The Fine Line - The Limit of Roleplaying

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Curt1zzle

Usually.

But in the case of a common question or inquiry such as "What are you doing?" , "Who are you talking about?", "Who is that?", or "When did that happen?"...it's not so blatant

Agreed. But:

1) People could reserve the parentheses for those few instances where their text would otherwise be ambiguous.
2) What difference would it make in those examples? It seems to me that the answers would be the same regardless of whether or not the speaker is roleplaying.

[Zurkiba]

No, 2k1 had Roleplaying enforcement and it wasn't as strict as Val. However, it is nessicary to enforce roleplaying because the kingdom leaders wont do it because they're just plain horrible.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Is it really that hard to use OOC brackets whenever you speak and you are not in character?

I mean if you speak out of OOC brackets, then you are obviously in character, so you SHOULD be RPing.

It's a matter of laziness.

And that is where 2k2 fails in the roleplaying department. Roleplaying mis -much- more then just using OOC Brackets to talk. It fails because every one thinks that.

[Curt1zzle]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Agreed. But:

1) People could reserve the parentheses for those few instances where their text would otherwise be ambiguous.
2) What difference would it make in those examples? It seems to me that the answers would be the same regardless of whether or not the speaker is roleplaying.

In response to point #2:

If the person said "Who is that?" , the answer could be "My Sister" in out of character, but in character...the answer would be "Queen Kaimetsu".

Get my drift?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Curt1zzle

If the person said "Who is that?" , the answer could be "My Sister" in out of character, but in character...the answer would be "Queen Kaimetsu"

And you would have difficulty distinguishing between them? That's kind of tragic, but I don't think rules should be drafted just to compensate for your ineptitude.

[Curt1zzle]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And you would have difficulty distinguishing between them? That's kind of tragic, but I don't think rules should be drafted just to compensate for your ineptitude.

Continue the argument without attempting personal blows.

Obviosly that's just one scenario, but you make it sound like it's screamingly blatant - when it isn't.

I mean, it could be the character's sister...sure , Queen would be obvious, but if the person said "My Sister"...is it the in game sister, or out of game sister?

Think inside the box, for once.

[zell12]

If people want to roleplay, they can go roleplay with eachother and other kingdoms. There shouldn't be a rule to force players to use these brackets when they don't want to use old english and long messages. :/

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by zell12

If people want to roleplay, they can go roleplay with eachother and other kingdoms. There shouldn't be a rule to force players to use these brackets when they don't want to use old english and long messages. :/

And this is what killed role playing to begin with. Players who think such statements.

[Zurkiba]

Originally Posted by zell12

If people want to roleplay, they can go roleplay with eachother and other kingdoms. There shouldn't be a rule to force players to use these brackets when they don't want to use old english and long messages. :/

*slap* I thought I taught you better!

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Curt1zzle

Continue the argument without attempting personal blows

You first, dawg.

I mean, it could be the character's sister...sure , Queen would be obvious, but if the person said "My Sister"...is it the in game sister, or out of game sister?

Context, man. In 90% of cases, they'd be talking about a real-world familial relationship. Sure, it's not always possible to be sure, but that's why I said: "Isn't it usually obvious from context and content?" How often do people ask questions like "Who is that?" How often would the response be ambiguous? And do these rare instances justify mandating use of those infernal brackets at all times?

Think. For once.

Originally Posted by Gerami

Is your use of checkmate a lamer version of owned or something?

No, not really. Couldn't you taste the sarcasm?

Originally Posted by Gambet

It's helpful and is a quick way of learning for those new to role playing

Here's a quicker way:

"When you're speaking as your character, it's IC speech. When you're speaking as yourself, it's OOC speech".

[Curt1zzle]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You first, dawg.

Don't go there, it's ugly.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

How often would the response be ambiguous?

Enough to use brackets for OOC.



...Dog chasing his tail?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Curt1zzle

Enough to use brackets for OOC

Again and again and again: Why would it be necessary to use them in instances where there is no ambiguity?

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Here's a quicker way:

"When you're speaking as your character, it's IC speech. When you're speaking as yourself, it's OOC speech".

The problem is that players can not always differentiate OOC talk from IC talk. Also, they sometimes speak IC while using OOC terms.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Gambet

The problem is that players can not always differentiate OOC talk from IC talk

But they sometimes can, yes? Because it's sometimes blatantly obvious, yes? So why would you mandate use of the brackets in those instances?

And have you abandoned the 'learning aid' argument now?