|
|
Post by Warlord on Dec 20, 2018 8:45:04 GMT -5
frc.proboards.com/thread/29454/dm-new-rule-15If I may add my honest piece to the discussion, Fluffy - When it comes to PvP and faction related information, a player's multiple PC's shouldn't germate the information among themselves. My own gals comically talk about monsters or dungeons they have seen in their family get-togethers. What they smashed, saw, etc. They've also openly cited they don't help each other with gear as that'd be twinking/muling in most senses. Gjurd, recently getting into PvP, would in fundamental theory share what occurred, but because of the griefing clause I can't retaliate with a higher level character and then there's also the spirit of fairness to consider. They, the clankin, got to each individually polish their own challenges! It does become a bit of a fallacious concern when fretting over pc's that is labeled as family or a friend. Two PC's from Kara-Tur & Amn can cross paths as complete strangers, share a beer, and information: that can equal parts cause chaos for metagaming. Maybe 2 different people and strangers share the same faith, and could talk in their gods temple. The "dip of concern for metagaming" in other words can be bigger than Helga. "PC's of more immediate branching and connection," such as my clankin, needs to be played with great wisdom, or comedic narrowness that they can't help one another. To date I don't believe anyone's filed a complaint about my own RP for such & most seem to enjoy. I'm sure spectator's have had their concerns but I can't help or encourage perspective with what isn't questioned/discussed. Things happy-out when people communicate. Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Dec 20, 2018 9:18:56 GMT -5
I guess I didn't comment directly on the rule itself, uh
I dual-boxed with Sharteel and Gorstag a long time ago to ante up the challenge. The plan was to not cross paths and it should pretty much absolve most concerns. At the time neither PC were in factions either. I've had very goot and joyous RP shared with others who did dual box and we were all pretty responsible about it.
I disagree with the invested perspective of the rule simply because there are already other rules in place to discipline people by. To me it just adds one more line into the automobile's handbook for the driver to concern over. At least it's hardly the end of the realms not being able to do so! Not to mention it does making the DM platform a bit easier and stress free to not "have that eye" narrowed out to the people that do so. Sometimes a ruling needs outlined to be time-practical topside as well.
|
|
Nicoen
Proven Member
Posts: 225
|
Post by Nicoen on Dec 20, 2018 9:43:55 GMT -5
I think it's just a general bad idea for a player to have characters with a relation to each others. It's a constant risk of meta-gaming, and requires a lot of effort to make sure you don't end up using information on one character that you've acquired as another. Because they are related to each others, and most likely engage in the same circles or factions, it becomes a lot harder for the player to correctly differ between who acquired the information. It's easier for a player to make this distinction when playing characters that aren't related, due to different associations, and also easier for DM's to verify how the character acquired the information.
Since we can't multibox now, it would make sense to also forbid interactions on the forums between characters from the same player. It's a slippery slope to "accepted" meta-gaming, and it creates a weird situation where the player has total control of information flow between characters, how they react and their stories unfold. Something that does not belong on an RP server if you ask me. Being able to share all the information a player has acquired between all his characters is normally against the rules, but if you can just write a a forum post to circumvent that, the rule means little to nothing.
Similarly it's a problem to push information from one of player 1's characters through player 2's character that eventually ends up at another of player 1's characters. We already disallow items, gold etc. to make this transaction, I think information is as important, if not more. It would be more consistent to have a similar restriction against this, to the extent of what player 1 can control(by not having multiple characters with relations to each others and the same factions/characters). I know this one is harder to control in practice, especially as it can also apply to characters with no relation to each others, and the server even promotes it by limiting a player to one specific faction/guild.
