Verisimilitude: Roleplaying or just, "I do what I want!"

[HiroAyami]

I don't agree with having a separate "RP alignment" from a character's actual alignment. If you wanted a darker character then you should have chosen to have a darker character.

 

Here's where I fervently disagree. Because I'm on an RP server, I absolutely dislike the Light options for he Class Quest, and I definitely dislike the Light Side equipment options, and I choose to go Dark Side for non-Roleplay purposes such as aesthetics, my alignment is now DS despite wanting to RP a LS character?

 

There is a point where mechanics are helpful, and there are some mechanics that apply for some styles and not so much for others. In the event of an alignment check without my knowledge or consent, I will quite simply inform them or reference it as being what it actually is, not what my character sheet says.

[ProfessorWalsh]

And yet you completely miss where I am acknowledging - and sympathizing with - the RP predicament you were in, in which you couldn't figure out a reasonable way to respond to what seemed to you to be an unreasonable situation.

 

If I misread the problem, and that the problem truly is that you demand that everyone RP your way - then I'll back out again.

 

Not at all.

 

I'm simply pointing out that the street goes both ways. I am very very strict regarding my beliefs and I am very unwavering.

 

I'm simply pointing out that the other side in this case is the exact same but with a different philosophical belief at the core.

[ProfessorWalsh]

Here's where I fervently disagree. Because I'm on an RP server, I absolutely dislike the Light options for he Class Quest, and I definitely dislike the Light Side equipment options, and I choose to go Dark Side for non-Roleplay purposes such as aesthetics, my alignment is now DS despite wanting to RP a LS character?

 

There is a point where mechanics are helpful, and there are some mechanics that apply for some styles and not so much for others. In the event of an alignment check without my knowledge or consent, I will quite simply inform them or reference it as being what it actually is, not what my character sheet says.

 

I feel that your aesthetics are part of roleplaying. Sith dress one way, Jedi dress another.

 

To quote Kira Carson, "Have you seen what the Sith are wearing? It is like every fashion designer in the galaxy went over to the Dark Side."

[AlyxDinas]

I feel that your aesthetics are part of roleplaying. Sith dress one way, Jedi dress another.

 

I've met Jedi who do not wear robes. Oranges and what not. Were they not Jedi?

[HiroAyami]

I've met Jedi who do not wear robes. Oranges and what not. Were they not Jedi?

 

Well, I wear a Smugglers Jacket but... well, Alyx knows of my Jedi haha.

 

I personally have a mad-on for Robes without hood toggling right now. I designed my characters facial settings, I very much dislike seeing them bald and, well, fugly. Obi-Wan and Anakin didn't wear their hoods all day long. I don't want to either.

 

Granted when I chose my characters Oranges I made some predetermined selections and I feel they convey his background and story well.

 

In either case, I have a Guardian who will almost always and ONLY wear smuggler equipment and military gear. Why? Because he's a Republic Melee Shock Trooper. I'm going through the class quests for exp and everything else, it's virbroblade + military gear. I've even dressed him the part. Are you telling me now, because he's a Jedi Guardian, he's still a Jedi despite not being Force Sensitive?

[Darth_Slaine]

Also, again, Slaine, I would ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.

 

I never said we can force people to RP how we want them to, we should, however, be allowed to call people out on breaking verisimilitude and for "bad" RP'ing.

 

"Calling out" other players and labeling them "bad" rpers is against the forum Rules of Conduct. Nothing gives you the right to do so, whatever you may believe.

 

But I think you and I are done talking for now. In that last page you have done more to show everything that is wrong with your position than I ever could.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[Whillwynn]

I don't agree with having a separate "RP alignment" from a character's actual alignment. If you wanted a darker character then you should have chosen to have a darker character.

 

Wait a second now, Walsh. There is a very strong reason, mechanically, for this disconnect. Currently, this game only rewards 100% Light and 100% Dark characters at 50, and varying degrees during leveling. To go the middle road currently means you're missing out on those rewards. I don't think most Jedi are, lore-wise, Light V. They're just not. Nobody's a saint. Given the in-game incentives for min-maxing alignment, you should not be holding people so strictly to their alignment.

 

In addition, sensing alignments is not something just any Jedi/Sith can do. If you're not a Force Empath (see the Sith Warrior storyline), you're not going to be able to immediately sense darkness in someone. And even if you could (which is exceptionally rare), there are techniques in the Force that shield one against such intrusions. Do Coruscant on a Jedi Knight:

 

 

Tarnis stood next to you, Kira and Masters Kiwiks and Din. None of them sensed the darkness within him despite the fact that he was the son of Darth Angral, a Sith, and doing something abominable.

 

 

So take it easy on that one. It's not as clear-cut as you say, and it's one area where you absolutely should be compromising, especially if you're not RPing within a circle where you'd get the OOC caveat.

[ScarletBlaze]

I feel that your aesthetics are part of roleplaying. Sith dress one way, Jedi dress another.

