forums.rs

Forums

Character Consent. Thread is locked Thread is hidden

Quick find code: 237-238-852-65905263

of 9
Quael
Jan Member 2018

Quael

Posts: 3,628 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
AN old quote was around once. I think it was, everyone thinks their character is mary sue?

if I am wrong meh, but this idea of permission to kill off another character, is not always a good idea. Sure maybe people rp as they are for a story development, as some people said, private role-play is better for it. I do agree there should be some kind of agreement towards this, like a clan plot to kill off a character soon, and maybe work with said assassins/people to let them kill him off.
Duke of Fort Forinthry
Interested in role-play? check out: The Quest Collective

26-Apr-2017 16:52:50

Quael
Jan Member 2018

Quael

Posts: 3,628 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Also to add, what makes people mad of losing their character, is sometime how "easy" their character dies, when they either, marysue their character into being skilled and powerful, or had actual role-play where their character fought "worst". Sometime it is one of those ooc discussion where one would force their character abilities being "better" than their target(s) when that isn't always true. Which causes a argument towards the two fighters on how the actions are bs and how he should be dead by now.

Sometime people need to learn to have fun in a role-play, yes we try to be a bit more realistic, but this is runescape role-play, nothing is ever that realistic, so we need to remember that. Role-playing is to have fun, use your imagination and have other enjoy it, not just something that is for your own amusement only.
Duke of Fort Forinthry
Interested in role-play? check out: The Quest Collective

26-Apr-2017 17:00:02

Lady Airlea
Mar Member 2011

Lady Airlea

Posts: 5,379 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Vekon said :
There is private RP if you want to ignore opposition or make their stories unaffected by the public world.

Having it any other way is a bit selfish. Killing is just another theme. Consider a cult of assassins played by reasonable people; they spend months researching a single target that they must eliminate for their own causes. The moment finally arrives and the target says "sorry nah i didn't consent brother xd'. That's pretty shitty.

We're all here to make stories. What happens in a story when an antagonist blacklists a protagonist, or vice versa?

Put yourself in private if you don't want your story to be influenced by others.

With this we are talking hypotheticals though. We haven't had a true take money for killing Assassin group since the Caedo, to my knowledge. I don't know if the Cuts or Pravens took money/assassinated.

You can botch an assassination. You can cripple and not kill by messing up. It's not a "ye no not gonna rp wit you lul blacklist," at least when we are talking about character consent.

My problem with this is the idea of removing consent to "prove who the better writer is" by rp combat. A good writer won't resort to being overpowered to win a fight, and when everyone goes for the kill, as they did until 2013, every character must be combat capable of surviving an ice barrage to the back or they will die before you get to really write for them.

And if the reasonable people spent months working on this assassination, I guarantee you its a person in power where the consent rule doesn't apply as strongly. And if said reasonable people were going to spend montbs of RP for rhis, I'd encourage them to take the good antagonist approach and be open about it OOCly to the target, and confirm they are okay with this attempt BEFORE the months of preperation got started.
*ª
†
ª*
The One True Nat
*ª
†
ª*

26-Apr-2017 17:00:10

Lady Airlea
Mar Member 2011

Lady Airlea

Posts: 5,379 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Quael said :
Sometime people need to learn to have fun in a role-play, yes we try to be a bit more realistic, but this is runescape role-play, nothing is ever that realistic, so we need to remember that. Role-playing is to have fun, use your imagination and have other enjoy it, not just something that is for your own amusement only.

Also this. This is the biggest issue I had with rhe idea of competitive RP combat. There was a huge play to win mentality and it wasn't fun for most if you didn't win.

There's a line between realism and going nuts.
*ª
†
ª*
The One True Nat
*ª
†
ª*

26-Apr-2017 17:12:15

Vekon

Vekon

Posts: 2,037 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lady Airlea said :


With this we are talking hypotheticals though. We haven't had a true take money for killing Assassin group since the Caedo, to my knowledge. I don't know if the Cuts or Pravens took money/assassinated.

You can botch an assassination. You can cripple and not kill by messing up. It's not a "ye no not gonna rp wit you lul blacklist," at least when we are talking about character consent.

My problem with this is the idea of removing consent to "prove who the better writer is" by rp combat. A good writer won't resort to being overpowered to win a fight, and when everyone goes for the kill, as they did until 2013, every character must be combat capable of surviving an ice barrage to the back or they will die before you get to really write for them.

And if the reasonable people spent months working on this assassination, I guarantee you its a person in power where the consent rule doesn't apply as strongly. And if said reasonable people were going to spend montbs of RP for rhis, I'd encourage them to take the good antagonist approach and be open about it OOCly to the target, and confirm they are okay with this attempt BEFORE the months of preperation got started.