Just my input on this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Dec 20, 2018 10:36:09 GMT -5
I think it's just a general bad idea for a player to have characters with a relation to each others. It's a constant risk of meta-gaming, and requires a lot of effort to make sure you don't end up using information on one character that you've acquired as another. Because they are related to each others, and most likely engage in the same circles or factions, it becomes a lot harder for the player to correctly differ between who acquired the information. It's easier for a player to make this distinction when playing characters that aren't related, due to different associations, and also easier for DM's to verify how the character acquired the information. Since we can't multibox now, it would make sense to also forbid interactions on the forums between characters from the same player. It's a slippery slope to "accepted" meta-gaming, and it creates a weird situation where the player has total control of information flow between characters, how they react and their stories unfold. Something that does not belong on an RP server if you ask me. Being able to share all the information a player has acquired between all his characters is normally against the rules, but if you can just write a a forum post to circumvent that, the rule means little to nothing. Similarly it's a problem to push information from one of player 1's characters through player 2's character that eventually ends up at another of player 1's characters. We already disallow items, gold etc. to make this transaction, I think information is as important, if not more. It would be more consistent to have a similar restriction against this, to the extent of what player 1 can control(by not having multiple characters with relations to each others and the same factions/characters). I know this one is harder to control in practice, especially as it can also apply to characters with no relation to each others, and the server even promotes it by limiting a player to one specific faction/guild. Just my input on this topic. Phew...Nicoen, ju is a hard baller. By the bulk of this sentiment we should just hardcode it as: No family play! Might be something we'll agree to disagree! Because I could sit back and fret: 2 sibling PC's played by 2 different people, and wondering if they are using Discord and seeing each others game play while apart. At some point we do need to trust people? Most people are not ill intended. Separating information among family pc's is a cumbersome challenge but that's a burden some of us get motivated by. Simple journal works meanwhile. My own PC's interact with each other on the forums but their interactions are their day to day trivial ambitions and don't necessarily involve other 3 parties but for a romantic nod here and there. If there is an event/scenario where a 3rd party player feels wronged by another player and their familial-ties, then they should have the courage to report the concern, and then investigations go underway. Seems a bit over-anxious to be fretting every possible negative causality meanwhile. Not much else I can say. I'm not trying to change Nicoen's mind any. We need people to be cautious, but I encourage people to also relax and give those of us a healthy chance to continue to prove mettle please, and thank ju's  |
|
Nicoen
Proven Member
Posts: 225
|
Post by Nicoen on Dec 20, 2018 10:50:10 GMT -5
I'm all for family play and characters that arrive to FRC already part of a group or organization together, I really love such compositions. I just don't think they should be played by the same player.
I don't think it's more hardcore than how the server is already framed through its current rules, it's more consistent with the existing ruleset and the vision for the server.
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Dec 20, 2018 10:56:25 GMT -5
The new rule only applies to events and information in game. The characters can still interact with one another offline and honestly, I do not see a problem with it.
I dissagre with Nicoen's point of view. I think that if characters played by the same player know each other due to storytelling reasons, and as long as no metagaming occurs, then there is little to no need to expand the new rule #15 from what it will allow and from what it will not.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Dec 20, 2018 11:04:22 GMT -5
The new rule only applies to events and information in game. The characters can still interact with one another offline and honestly, I do not see a problem with it. I dissagre with Nicoen's point of view, and I think that if characters played by the same player know each other due to storytelling reasons, and as long as no metagaming occurs, then there is little to no need to expand the new rule #15 from what it will allow and from what it will not. Merc please go read rule 7 regarding, particularly the sub point seen below. "- Sharing information between alternate characters that you play." This has always been a thing as far as I've been aware, it wasn't spelled out, but it has always been a thing, if you're ever unsure of a grey area regarding the rules where the spirit of the rules and what is explicitly spelled out for you do not match up, always swing the question by the DM team either via private message or the DM Q&A forum.
Here's a DM Q&A regarding such from years back. Since my character kross is lvl 21 now im probably going to start playing a new character. My question is this, I plan to make my new character related to Kross. He of course may ask as of his whereabouts but they wont gain any info from eachother. Is this acceptable? If they never actually cross paths and don't share information between them, it's fine to play a relative of your existing PC. |
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Dec 20, 2018 11:06:11 GMT -5
I know that. I am simply stating that as long as no information is shared, then it should remain acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by StabbingNirvana on Dec 20, 2018 11:32:13 GMT -5
I don't think characters can interact offline. Even when in the guild there was just a shared knowledge leeway by virtue being present in the organization but alt characters couldnt meet with each other and have full blown conversations and philosophical debates. It had to be a more of an acquaintance relationship where you say hi in passing but never spoke anything of importance directly.
Either way, alt characters with some familiarity each other having a minor shared knowledge probably isn't going to be something that's going to be micromanaged anyways as long as it isn't blatantly game breaking or outrageous metagaming.