 

To quote Kira Carson, "Have you seen what the Sith are wearing? It is like every fashion designer in the galaxy went over to the Dark Side."

 

Then you defintely wouldn't like my jedi. She wear the Republic dancer top and a skirt (no not the republic shorts). I dislike the color brown so I will refuse to wear it. Second the republic top is modable which I like.

 

So it your view jedi dress one way is not 100% accurate because some jedi will dress differently.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ScarletBlaze

[tehjai]

 

Providing, of course, that there was a reason that Master said jump. If the Master was doing it just to be a jerk, then, quite frankly, the Padawan wouldn't have to do it.

 

Well, see, now, the minute you went beyond a finger-wagging and verbal admonishment (which is really all you needed to do to establish your Master as a conservative, straight-up Jedi type), and essentially gathered up other players to "corral" these Padawans -- the minute you did that, your behaviour could be interpreted as you being a jerk.

 

Especially since you've more-or-less stated that the fact that you thought their RP was bad OOCly and you were somehow granted the responsibility to teach those players a lesson.

 

You may argue that you weren't, but how did the players of those Padawans know that? A "jerk" isn't an objective definition that everyone can agree on -- just like 99% of the things in RP. By your own argument up there, those Padawans didn't have to do a single thing that you thought they should have done. Why? Because they could have seen you as being a jerk.

 

I agree with your assessment that this is bad RP, and seeing Padawan after Padawan out there pushing romantic plots gets a little old sometimes. And I agree that in my ideal RP community, all players would be held to a standard that embraces concepts of ICA=ICC and verisimilitude. However, what I ideally want and what's out there don't always line up, therefore in order to have a good playing experience, I realize I must make concessions.

 

I'd argue that everyone, to some degree, has to make some kind of concession in order to have a good time RPing. Everyone.

 

P.S.: If there's a side in this argument, I would like to vote to be moved to the Switzerland faction.

[Myxam]

Well, see, now, the minute you went beyond a finger-wagging and verbal admonishment (which is really all you needed to do to establish your Master as a conservative, straight-up Jedi type), and essentially gathered up other players to "corral" these Padawans -- the minute you did that, your behaviour could be interpreted as you being a jerk.

From what I saw, they joined of their own accord, at least in the TWO testimonies I saw while skimming this thread.

Especially since you've more-or-less stated that the fact that you thought their RP was bad OOCly and you were somehow granted the responsibility to teach those players a lesson.

It's everyone's responsibility to maintain coherence of Lore and quality of Roleplay. Cybering is not included in that.

You may argue that you weren't, but how did the players of those Padawans know that? A "jerk" isn't an objective definition that everyone can agree on -- just like 99% of the things in RP. By your own argument up there, those Padawans didn't have to do a single thing that you thought they should have done. Why? Because they could have seen you as being a jerk.

See above. Their behavior is completely against ESTABLISHED Jedi Lore of a Padawan/Initiate's responsiblities.

Concession with the OP... Switzerland!

 

 

I agree with your assessment that this is bad RP, and seeing Padawan after Padawan out there pushing romantic plots gets a little old sometimes. And I agree that in my ideal RP community, all players would be held to a standard that embraces concepts of ICA=ICC and verisimilitude. However, what I ideally want and what's out there don't always line up, therefore in order to have a good playing experience, I realize I must make concessions.

 

 

 

I'd argue that everyone, to some degree, has to make some kind of concession in order to have a good time RPing. Everyone.

 

P.S.: If there's a side in this argument, I would like to vote to be moved to the Switzerland faction.

A compromise is made yes, but what of these players? Apparently from what's been posted they were unwilling to make ANY compromise, and this is the point where it's our responsibility to maintain coherence.

 

In my honest opinion, Versimilitude, is the only thing that keeps our RP in Star Wars, without it, what would we have? Goldshire on Moonguard ring any bells?

 

Obviously I made an example of the most extreme situation possible, and I did it with good reason. What is keeping someone from defying lore for the sake of their own immature delight without a community to guide them? NOTHING.

 

Lore is what makes the RP, it is in all sense of the statement, everything, and conforming to it only brings us closer to the same universe, which honestly, creates better roleplay.

 

However, far be it from me to tell someone "No they can't drink blood and sparkle in the sunlight," If that's your fantasy do it. But not in a place where others are not so like-minded or accepting, and this type of behavior, was clearly not accepted.

 

My message is simple "There is a place for everything" but the place for this roleplay described by the OP, is not here. Blatant disregard for consequences of your actions is labelled as insanity in several cases, and I would not go so far as to call these 'Padawans' complete Idiots.

 

Arguing in favor of them only gives them free-reign to Cyber with each in less and less private places before, BAMSHA-ZAM! We have Goldshire in Space.

 

Arguing Meta-gaming is also rather futile if the players made no efforts to conceal their status ICly or OOCly, and in such a game as this, Meta-gaming to some degree is unavoidable. As it's described it sounds as if they were decked out in that overly popular chest piece that displays ample mid-riff, which is Jedi Wardrobe.

