what leads me to my assertion that most DayZ players who do this have some sort of IRL issues that get translated into the game. If it were a game like Battlefield, okay, that's all well and good, people die within seconds all the time, but it's not. DayZ is not about seeing how many newspawns you can snipe before being counter-sniped, it's about trying to survive the zombie apocalypse. I feel like the meaning of the game falls on deaf ears most of the time, and it's a damn shame, because it ALMOST makes me not want to play it. Not only that, but it makes a whole group of people that I know not want to play it at all, and they're the only people I know, IRL or otherwise, who have DayZ.So what do I do? I hunt down bandits and snipers. I devote my entire gameplay to doing that, because I feel like I have a moral obligation to make the game a little bit easier for normal players, but it doesn't fucking work. It doesn't dissuade the bandits because they just fucking respawn, and half the time they kill someone, they make them cold enough to become bandits themselves. It's a vicious cycle, and it's turned DayZ into nothing more than a PVP fucking circlejerk! Really the only reason I play it anymore is because it's the only FPS that I have that requires a good amount of skill to play, and I want to get better. I want to become an efficient bandit hunter, I want to kill them all, because they're all fucking pricks that make the game a bitch and a half to play! At least hackers and glitchers can be found and banned, but the bandits... they just keep coming. If they tried that shit in minecraft, they'd be banned for trolling or griefing, but it's become the fucking status quo in DayZ. What's the reason they all use? "This is DayZ, I can do what I want, and call you a faggot when you complain to me about it."I understand that it's a game, but I also think it needs to be taken more seriously. I'm not saying everyone should be friendly, then the game would be boring as hell. What I am saying is that there should be a relatively even number of bandits to other players, because right now it's way out of balance; to the point that it makes DayZ unplayable to some people. DayZ is a game with excellent potential. Potential that is being squandered with the mindless PVP carried out by players who have played a few too many CoD games. The same goes for games like Rust, Nether, etc.

Madass.
Sir.

Which one are you playing, mod or standalone?

Because either way, when I get enough money, I'm helping you on your quest to rid the DayZ world of the fucktards that plague it as a bandit hunter.

Like a skyrim companion but alive.

But yeah. The people that shoot on sight...I think that's what would happen in an actual zombie apocalypse. There would be bandits.

But spawn camping circle jerk duck hazards are assholes.
Also people who kill fresh spawns who don't have gear.

I mean, if you kill someone for gear, food, whatever then you can just justify it as you need food. If they shot first, well, self defence.

But killing a guy who only has clothes and his hands is just...No.