I think the main point of the dual boxing rules is to 1) not make the game a single player game and 2) not gain a mechanical advantage via buffing, muling, and handicapping opponents in PvP or PvE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vaertai on Dec 20, 2018 17:15:39 GMT -5
If they never actually cross paths and don't share information between them, it's fine to play a relative of your existing PC. I'll just leave this. I'm pretty sure talking to yourself on the forum is still crossing paths. Pretty spelled out it shouldn't happen to be honest. Why should a rule be in place in game but be ignored on the forum. Please stop trying to circumvent the rules to stroke your own ego. It's now a spelled out rule you can not dual box. That means your two chars can not talk to each other in game. Can't happen. Why should that be ignored for the forum. Are the rules separated? If they are please make a subsection for the current rule stating it is allowed on the forum but not in game. |
|
|
|
Post by Warlord on Dec 20, 2018 19:06:24 GMT -5
If they never actually cross paths and don't share information between them, it's fine to play a relative of your existing PC. Why should a rule be in place in game but be ignored on the forum. Please stop trying to circumvent the rules to stroke your own ego. Careful with the flame? What Munroe said is not a rule. Munroe, ju know I love you  I understand DM's give great advice in the Q&A. Rules are in the rule section. I'm expressing this on behalf of future RPers in NWN EE. By the way future readers, don't feel obligated to comb through the Q&A and think everything said is a rule as uh, that wouldn't be a fair expectation. Not a bad thing to attempt but don't go feeling overwhelmed. Feels like words are being put into Munroe's mouth though. Extrapolations being made based on one comment is unbecoming. Flying Midget had a great reminder for his post, which is an actual rule. But what line of information sharing would be a "big no" when other familial PC's are involved? Other rules that kick-in, apply, to help avoid that already from my experiences here so I don't struggle myself in deciphering this. PvP/Meta-gaming rules are very crisp. No one should fret if Ragnhild tells Helga she planted flowers. If people are concerned about me, uh, metagaming my own self then that's some awesome chaos. I should definitely get in trouble if I have Ragnhild tell Helga she was killed by someone recently. (Spoiler) People outside-looking-in think all my PC's are related but .. nope! |
|
Nicoen
Proven Member
Posts: 225
|
Post by Nicoen on Dec 21, 2018 4:03:23 GMT -5
What Munroe said is not a rule. Munroe, ju know I love you I understand DM's give great advice in the Q&A. Rules are in the rule section. I'm expressing this on behalf of future RPers in NWN EE. By the way future readers, don't feel obligated to comb through the Q&A and think everything said is a rule as uh, that wouldn't be a fair expectation. Not a bad thing to attempt but don't go feeling overwhelmed. Feels like words are being put into Munroe's mouth though. Extrapolations being made based on one comment is unbecoming. I think that's reaching, Warlord. DM Munroe's words are a clarification of the rules we have in place, so yes they are actually the rules on the server. It was the whole premise of Raneearendur's question, to get clarification about the rules to make sure he doesn't do anything to violate them. No one should fret if Ragnhild tells Helga she planted flowers. You could also look at it from another perspective. What does you writing a story about what your own characters do with each others contribute to the server and other players? You have 100% control of what everyone says, how everyone reacts and what everyone wants to get out of the scene. That's not very interesting nor in tune with the vision of this server. When you engage with other player's character through stories, scenes etc. on the forums you are inviting the other player to have their character react, talk and engage with the scene, which is what the server is all about, the stories we create and tell together. If you control a scene with multiple characters fully, you are taking a role similar to a DM with their NPC's talking and interacting among themselves. Personally I think such should only be for the actual DM's. |
|
|
|
Post by Vaertai on Dec 21, 2018 9:34:15 GMT -5
Why should a rule be in place in game but be ignored on the forum. Please stop trying to circumvent the rules to stroke your own ego. Careful with the flame? What Munroe said is not a rule. Munroe, ju know I love you I understand DM's give great advice in the Q&A. Rules are in the rule section. I'm expressing this on behalf of future RPers in NWN EE. By the way future readers, don't feel obligated to comb through the Q&A and think everything said is a rule as uh, that wouldn't be a fair expectation. Not a bad thing to attempt but don't go feeling overwhelmed. Feels like words are being put into Munroe's mouth though. Extrapolations being made based on one comment is unbecoming. Flying Midget had a great reminder for his post, which is an actual rule. But what line of information sharing would be a "big no" when other familial PC's are involved? Other rules that kick-in, apply, to help avoid that already from my experiences here so I don't struggle myself in deciphering this. PvP/Meta-gaming rules are very crisp. No one should fret if Ragnhild tells Helga she planted flowers. If people are concerned about me, uh, metagaming my own self then that's some awesome chaos. I should definitely get in trouble if I have Ragnhild tell Helga she was killed by someone recently. (Spoiler) People outside-looking-in think all my PC's are related but .. nope! Flame? Haha, no. If I was flaming, it would have been much more than a polite request to stop a trend. I am sorry you do not like the terminology but that's essentially what it is. Nicoen's post pretty much covers anything else. Thanks and have a happy holidays. |