 

If they were Grey, they would have treated the Master with more respect, not worn a title. Forsaking the Order does not mean forsaking sensibilities and reason.

 

If they were Dark Side Jedi, the easiest response would be to antagonize the Master without causing a scene, or just ignoring him.

 

But to spring to insults and rebellious screams at the drop of a hat is obviously a sign of someone seeking conflict or too immature to see other ways.

 

For TL:DR, I want you! To make a difference in your RP community today!

Edited February 21, 2012 by Myxam

[ProfessorWalsh]

Well, see, now, the minute you went beyond a finger-wagging and verbal admonishment (which is really all you needed to do to establish your Master as a conservative, straight-up Jedi type), and essentially gathered up other players to "corral" these Padawans -- the minute you did that, your behaviour could be interpreted as you being a jerk.

 

Actually I didn't bring in the others. They came up of their own free will to join in.

 

Especially since you've more-or-less stated that the fact that you thought their RP was bad OOCly and you were somehow granted the responsibility to teach those players a lesson.

 

Yes, I do think their RP was bad OOCly, however I reacted IC'ly the way a Jedi Master or Knight would have reacted IC'ly if they saw this going on. No Jedi Master or Jedi Knight who is anywhere near a traditionalist would let that just "go" and not say anything.

 

You may argue that you weren't, but how did the players of those Padawans know that? A "jerk" isn't an objective definition that everyone can agree on -- just like 99% of the things in RP. By your own argument up there, those Padawans didn't have to do a single thing that you thought they should have done. Why? Because they could have seen you as being a jerk.

 

Save for I wasn't being a jerk. There is a perfectly valid reason my character told them that they shouldn't do such things in public. There is a perfectly valid reason my character told them that they are representing the Jedi Order when they are in public and that they need to remember that.

 

I agree with your assessment that this is bad RP, and seeing Padawan after Padawan out there pushing romantic plots gets a little old sometimes. And I agree that in my ideal RP community, all players would be held to a standard that embraces concepts of ICA=ICC and verisimilitude. However, what I ideally want and what's out there don't always line up, therefore in order to have a good playing experience, I realize I must make concessions.

 

Concessions need to be made... On both sides... The "Do what I want'ers" really need to make concessions to the setting and lore just as much as we should. However so far the only concessions I have seen you recommend be made are on behalf of the traditionalists. The more traditionalist players, like me, make enough concessions already with the sheer enormous amount of extremely "rare" types we see consistantly.

 

You note that I don't complain much about the ones like that...

 

I've met dozens of Force sensitive Mandalorians, countless Jedi who's parents were both a mixture of Jedi and Sith, and literally innumerable numbers of "trained as an adult/teenager" without bringing them up.

 

Those are all concessions we make.

 

Having people break the core of being a Jedi, one of the most important aspects of the Jedi culture, that I have an issue conceding about.

 

I'd argue that everyone, to some degree, has to make some kind of concession in order to have a good time RPing. Everyone.

 

Then what concessions do you want the "do what we want, game mechanics be darned" crowd to make?

 

Edit:

 

To add, not all of the people who do the "unique snowflake" thing, (IE the trained as an adult etc) are bad RP'ers. Some are very good, but I am in my RP trying to distance myself from them as I feel they ruin my sense of immersion due to the excess of them. In one recent case someone OOC'ly asked me if I would RP train their character...

 

I asked them how old they were and they said "around 18" to which I politely responded that I couldn't do so. They asked why and I explained that I felt that there were too many "trained as a teen/adult" Jedi so far and my character would not train someone that old.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ProfessorWalsh

[TheGreatNeechi]

ProfessorWalsh,

 

You made your mistake by trying to force other players to play the way you thought was appropriate.

 

Freeform RP does not work that way. Verisimilitude is not your call. You're not god.

 

You should have simply ignored them without saying a word. If you would have done that look at how things would have played out differently:

 

They would have been happy to RP their sexy scene without your input, and you would have been happy to RP the noble, stoic, Jedi Master you want to be... without their input. Do you see how that works? By injecting yourself into it you lose, not them. You lose because you tried to force your paradigm on them, which you cannot do. You simply can't. You are not god.

 

You may include ranks, titles, and game-engine mechanics into your role-play, but not everyone does. I sure don't. I don't strut around Vaiken pretending because I'm a level 50 Operative my character is the leetest of all Operatives. No, she is currently an Intelligence Ministry attache to the Dark Council. She... is a pawn.

 

Pay attention to the way you play. Stop minding other people.

Edited February 21, 2012 by TheGreatNeechi

[Edabass]

.

 

However, there is a part of me that says how they choose to RP is their own business, and they didn't invite anyone else to butt in and tell them to stop. One might consider the OPs interaction to be simply an RP version of "****, I'm sick of listening to your cyborz." One could make the case the jumping into RPs into which you were not invited can be rude. On the other hand, one could also make the case that RPing in a public venue, like a Cantina, is a tacit invitation for anyone in the area to "overhear" you and join your RP.