Goes much deeper than that. What if target character had been a long time enemy of said assassination organization, and over a course of time that character had tormented the now assassin, and that history is a big part of his story? He spends his life grasping at vengeance, just for the RPer to say "nah sorry i don't want this to happen lol". Doesn't seem fair to me.

And yeah, the actual killing could be botched, if that's how it went down ICly. Or it could be executed quite well, but ignored by the target.
KANDAR VICTA

Axel Vekon, the Eternal Emperor, the Archmage, the Lichslayer, of the Holy Kandarin Empire.

#
HouseVekon

26-Apr-2017 17:36:44

Lord Pyro I
Nov Member 2018

Lord Pyro I

Posts: 4,255 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
CrocoNuts said :
Lord Pyro I said :
There a huge number of perfectly valid competitive games out there, why can't RSRP be one of them?

Because you roleplay for fun, muppet.

Since when were competitive games not fun? "The greatest endeavors are achieved because of their selfless intent"
#WarIsComing

26-Apr-2017 18:46:19

Nomadess

Nomadess

Posts: 5,321 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I didn't really read this thread but I skimmed it and felt to share my opinion on the title "Character Consent" since I'm sure that's what this thread is about. I'm all for OOC consent but if that consent breaks who your character is, it seems to be lorebreak. I understand that Lorebreak refers more toward the in-game lore and cannon but, to me, it also refers to all of our characters.

Every character has their own lore and their own, personal, perspective. If you choose to use this OOC consent/courtesy, you might be breaking your own character. For example. My former character, Myra Nost, was a bloodthirsty Mercenary. Often times, she was contracted to kill someone. If I made OOC arrangements to not kill the character, Myra would be a broken character with a broken perspective and broken lore all because she'd have killed that character.

The way I, personally, play the game now is to play my character, not myself. I'm not in the game nor am I the character I'm playing. IC should be IC, not IC with OOC influences. If you change your character's perspective, to not kill a character based on OOC, that seems to be on the brink of meta-gaming by bringing OOC into IC. I don't feel it right to influence IC actions with OOC arrangements.

Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of making OOC plans for IC with arrangements to not kill important characters, including my own, just recently, but that's all for a plot. For plots, of course use consent or courtesy, since it's a plot and planned actions for the entertainment of the whole group.

My biggest problem with consent is the fact that someone can walk up to you, slap you across the face, and say "What'cha gonna do now?" What? Because they didn't give you consent, you can't kill them? The consent model seems like it could easily be abused.

TL;DR, If you change what your character would do in a situation because of OOC arrangements, that breaks who your character is. IC should stay IC. OOC should stay OOC. Simple as that. "The Truth about Bob Ross; he's immortal. Even when he's dead he has a LIVE stream."

26-Apr-2017 18:47:57

Lord Pyro I
Nov Member 2018

Lord Pyro I

Posts: 4,255 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lady Airlea said :
I don't use character consent for my characters. The two I sincerely care about playing have the money, expertise, and capability to craft/obtain a sign of life. And wear them. If they die, they come back weak, get whisked off by their jewelry, and have to spend the next few months recovering. Especially if there's broken bones too.

At the same time, I don't believe the consent rule is useless. It's there because a human can't realistically stop a point blank ice barrage or a Mahjarrat with a mastery of fire without being overpowered for a human who just went to get a pint. That's not a knifing in the mall. That's an unrealistic massacre, that shatters any logic to lore.

I seriously question the use of the sign of life to prevent your character's death. Should they be used in RSRP? That's a question up for debate, but this usage seems to have been done very quietly and I wonder how many outside your circle of friends knew this method was being employed.

The consent rule can in some ways be viewed as part of a long line of methods implemented by certain "elite" rpers to give their character's effective immortality. From the early example of Jedi Rystar's "reinforced armour" (basically armour so strong he didn't need to react to being under attack), to the use of "soul crystals", consent rules and now this sign of life. Being charitable there has often been a certain amount of mystery surrounding such rules which has ensured their accessibility to only certain groups of friends in which the ideas were developed. This is beyond the scope of this thread but I believe the removal of the consent rule would be a step towards a fairer system on w42, one less likely to drive RPers away. "The greatest endeavors are achieved because of their selfless intent"
#WarIsComing

26-Apr-2017 19:05:07

The contents of this message have been hidden.

26-Apr-2017 19:10:38

Quick find code: 237-238-852-65905263 Back to Top