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Dec 21, 2018 9:38:58 GMT -5
You further have an issue that a lot of your PCS know the same people and so it's very difficult to tell whether or not if you metagame something or if they learned through roleplay. That's the larger issue with what you're doing I believe more so than you doing Forum roleplay. The bottom line is that it's against the rules and what you're doing is against the rules and specifically because of how you role-play and how your character is get on with other player characters you're actually more prone to Accidental metagame because of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Dec 21, 2018 12:34:35 GMT -5
I generally agree that I don't like players dual boxing, but in some instances I don't really care. If one player wants to log in with two characters and sit in a room and RP, then that doesn't bother me so long as its not used for distict advantages. My two oldest characters abolutely detest each other. Unfortuneatly, I never get to show their relationship. Once, probably nine years ago, Lokarn logged in on one of my characters and I got on the other so I could atually have a brief confrontation and it went fine. It provided RP, a story and insight for those around. Nobody hurt, no special advantages given, just RP'ing a story that I happen to control on both ends. On that note... No one should fret if Ragnhild tells Helga she planted flowers. You could also look at it from another perspective. What does you writing a story about what your own characters do with each others contribute to the server and other players? You have 100% control of what everyone says, how everyone reacts and what everyone wants to get out of the scene. That's not very interesting nor in tune with the vision of this server. When you engage with other player's character through stories, scenes etc. on the forums you are inviting the other player to have their character react, talk and engage with the scene, which is what the server is all about, the stories we create and tell together. If you control a scene with multiple characters fully, you are taking a role similar to a DM with their NPC's talking and interacting among themselves. Personally I think such should only be for the actual DM's. ...controlling a story on all ends is something most of us do a lot. Through 13 years of playing I have plenty of means to control heavily detailed stories involving all my creations and at times some of my stories and posts do only involve my creations. The Isle of Ashen Winds Sight & Evolution thread was nearly exclusively things I can control. However, I'd argue it -does- contribute to the story of FRC. It doesn't directly include people but it provides insight into the personality of something that people can experience. The same goes for the creative writing threads. My PC doesn't directly experience those stories, but I, as a player, can read those and develop a better understanding for those characters involved which can help me understand future or past experiences with those characters. In that sense, if a player controls two characters that, when brought together, can compliment a story or experience for me, I wouldn't keep them from doing so, so long as they aren't breaking the spirit behind the rules of not breaking my immersion, being an ass, or being a cheater. ------- My recomendation for this rule is that it's kept so that it can be enforced when needed, but it's generally overlooked when its not harmful. But that's how I feel about most rules: Follow the spirit of the rule, not the words. |
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Dec 21, 2018 13:44:22 GMT -5
I really don't think posting a vignette with more than one of a person's characters should be against the rules. If it does cross a line, a DM can send a message to the player.
Creative writing is not multi-boxing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vaertai on Dec 21, 2018 14:08:36 GMT -5
Ok so:
Rules are just guidelines that can be broken on a case by case basis
DM clarification in DM Q and A on a rule arent really rules in themselves
What isn't allowed in game may be allowed on the forum.
Got it. Thats my take away from this. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 21, 2018 15:20:19 GMT -5
Easy folks,
Outside of a DM being quoted, this is just a discussion of ideas and opinions, not a DM Q&A response or a rule change.
We can like an idea expressed by a fellow community member or not, agree or disagree.