 

To my mind, there is no question here. If you are openly RPing in Say in a public place, you are *inviting* interaction. We've all seen people off in a corner seemingly inert- those are the folks who don't want their shenanigans (ERP or other) interfered with, and so, wisely, keep it to themselves.

 

Someone mentioned maturity, someone else mentioned choice. Both are valid points- though from my own *personal* perception of the flow of the game and its story construction, I find it unlikely that a bunch of Padawan are at the point in their careers where they've all decided the Order is wrong, so start acting out College Girls Gone Wild LXVII in public- far more likely it's teener G.I.R.L. syndrome- about which I could, of course, be horribly wrong.

 

Under the circumstances, I think the OP and company responded very well IC, and the replies were...not so good. Even if the players truly want to RP that their chars believe this, essentially responding with a big *%$^ off is neither good RP, nor really IC- after all, if their attitudes were THAT bad, how were they ever accepted as Padawan in the first place? So, we're back to maturity, I'm afraid.

 

Of course...the OP being (seemingly) shocked by that sort of behavior in an MMO? Without trying to be at all snerky, I might say *that* points to wishful thinking, or lack of experience.

 

Welcome to the jungle. Enjoy the scenery.

[AlyxDinas]

How, exactly, have we made the leap from these individuals being openly affectionate/passionate to openly pornographic? Walsh hardly provided enough detail to say that.

 

Then what concessions do you want the "do what we want, game mechanics be darned" crowd to make?

 

Any and all concession is a choice, not a requirement. Let us make that point of the discussion very clear. I don't think that anyone here has argued that the individuals in your example reacted in a way we would have preferred. Simply in a fashion that they were within their rights and ability to and for which we can be, perhaps, disappointed with for its content but not one we can condemn as something they were not allowed to do. Either by the rules of the setting (a point long since addressed) or by some arbitrary metric of what we'd like to so. RP servers, after all, don't have any real ruleset for people on them nor is RP compulsory on them.

 

Concessions are made when someone reciprocates a claim. And the choice to do so is always on the reciprocator rather than the initiator. Let's say your Jedi walks up to my Trooper. He introduces himself. "Hello. I'm Master Vallius Starwynd." My character bows politely (as he almost assured will seeing as he does so even for initiates or padawans). "Greetings master Jedi. What brings you here?". Simple enough interaction, right?

 

My response has clearly ceded social status to your character. The important thing to bear in mind is that I wasn't under any necessary obligation to do so. Ignoring that there's no real reason for me to reject it (and I wouldn't have), I still could have. I could have gone "Lots of people comin' through here sayin' they're Jedi. Last one was a Zabrak who stole my friends wallet." and expressed my hesitation to believe in your position. This would in no means be a "wrong" reply.

 

Let's now look at an example involving game mechanics. Your Jedi sees my Trooper somewhere. He is fully clad in armor. Val walks over as says "Trooper, by the authority vest in my by the newly granted provisions of Jedi over standard military, I hereby recruit you on a mission of grave importance to the Republic." It's all very dramatic and exciting, even provides a great story hook.

 

My character is still likely to respond "I'm sorry master Jedi but I'm no longer a part of the Army." He might offer to help anyway but he'd make it known that he's not in the Army and isn't really subject to Senatorial provisions. And if I refused you can really PM me and go "Well, no. You're a Trooper. That's your class. You're a solider. In my class story, I get to order soldiers around so let's go!"

 

Or let's say it was a character who actually was in the army. I know our server has a few military guilds so let's go with that. Even if their character was in the military, they don't need to necessarily obey you either. And the same thing applies again. You can't really PM them and go "Well, actually my Jedi now has the authority to do so because I'm in Act III of my story and...". There are a lot of reasons for this that I can outline later if you wish.

 

In fact, I might wish to narrow down what I said about about initiator and recipricator and say that largely what's been talked about in this thread is for concessions to be made on the initiator IF they are making a claim of sweeping authority over another player. Or rather, there is likely a greater onus to accept the possibility of rejection on their part.

Edited February 21, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[HiroAyami]

Well, see, now, the minute you went beyond a finger-wagging and verbal admonishment (which is really all you needed to do to establish your Master as a conservative, straight-up Jedi type), and essentially gathered up other players to "corral" these Padawans -- the minute you did that, your behaviour could be interpreted as you being a jerk.

 

Uh, isn't this the same as what everyone is basically talking him down from? How he feels the need to portray his character and at what degree is entirely his perogative. If he wants to go over the top IC, as this thread has seemingly advocated, he is well within the right to do so.

 

Being seen as a jerk is frankly the same as being seen as a "hard-***" on some occassions, and as you said, the definition is rather subjective. It doesn't change the fact that he has still established himself as being a Jedi Master within the Order.