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

Prince said
It does, actually, but in a way it also doesn't. I could go into roleplay theory for hours; I've spent ample time studying papers published by the Meilahti and Turku schools as well as became well-versed with GNS theory as well as basically all theories derived from the threefold model. I followed Ron Edwards for a long time after I immersed myself in tabletop-style roleplay, as well as simulations thereof (such as Baldur's Gate, Vampires: The Masquerade, etc.).I would boldly say immediately that because this is purely text-based roleplay, it must be addressed with such an outlook. GNS theory would logically say that pure-text based gameplay focuses on the narrative, but the facts are there are still gamist and simulationist aspects, as well as several other factors. In short, when applying any of those theories, it must be done intelligently and with careful, careful forethought. This is just the way I think. I use pre-existing structure and guidelines to understand things, including stories, books and literary technique. I believe at one time I even questioned debate technique. It's because there is, in fact, a formal way these things are done and observed for the sake of maximum effectiveness and understanding in an objective view.Roleplay, whether it is an art or not, is no different. In any art class, you learn that there is a different between looking at art and seeing it. You can look at anything; you can even look at things subconsciously. But, seeing something involves the applications of memories, feelings and logic as you perceive it and that is the definite difference here. In this situation, I look at these aspects and these interactions using my memories (what I've learned through study) and logic to understand better what is happening, although I must admit as anyone should that I do have personal feelings and biases to some things. Just a fact.When looking at 1x1's, I stop labeling them. It's important to understand what makes a 1x1 different, what the category is, instead of just titling it and moving on. A 1x1 is, most commonly, a roleplay without a formal moderator and with only two roleplayers. This is important because, as you just showed, you only looked at the number of people in it, not their relationship to the roleplay. It's true that I did the same, but that was because I was addressing the point of why I believe 1x1's get stale. If you add a third person, you add in a whole new element. Once there are three, what if one person would prefer making plots, NPC's, etc. instead of a single PC? Does each person need to focus on a single PC? I've seen 1x1's, as I've just described them, that have the roleplayers against each other as often as they team up. What if it becomes 2v1 in IC, is it 2v1 OOC? If not, how are situations determined? If one person creates the main conflict, are they not an moderator in the sense they're mostly influencing the plot and setting?In short, a 1x1 exists as it is because it is incredibly simple to create a roleplay, setting and plot that in general focus on two characters. The addition of a third changes the dynamic in the sense that it limits a few possibilities due to the complexity of their nature. I said before that a 1x1 limits interaction, and this is essentially what I mean. With the elimination of a large chunk of interaction and plot dynamics, you simplify an incredible amount of the roleplay and eliminate many of the leading needs for Moderation.But, let's go back to why you are in fact on track in my opinion. With three roleplayers, you increase interaction, but you also create the need for more structure. All you have to do is create that structure and answer the questions that arise. If done cooperatively, you eliminate the need for further moderation and you can address the plot, setting and roleplay itself as it matures, and even reassess how things need to be ran or how the structure should be. Now, what did we add here? Was it just another player? No.We added structure. We created something like an access point to a roleplay where a third person can come in and be part of it, and that's a huge task as well as a huge observation to take note of. It is neither an easy task or a common one, but it is possible and as a matter of fact it's the reason that most of the time roleplayers seek out the structure from the very beginning. A 1x1 rarely becomes a 1x1x1, yet a large roleplay can be dissolved easily into 1x1's and often times you could have multiple 1x1's existing within the same plot and setting but never actually interacting on an personal level - that's a hugely advanced roleplay concept most often called non-linear networking.But I do digress and pose the interesting query: if you added a bit of structure to add a third person, what do you do for a fourth? Logically, you do the same. At what point does the structure become too complex, time-consuming or just--plain tedious for the group to do? At what point is there a need for an actual Moderator? A GM? That is a personal question related to personal preference; something I talk about a lot. If you stop looking at 1x1's as a different genre, it's a lot easier to see a relationship like this. Overall, compatibility, patience, attitude, creative outlets and personal preference all play huge roles in this. I know plenty of people in 1x1's that don't like the idea of only roleplaynig with one person as much as they just dislike the idea of a Moderation, whether they're polite or overbearing.A whole different topic is one called a "Shared World", which is an incredible tool and roleplaynig concept, but it is rarely effective. If used, it has the potential to create large, interesting roleplaying scenarios, all bound together with a single context. A prime example would be Mizahar or any Final Fantasy and/or Naruto themed roleplay forum. They're a-dime-a-dozen, but they all have these immense amounts of characters and plot sharing the same setting. A 1x1 scenario here on RPGuild has nothing in comparison to the immensity, and that is because social engineering here is definitely meant for the small scale. I pose the thought that the social status here doesn't at all mean it is the best or most effective, merely serves a purpose. Some of the points I made here should easily highlight that.

Speaking of...

Does anyone know one of those 'shared world' type forum wide RP's? One with like a permanent world where, for example, if a statue was destroyed, it would remain destroyed in other roleplays.

Looked at Mizahar, wasn't interested.

I ask because I read a story about one.
There was this guy who found a cool permanent world RP thing and the 'magic' there was soul powers. Elemental, sure. However, there was a cap to spirit so you could only use so much before yo-
Just read it for yourself. It involves the protagonist travelling the lands with A Person Named Squid who is a half squid after they were shunned by the community as they try to train and kill the resident mod and admin ass kisser; Xero.

Which leads me to my next bitch:
In RP forums where fights and shit are settled by a GM, Mod, Admin, whatever, a guy sucks up to them...
And he gets his way.

Doesn't matter if he should in all ways lose that match and die, no, he has sucked up to whoever is in authority and gets to kill everyone and get uber loot.

Bollywood movie trailers

Doivid said
Cant stop wont stop bby

Doivid bby pls no

Checking to see

Aldridge said
No reason to call me a turt lmao... Damn can't have any fun on the spam section of this site I see. Even in the spam section I have to type like I have some sense.

Spam =/= randumb.
I made that mistake.

Doesn't mean there's no fun though...

Unless you're turt. Which you are. Hi turt.