Let's keep things in context and be cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by DM Maleficent's Kiss on Dec 21, 2018 18:07:38 GMT -5
I really don't think posting a vignette with more than one of a person's characters should be against the rules. If it does cross a line, a DM can send a message to the player. Creative writing is not multi-boxing. I think you did a good job of summing it up. Creative writing is not multi-boxing and we certainly don't want to stifle that form of creativity because it's been such a fantastic thing to have people expound on their character's background, description, or struggle whether it was pre-FRC or in their personal life in the moments that no one else could possibly know about. My personal favorites are the pieces written during conflict situations between characters or close friends. I've always enjoyed reading the thought process behind a character and if it's something particularly difficult(perhaps there is actual sacrifice involved on the relationship level), to even get a glimpse of how the player themselves is dealing/reasoning with it and through it. There is no doubt that when you're writing about your character, you're connecting with your character, and when you're connecting with your character more likely than not deeper and better RP are going to come from that. Obviously no one person plays a character the same, and so often our characters are visual manifestations of our own personalities. I love the fact that creatively writing about these individuals can give us more of a glimpse into those personalities and how interesting, unique, and quirky they can be. There are times, however, when creative writing can cross the line, such as when it comes to involving other characters actions, particular events in which a DM would be required, or using it as a means to try to get something(examples of this would be, power, wealth, material gain such as rings, weapons, etc). It's during these times and usually only these times when creative writing can cross the line. In the past people have tried to god mod or gain an advantage over another through some means via the creative writing medium, but most of the time creative writing has been used for the power of good and broadening our RP enjoyment. |
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Dec 23, 2018 17:02:34 GMT -5
In my humble opinion, no one should be Dual boxing. There should never be a player logging into multiple characters at once. There should also never be a player having someone else log into one of their characters, so that they can interact together.
As far as a character being related to the other, I have these. It is what it is. Just don't be unfair with it.
Happy Holidays everyone!
|
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Dec 24, 2018 23:55:04 GMT -5
I really don't think posting a vignette with more than one of a person's characters should be against the rules. If it does cross a line, a DM can send a message to the player. Creative writing is not multi-boxing. I think you did a good job of summing it up. Creative writing is not multi-boxing and we certainly don't want to stifle that form of creativity because it's been such a fantastic thing to have people expound on their character's background, description, or struggle whether it was pre-FRC or in their personal life in the moments that no one else could possibly know about. My personal favorites are the pieces written during conflict situations between characters or close friends. I've always enjoyed reading the thought process behind a character and if it's something particularly difficult(perhaps there is actual sacrifice involved on the relationship level), to even get a glimpse of how the player themselves is dealing/reasoning with it and through it. There is no doubt that when you're writing about your character, you're connecting with your character, and when you're connecting with your character more likely than not deeper and better RP are going to come from that. Obviously no one person plays a character the same, and so often our characters are visual manifestations of our own personalities. I love the fact that creatively writing about these individuals can give us more of a glimpse into those personalities and how interesting, unique, and quirky they can be. There are times, however, when creative writing can cross the line, such as when it comes to involving other characters actions, particular events in which a DM would be required, or using it as a means to try to get something(examples of this would be, power, wealth, material gain such as rings, weapons, etc). It's during these times and usually only these times when creative writing can cross the line. In the past people have tried to god mod or gain an advantage over another through some means via the creative writing medium, but most of the time creative writing has been used for the power of good and broadening our RP enjoyment. If someone does creative writing, and explains in character roleplay with that creative writing to another character, and they both are owned by the person doing the creative writing, and then both characters use the in character knowledge, in role-play on the server, as if both characters had the in character knowledge, and gained it themselves through roleplay, as if they did the role play, themselves with each character, separately, and acts as if both characters were present the entire time, again based on creative writing the person who owns both characters did, is that specific instance against the rules? Yes or no? If it is, what is the punishment for that? If it is not, why is that not against the rules, and why is that not considered metagaming? |
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Dec 25, 2018 1:09:27 GMT -5