 

Conversely, their reactions as I stated with regards to how Walsch wants to display himself is something of their own volition. For all we know they were all acting in the same defensive manner after being confronted so harshly. Who knows... Ah, there I go with my own adding to the plethora of hypothesis >>

 

Also as stated, the other Jedi joined on their own accord.

 

Especially since you've more-or-less stated that the fact that you thought their RP was bad OOCly and you were somehow granted the responsibility to teach those players a lesson.

 

You may argue that you weren't, but how did the players of those Padawans know that? A "jerk" isn't an objective definition that everyone can agree on -- just like 99% of the things in RP. By your own argument up there, those Padawans didn't have to do a single thing that you thought they should have done. Why? Because they could have seen you as being a jerk.

 

He stated their reaction to him IC was bad on an OOC level, not what they were doing prior to reacting to him OOC. I'm fairly certain had they fulfilled his expectations upon reacting, whether or not he thought their actions were bad RP before he confronted them OOC is moot. We all pass base judgments even if they're not validified, absolute or acted upon, scrutinizing him beyond that is just getting petty.

 

On the benefit of the doubt, if those RPers thought he was being a jerk OOC the circle is complete and we can just assume both parties were far too short of being awesome and move on from the subject of their interaction. Rather than being reasonable and mature and walking away like we suggested Walsch do, they also chose to stay, obviously not care, and potentially egg him on. They could have potentially thought he was doing a terrible job RPing OOC as well.

 

Going by the two-way street here, those Roleplayers accepted him into their Roleplay by including him and reacting to him beyond any fahion that would suggest he were intruding. Rather than OOC tell him they didn't want his presence or try to avoid the confrontation IC in a manner that would 'separate' them, they chose to interact. I my mind, this at the very least acknowledges some form of cooperation and unspoken understanding between both parties. What this entails is entirely up for discussion. On the pretext of non-explicit OOC communication, which seems evident in the method of initial ineraction, what is entailed.

 

Ignoring the style and preference of OOC communication, assuming both parties seemed content on no OOC dialogue, is there a sort of expectation here? This is a fairly common place interaction, and to state that unless there is OOC communication something is wrong, at this point is a bit unexplored. As I mentioned before other games such as Guild Wars and Aion have large RP communities that function within a set fictional universe that have adopted non-OOC forms of roleplay and interaction. That being said, their structure and game mechanics in relation to IC interaction is different as well.

 

Is Star Wars simply too "direct" with it's storytelling and lores for players to ignore OOC communication? All games and RP communities differe and what works for one isn't what works for others. Ragnarok Online, across multiple servers (Official and... not-so Official) more or less required some fairly well managed OOC conversation especially with how redicuously customizable and, sometimes (more often than not), misleading things could look.

 

The fact that it's already been discussed in this thread that we should be fostering and encouraging good RP rather than shunning so called 'Bad' RP and ignoring the RPers means we've already all, at one point crossed into the bounds of "passing judgement." Should we judge? Subject of debate. Will we? Absolutely, whether or not you want to classify it as such is another point of discussion, but really that would feel like semantics as far as I'm concerned especially if people feel simply using the word "judgement" is too harsh, replace with something like "impression" if you have to.

 

Now taking all of that into account, I really feel that what is being judged now, to some degree, and am really feeling is wrong, is we're effectively judging Walsch beyond the subject of 'X is versimilitude' and even his motivations for posting the topic in the first place. Instead people are actively judging and instructing him on what he is supposed to do. Irregardless of what he is doing, if the active perogative and one of the concensus of the thead is: "lead by example" we're doing a pretty bad job.

 

EDIT: Wah, Alyx's post grew between the time I hit reply and post Hah~

Edited February 21, 2012 by HiroAyami

[AlyxDinas]

Also as stated, the other Jedi joined on their own accord.

 

I've isolated the most important comment of your post. Mostly because I feel the rest is largely labyrinthine affair that offers far more empty rhetoricals than actual conclusions.

 

That said I feel you are making a fundamental category mistake here. Reciprocation, by itself, does not necessarily entail nor even readily imply automatic acceptance of the initial power dynamic offered by the person initiating communication. At least not in the sense that any reaction necessarily does. A reaction can be negative, skeptical, questioning, etc. The type of thing is just as important as the category.

Edited February 21, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[HiroAyami]

I've isolated the most important comment of your post. Mostly because I feel the rest is largely labyrinthine affair that offers far more empty rhetoricals than actual conclusions.

 

That said I feel you are making a fundamental category mistake here. Reciprocation, by itself, does not necessarily entail nor even readily imply automatic acceptance of the initial power dynamic offered by the person initiating communication. At least not in the sense that any reaction necessarily does. A reaction can be negative, skeptical, questioning, etc. The type of thing is just as important as the category.

 

I was refering to the comment of the other two Jedi Knights being "summoned" to corral the Padawans, as it was put, who joined later in the scenario. Not a declaration of power dynamic or anything.

Edited February 21, 2012 by HiroAyami

[AlyxDinas]

I was refering to the comment of the other two Jedi Knights being "summoned" to corral the Padawans, as it was put, who joined later in the scenario. Not a declaration of power dynamic or anything.

 

Ah. My mistake. Then my follow up question is what specific difference does that make in your mind? Ignoring the comments people have made about Walsh call people over, which are not really true to begin with. Does the fact that these players came over of their own volition counterbalance their collective decision to try to "corral" a pair of other players? Particularly when it was fairly clear that these players had no particular intention of allowing such a thing?

 

We're dangerously close to saying the mob rules.

Edited February 21, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[HiroAyami]

In my last post, this was probably the closest I got to the subject of the power dynamic and acceptance/reciprocation.

 

Going by the two-way street here, those Roleplayers accepted him into their Roleplay by including him and reacting to him beyond any fahion that would suggest he were intruding. Rather than OOC tell him they didn't want his presence or try to avoid the confrontation IC in a manner that would 'separate' them, they chose to interact. I my mind, this at the very least acknowledges some form of cooperation and unspoken understanding between both parties. What this entails is entirely up for discussion. On the pretext of non-explicit OOC communication, which seems evident in the method of initial ineraction, what is entailed.

 

Ignoring the style and preference of OOC communication, assuming both parties seemed content on no OOC dialogue, is there a sort of expectation here? This is a fairly common place interaction, and to state that unless there is OOC communication something is wrong, at this point is a bit unexplored.

 

I tend to type based on thought process leaving little chance to edit and stuff before I hit post so long posts are quite messy >>

 

Ah. My mistake. Then my follow up question is what specific difference does that make in your mind? Ignoring the comments people have made about Walsh call people over, which are not really true to begin with. Does the fact that these players came over of their own volition counterbalance their collective decision to try to "corral" a pair of other players? Particularly when it was fairly clear that these players had no particular intention of allowing such a thing?

 

Not possessing OOC knowledge of the two Jedi who approached, one being who I actually interact with on a semi regular "drop in" basis IC, I would say it was their reaction IC to a situation taking place. Corraling is probably an incorrect term for the situation as it played out being as the two went to investigate the "commotion" that seemed to be between members of the Order.

 

Their involvement was relatively brief, spanning maybe 10 minutes of interaction overall. In the time span it was mostly a case of sorting what was up, and agreeing with Walsch IC that what occurd wasn't right given the responses offered.

[AlyxDinas]

In my last post, this was probably the closest I got to the subject of the power dynamic and acceptance/reciprocation.

 

Then my above statement stands. A reaction or interaction does not necessarily including acquiescence in terms of character status. The content and context of the action does.

 

Their involvement was relatively brief, spanning maybe 10 minutes of interaction overall. In the time span it was mostly a case of sorting what was up, and agreeing with Walsch IC that what occurd wasn't right given the responses offered.

 

You're still not really apprehending the question. What, according, to you, does their injection tell us other than that their characters had IC cause to be curious about the event? Beyond this, what are we supposed to take away? Better yet, why?

 

As a corrolary to that: what if the number were larger? Is there a difference? What if it was smaller?

Edited February 21, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[tehjai]

Save for I wasn't being a jerk.

 

What objective, quantifiable proof do you have that you weren't, or that these Padawans didn't think so? Saying "I wasn't being a jerk" doesn't count; even a person caught red-handed in something that the majority of the population would see as pretty jerky will still say EXACTLY that.

 

Too, simply because they played along isn't an indicator that they were okay with what was going on.

 

You don't get to decide how your actions get interpreted by others. You're implicitly requesting a level of sheer control here that goes waaaaaaaaay beyond RPing, and frankly at this point, I'm gonna throw my lot in with the people who might treat lore a little loosely, simply because they seem to grasp how characters change and how different people interpret the same event differently. I still agree with you, romantic Padawans are kinda silly and I wouldn't go out of my way to engage with or play one myself, but, you know, fine.

 

 

There is a perfectly valid reason my character told them that they shouldn't do such things in public. There is a perfectly valid reason my character told them that they are representing the Jedi Order when they are in public and that they need to remember that.

 

Yes. There is a perfectly valid reason your character did what they did. I'm not disputing that, though I do think that the escalation of the scene was motivated more by OOC opinion than IC conviction.

 

However, it has also been said upside down and sideways, over and over again, that the Padawans may have had a myriad of reasons to do what they did (that is, to not immediately snap-to in the presence of a Jedi Master), both RP-related and game-mechanic related...

 

...plus we also have your Jerk Caveat. I think it's been established that, while the response of the Padawans may not have been your ideal RP experience, it is quite possible for it to be logical for the Padawans in question.

 

And that's something you're not equipped to assess, nor do you have the right to assess. You're not privy to all the RP these characters undergo; you're not privy to what might have made them that way, and yet in the end, you still insist that because it doesn't fit your personal vision, that it's wrong and that's the end of it.