If someone does creative writing, and explains in character roleplay with that creative writing to another character, and they both are owned by the person doing the creative writing, and then both characters use the in character knowledge, in role-play on the server, as if both characters had the in character knowledge, and gained it themselves through roleplay, as if they did the role play, themselves with each character, separately, and acts as if both characters were present the entire time, again based on creative writing the person who owns both characters did, is that specific instance against the rules? Yes or no? If it is, what is the punishment for that? If it is not, why is that not against the rules, and why is that not considered metagaming? I'll have to leave the question about whether something is against the rules to a DM, or course, but I would first want to look at what in-game benefit is gained by the interaction. If Quake tells Gjurd on the forum that her favorite ice cream is pistachio, and Gjurd later shares that information in-game, I really don't see the big deal. I've got two characters in Oghrann. If there's an RP thread on the guild board, I might contribute to the discussion from the POVs of both characters. They might agree with each other, or they might not, but why shouldn't they be aware of what each other had to say? Of course, if the matter ended in a clan vote, I would find a reason for at least one to abstain. As far as 'metagaming', that's a really broad brush. Sending a tell in-game to someone to see if they want to group is metagaming (using ooc information for ic benefit), for example. It's not always a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Dec 25, 2018 1:56:19 GMT -5
If someone does creative writing, and explains in character roleplay with that creative writing to another character, and they both are owned by the person doing the creative writing, and then both characters use the in character knowledge, in role-play on the server, as if both characters had the in character knowledge, and gained it themselves through roleplay, as if they did the role play, themselves with each character, separately, and acts as if both characters were present the entire time, again based on creative writing the person who owns both characters did, is that specific instance against the rules? Yes or no? If it is, what is the punishment for that? If it is not, why is that not against the rules, and why is that not considered metagaming? I'll have to leave the question about whether something is against the rules to a DM, or course, but I would first want to look at what in-game benefit is gained by the interaction. If Quake tells Gjurd on the forum that her favorite ice cream is pistachio, and Gjurd later shares that information in-game, I really don't see the big deal. I've got two characters in Oghrann. If there's an RP thread on the guild board, I might contribute to the discussion from the POVs of both characters. They might agree with each other, or they might not, but why shouldn't they be aware of what each other had to say? Of course, if the matter ended in a clan vote, I would find a reason for at least one to abstain. As far as 'metagaming', that's a really broad brush. Sending a tell in-game to someone to see if they want to group is metagaming (using ooc information for ic benefit), for example. It's not always a bad thing. That is also a specified agreed usage of meta knowledge as per the journal definitions. MK however has already agreed that so long as the knowledge pertains in an insulated fashion: I.E your characters and yours alone. Creative writting is not dual boxing. |
|
|
|
Post by gathera on Dec 25, 2018 2:27:34 GMT -5
I'll have to leave the question about whether something is against the rules to a DM, or course, but I would first want to look at what in-game benefit is gained by the interaction. If Quake tells Gjurd on the forum that her favorite ice cream is pistachio, and Gjurd later shares that information in-game, I really don't see the big deal. I've got two characters in Oghrann. If there's an RP thread on the guild board, I might contribute to the discussion from the POVs of both characters. They might agree with each other, or they might not, but why shouldn't they be aware of what each other had to say? Of course, if the matter ended in a clan vote, I would find a reason for at least one to abstain. As far as 'metagaming', that's a really broad brush. Sending a tell in-game to someone to see if they want to group is metagaming (using ooc information for ic benefit), for example. It's not always a bad thing. That is also a specified agreed usage of meta knowledge as per the journal definitions. MK however has already agreed that so long as the knowledge pertains in an insulated fashion: I.E your characters and yours alone. Creative writting is not dual boxing. If you think there is the potential for metagaming or if you are using NPC's in the stories you can submit the text to the DM's for approval. They are busy people so it can take a bit of time but they will review the manuscript and tell you if it is alright to post up. I do that for any of my stories posted to the forums in which an in-game NPC's appears or if I deem the material should be reviewed. If I had any complaint about the back and forth forum RP stories is that they tend towards just being only a line or two. Rather small snippets. |
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Dec 25, 2018 3:03:42 GMT -5
I think you did a good job of summing it up. Creative writing is not multi-boxing and we certainly don't want to stifle that form of creativity because it's been such a fantastic thing to have people expound on their character's background, description, or struggle whether it was pre-FRC or in their personal life in the moments that no one else could possibly know about. My personal favorites are the pieces written during conflict situations between characters or close friends. I've always enjoyed reading the thought process behind a character and if it's something particularly difficult(perhaps there is actual sacrifice involved on the relationship level), to even get a glimpse of how the player themselves is dealing/reasoning with it and through it. There is no doubt that when you're writing about your character, you're connecting with your character, and when you're connecting with your character more likely than not deeper and better RP are going to come from that. Obviously no one person plays a character the same, and so often our characters are visual manifestations of our own personalities. I love the fact that creatively writing about these individuals can give us more of a glimpse into those personalities and how interesting, unique, and quirky they can be. There are times, however, when creative writing can cross the line, such as when it comes to involving other characters actions, particular events in which a DM would be required, or using it as a means to try to get something(examples of this would be, power, wealth, material gain such as rings, weapons, etc). It's during these times and usually only these