 

In the end, it's just another flavour of "I do what I want", really. Even if it *is* grounded in lore.

[Kharnis]

Then what concessions do you want the "do what we want, game mechanics be darned" crowd to make?

 

Edit:

 

To add, not all of the people who do the "unique snowflake" thing, (IE the trained as an adult etc) are bad RP'ers. Some are very good, but I am in my RP trying to distance myself from them as I feel they ruin my sense of immersion due to the excess of them. In one recent case someone OOC'ly asked me if I would RP train their character...

 

I asked them how old they were and they said "around 18" to which I politely responded that I couldn't do so. They asked why and I explained that I felt that there were too many "trained as a teen/adult" Jedi so far and my character would not train someone that old.

 

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you genuinely unable to grasp the concept? The concessions of the "do what we want" crowd are simple: they cannot force you to RP with them if you don't want to, nor can they force you to acknowledge that they even exist as characters.

 

For God's sake, your edit even has this concession in it. "I am in my RP trying to distance myself from them as I feel they ruin my sense of immersion." Your concession is you acknowledge their right to RP whatever the hell they want, even if it is the most ridiculous concept you've ever heard in your life. Their concession is their realisation that you can ignore them completely, up to and including a game enforced /ignore.

 

You are free to withdraw your participation in any RP at any time that you choose. You don't even need to have a reason that they agree with, or that anyone agrees with. Your right to RP as you see fit trumps their desire to RP with you. They cannot make you acknowledge ICly that they are wanton Padawans, the secret love child of Satele Shan and Darth Malgus, or a half-Jawa/half-Tusken Raider/half-wampa Dark Jedi who fell into a wormhole from the Twilight universe while they were having a picnic with Harry Potter and Galdalf the Grey.

 

And you cannot make them stop RPing their character whatever way they want to just because it offends your sense of what Star Wars is, or because the character concept is utterly ridiculous to you. Their character is theirs; your character is yours. Neither of you have any rights over a character that isn't yours, and neither of you especially have any rights over what a player wants to do with their character.

 

If they are breaking any TOS with their gameplay, then (and only then) are you within your rights to act against them. But the only right you have is to report them to the Bioware GMs and let them sort it out as to whether it's actionable or not.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Kharnis

[HiroAyami]

Then my above statement stands. A reaction or interaction does not necessarily including acquiescence in terms of character status. The content and context of the action does.

 

My question to that would, what is the point that we accept these things sans OOC dialogue?

 

The approach of:

 

Hiro rises from his stool at the bar making a swift approach towards the three Padawans. Scowling at them with a look of obvious dissapproval, the Jedi Master clears his throat before addressing them.

 

At this point, should they respond to me, I am assuming they're acknowledging my status as a Master in terms of my assumed authority should they continue to interact with me. Whether or not they IC know I am a Master and respond to it is another question. At the very least, it should be apparent I am attempting to assume ranka nd status of a Jedi Master.

 

Assuming we're all somewhat on the same page in terms of lore (leaving out random hypothesis for the immediate moment) does something like that imply it status? Assuming there will be NO OOC interactions, where would roles stand?

 

You're still not really apprehending the question. What, according, to you, does their injection tell us other than that their characters had IC cause to be curious about the event? Beyond this, what are we supposed to take away? Better yet, why?

 

As a corrolary to that: what if the number were larger? Is there a difference? What if it was smaller?

 

I'm not sure I am still correctly reading your question. I was unable to really discern anything from their interactions, clearly they were on the same IC page as Walsch being that they agreed with him. Again, Corraling my be what is throwing me off as I can't exactly view it that way, they certainly didn't corner the Padawans or gang up on them en masse.

 

That said, their intrusion into the scene, as it were, may have spurned the three to up and leave, however their reaction to the other two and disrespect IC towards them was on par with how they were acting before they arrived. This probably cemented my view that they really just didn't care.

 

I mean, I admit, my view of the situation is truly likened to that of witnessing Trolling in PvP, towards the notion of: "Deal with it noob."

Edited February 21, 2012 by HiroAyami

[AlyxDinas]

My question to that would, what is the point that we accept these things sans OOC dialogue?

 

When we choose to and adequately express that acceptance to the other roleplayer. Honestly, I cannot believe this is actually a question in your mind. The implicit breadth of your comments lends me to think that you believe people are calling for OOC interaction before any engagement. No one has said this.

 

At this point, should they respond to me, I am assuming they're acknowledging my status as a Master in terms of my assumed authority should they continue to interact with me.

 

That would depend entirely on their reaction, clearly. And furthermore, even if it meant what you want it to mean, even if any type of reaction to you necessarily meant they accept your authority it still doesn't diffuse you of using such a thing responsibly and courteously.

 

Furthermore, your assumption is based on a flawed concept: that those people RP with the same rules or ideas as you. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, you can assume whatever you want. One should never expect it.

 

Whether or not they IC know I am a Master and respond to it is another question. At the very least, it should be apparent I am attempting to assume ranka nd status of a Jedi Master.

 

It doesn't matter. The attempt succeeds based on the reaction.

 

Assuming there will be NO OOC interactions, where would roles stand?

 

You keep asking the same question in different terms. It stands where the conversation directs it and the mutual interaction allows it.

 

Furthermore, the acceptance of roles does not necessarily confer unconditional power nor can they not change depending on how the scene progresses. If I'm playing a Padawan and you are a master and I initially acknowledge that role, it doesn't mean that you have carte blanche over my character.

 

If, later on, you do something like, say, tell me to change out of my casual outfit and back into the approved dress code for the Order...I can still say "I'm sorry Master but I am perfectly comfortable the way I am". And even though I accepted your RP title and position, you still have no right to truly be angry at my refusal.

 

I was unable to really discern anything from their interactions, clearly they were on the same IC page as Walsch being that they agreed with him.

 

I'm asking what you believe this says about the situation. At the end of it, if I am doing the count right, it was three supposed Jedi masters (or IIRC two Masters and a Knight) chastising these Padawans for their action. Three to two. Does the side with three have any type of true authority over the two and, if so, why?

 

More to the point, does the side with the greater consensus have the more valid argument in the situation?

[HiroAyami]

When we choose to and adequately express that acceptance to the other roleplayer. Honestly, I cannot believe this is actually a question in your mind. The implicit breadth of your comments lends me to think that you believe people are calling for OOC interaction before any engagement. No one has said this.

 

I have the impression that some people are. When it is expressed that communication is key and examples are specifically OOC PM's and questions, it doesn't necessarily mean prior to an engagement, but certainly 100% during. With full knowledge of people who do not engage in such things, and not having done so on occassion myself, how do we identify some base guidelines? What is an acceptable and reasonable "norm"?

 

Are we at a point where we can draw base conclusions/statements such as: SW:TOR is an overtly diverse community with a multitude of conflicting views on RP that communication between RP participants be it through clear and concise IC interactions or OOC banter is advised but not required.

 

Furthermore, your assumption is based on a flawed concept: that those people RP with the same rules or ideas as you. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, you can assume whatever you want. One should never expect it..

 

Then what does one expect? Which goes into the question what are expectations people should feel comfortable having, are they wrong to desire more, and is it unfair to based interactions you deem favorable and unfavorable under the context of these expectations? Are you now projecting your desires onto others, even if you're not activey forcing them to accept them?

 

I mean these can range as far as:

 

- Generally when people are RPing in a public setting, they are willing to, and in some cases, inviting outside "drop in" type interactions.

+ Cases where people really want you to ask them first are fairly rare.

 

- A lot of people use rank and IC mechanics to distinguish certain things about your character, if you're going outside the box, it may be advisible to let an RP partner/participant know some subtle things they should/could tell immediately from your character.

 

- The community in general appreciates base knowledge of lore, if you're playing a Jedi and aren't super familiar with what a Padawan, Knight, or Masters rank means, and perhaps should mean to you, it'd be smoother for everyone if you looked into it even as a glance or quick run through.

 

For me, I just ask questions OOC. On Adraas I have several players who I'll just drop into IC with on sight, without asking but we sort of have tht unspoken, "it's cool" bit going, as you've probably observed with my characters interactions with Niza, Riyad, etc.

 

I'm asking what you believe this says about the situation. At the end of it, if I am doing the count right, it was three supposed Jedi masters (or IIRC two Masters and a Knight) chastising these Padawans for their action. Three to two. Does the side with three have any type of true authority over the two and, if so, why?

 

More to the point, does the side with the greater consensus have the more valid argument in the situation?

 

I believe it was in fact two masters and a knight.

 

Yeah, I would never have quantified it as such based on what I saw.

 

In this case, the numbers did not seem to have an impact on the situation. From my own preference, one side, regardless of numbers doesn't gain any sort of superiority through numbers.

 

From a simple hierarchical perspective of the Jedi Order, if we can assume that everyone is in their assumed rank safely, there is a certain amount of respect due to them simply based on rank and experience that could be conveyed. Perhaps not to the point of obedience and adherance to their words or suggestions, but I would be inclined to believe the pause for thought between blatant disrespect and flippant challenges of authority would be had.

 

As far as validity within the argument goes, in this specific scenario, it wasn't so much an argument as an exchange of:

 

"What you're doing is wrong and lewed."

 

"So what? Deal with it."

 

"Your actions have repercussions."

 

"Cheah, whatever, you can't do anything about it."

 

Etc, etc, rinse and repeat, qq moar.

 

Even so in a more... discussion based manner, three to two, six to one, while it should possibly be a pause for thought that multiple strangers feel it necessary to single your actions out, even alone against the herd your conviction is your own. I mean, in a pissing contest, both sides are in the wrong for having even gotten that far in my opinion.

 

Of course, how often have we heard, "Welp! majority rules, suck it!" by now?

Edited February 21, 2012 by HiroAyami