times when creative writing can cross the line. In the past people have tried to god mod or gain an advantage over another through some means via the creative writing medium, but most of the time creative writing has been used for the power of good and broadening our RP enjoyment. If someone does creative writing, and explains in character roleplay with that creative writing to another character, and they both are owned by the person doing the creative writing, and then both characters use the in character knowledge, in role-play on the server, as if both characters had the in character knowledge, and gained it themselves through roleplay, as if they did the role play, themselves with each character, separately, and acts as if both characters were present the entire time, again based on creative writing the person who owns both characters did, is that specific instance against the rules? Yes or no? If it is, what is the punishment for that? If it is not, why is that not against the rules, and why is that not considered metagaming? I'll wait for a DM to answer this as I have written. DM Hawk DM Maleficent's Kiss |
|
|
|
Post by DM Hawk on Dec 25, 2018 11:54:27 GMT -5
Orchid,
If you're waiting for a DM response specifically, please post your question in DM Q&A so that the answer isn't buried and lost in another thread over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Frost on Dec 25, 2018 21:57:29 GMT -5
I think you did a good job of summing it up. Creative writing is not multi-boxing and we certainly don't want to stifle that form of creativity because it's been such a fantastic thing to have people expound on their character's background, description, or struggle whether it was pre-FRC or in their personal life in the moments that no one else could possibly know about. My personal favorites are the pieces written during conflict situations between characters or close friends. I've always enjoyed reading the thought process behind a character and if it's something particularly difficult(perhaps there is actual sacrifice involved on the relationship level), to even get a glimpse of how the player themselves is dealing/reasoning with it and through it. There is no doubt that when you're writing about your character, you're connecting with your character, and when you're connecting with your character more likely than not deeper and better RP are going to come from that. Obviously no one person plays a character the same, and so often our characters are visual manifestations of our own personalities. I love the fact that creatively writing about these individuals can give us more of a glimpse into those personalities and how interesting, unique, and quirky they can be. There are times, however, when creative writing can cross the line, such as when it comes to involving other characters actions, particular events in which a DM would be required, or using it as a means to try to get something(examples of this would be, power, wealth, material gain such as rings, weapons, etc). It's during these times and usually only these times when creative writing can cross the line. In the past people have tried to god mod or gain an advantage over another through some means via the creative writing medium, but most of the time creative writing has been used for the power of good and broadening our RP enjoyment. If someone does creative writing, and explains in character roleplay with that creative writing to another character, and they both are owned by the person doing the creative writing, and then both characters use the in character knowledge, in role-play on the server, as if both characters had the in character knowledge, and gained it themselves through roleplay, as if they did the role play, themselves with each character, separately, and acts as if both characters were present the entire time, again based on creative writing the person who owns both characters did, is that specific instance against the rules? Yes or no? If it is, what is the punishment for that? If it is not, why is that not against the rules, and why is that not considered metagaming? That is a -very- long sentence! I had a long answer but it was a bit too much so I shortened it to this... Does the information that's shared give an advantage over another character or plot? If there is no advantage gained and it's simply useless information, then I think it's ignored. Nobody cares. If an advantage is gained by sharing the information then I do think that's against the spirit of the rule and should be addressed. ---- My creative writings (and even posts that are open to other players' RP) often include one or a couple of the many different NPC's I control. From Razzemal to Rheyenthiel to Ravenwatch members, I have numerous choices. Other players have choices as well and use them at times. Information is very often shared between those NPC's and our characters. What's the difference? Is it the difference between how the two can learn information? Zodika's Great Grandmother came and told Zodika that her mother was coming to kill her and Zodika used that information to prepare. Is that okay because the advantage gained is over an entity that isn't another player? My point is that banning -all- information sharing between characters limits a player's creative RP and brings in more grey areas that I don't think need to be disturbed. If the rule is enforced as: 'No information that gives any advantage over another player can be shared between characters, including giving information to another player's character with the intent that it makes it to another of your characters is against the rules' is a fair statement that allows the freedom of players to continue their creative liberties while clearly indicating the spirit of the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Dec 27, 2018 10:57:31 GMT -5
I think if it stays in the writing and not in game then it is fine. Remember that technically anything in Creative writing is OOC/Spoilers. So unless one of your character's heard the character in game mentioning it then you do not know. This is how I understand the Creative writing thread.
|
|
I understand DM's give great advice in the Q&A. Rules are in the rule section. I'm expressing this on behalf of future RPers in NWN EE. By the way future readers, don't feel obligated to comb through the Q&A and think everything said is a rule as uh, that wouldn't be a fair expectation. Not a bad thing to attempt but don't go feeling overwhelmed.
