What if the player enforcers, or the GMs had there own agenda?

 

To find out what a person's agenda is, all you have to do is look at their end-goal result which would occur if they got what they were pushing for. The result (if they got their way) of policed RP is to control the behavior of other people. That is their agenda: to control what other people do. This is a dangerous slippery slope of power and domination. It starts with "I want to tell you how to name your character" and moves forward to "I'm going to tell you how you can customize your character", "I'm going to tell you how to dress your character", all the way down to "I'm going to tell you what your character can do".

 

Not a single person in this discussion who supports RP policing has proven satisfactorily that there is a valid excuse to police other people's RP. They simply lack the willingness to take personal responsibility for their own choices to voluntarily take offense at things inside their own heads based on nothing more than imagination and arbitrary assumptions.

 

These people who laughably call themselves RPers break the greatest important rule about RP. They lack the ability to separate their fantasy from reality. By trying to impose real life standards outside of what is reasonably there to protect actual provable hurt to other players, these people become nothing more than petty, insecure meta-gamers. They want to RP that they are God-like beings in their fantasy, so they are pushing to have God-like control over other players in the reality.

Wow. I've been playing PnP RPGs since 1980, starting with 1st edition AD&D. I've NEVER been part of a group where the DM had to tell anyone that their "RP was unacceptable". I've never even heard of such a thing.

 

/shrugs

 

While I agree with you that I've never seen anyone told that their "RP was unacceptable" there have been times when GMs have needed to step in and restrict character actions (not terribly useful) or stream-line the story (more effective).

 

What I mean is, if everyone in the group is openly good and one fellow wants to be openly evil , as Mr. Walsh said, then it will not really function as a group for long so a GM might ask the evil fellow to make a new goodly character. Likewise, if you had an adventure and the whole group went into the spooky castle.... except the elf who said, "I'd rather go to Massachusetts -- bye" then a GM might need to ask the elf to roll-up someone to accompany the group so they could sort out his trip to Boston at a later date.

 

However, what I'm discussing is not really "unacceptable RP" but it has to do with group dynamics and maintaining group cohesion. While it is not unusual to have groups splinter during an adventure temporarily, it becomes impractical to run two separate adventures for what are in effect two separate groups when the characters do not get along.

 

This is not something we need to worry about in an MMORPG. There is no single GM and groups can split and people can refuse to talk to each other as much as they like. There is no reason to maintain the group as there is in pen-and-paper because rather than 4 or 5 players sitting around a table following one story, we have thousands of players following multiple stories.

 

As I see it, there is no need for GM involvement in the RP of SWTOR.

 

There are tons of places where someone being told their behavior (and RP) was unacceptable is totally understandable.

 

I was in, for example, an M&M (Mutants and Masterminds) game that was set in the Marvel Universe circa mid 1980's. We had 4 players and 1 GM.

 

I was confused by this -- I assume you must mean you were playing in a 1980s Marvel Universe, rather than you were playing that game in the 1980s.

 

It all brings me back to the days of playing the Marvel Superheroes RPG in the mid 1980s though.

 

Not a single person in this discussion who supports RP policing has proven satisfactorily that there is a valid excuse to police other people's RP. They simply lack the willingness to take personal responsibility for their own choices to voluntarily take offense at things inside their own heads based on nothing more than imagination and arbitrary assumptions.

 

I agree with you. It's true that we never received any answers to the questions at the foundation of this discussion. If people cannot explain the Why then it is pointless to discuss the How. What I would still like to know is...

 

Now, to bring some level of normalcy back to the thread (though it might be better to make a new one at this point), I would like to present some preliminary questions for those supporting additional naming rules. If these cannot be answered beyond vague generalizations, "simple" ideas that can't be articulated, or with attacks on the intelligence or experience of other players then I think the discussion is closed.

 

What is the mechanic for judging what is or is not a "hardcore RP" name for Star Wars?

Keep in mind:

• The names in Star Wars range from common (Ben) to absurd (Sleazebaggano).
  
• You need to clearly what makes a name Star Warsy beyond saying "something that fits in Star Wars" -- in other words, explain why some fit in Star Wars but others don't.
  

 

Show how reducing the rights of all players on RP servers to suit the tastes of a few players benefits the community more than it harms it.

Keep in mind:

• We are not talking about imaginary lore-servers that don't exist, but enforcement on the present servers.
  
• Not all players agree with additional restrictions on their playstyle, so you must justify why they should be penalized just to be palatable to the sensibilities of a subset of RPers.
  
• Remember -- there are people with existing names that are not in violation but would be with additional rules -- would they be grandfathered in or would they need to change the name they have played with in good faith?
  
• You must show that the good produced by additional naming rules is greater and affects more people than it harms.
  

 

 

Anyone can answer these questions, but if you would like to, Walsh, I ask that you quote their body unchanged when you do so... sometimes, if you'll forgive me, you forget the position you are arguing against.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

If there was sufficient monetary incentive to make "elite" servers, I daresay that we'd have such things already.

Ya know I gotta say it is a bit silly when people start bring what is "canon" into this seeing as how Lucas himself has shown that he doesn't really care about what is canon and what is not. I mean seriously the entire way he did the NT shot so many holes in the Star Wars canon and made so many things just seem silly and impossible. Come on people the whole point of RPing is to have fun so maybe you should oh I don't know try just having fun rather than nitpicking every little thing.

I've been RPing for nearly 25 years, from D&D tho MMOs, and I've seen this sort of thing come and go.

 

Personally speaking here, 'enforcement' never works, and player driven enforcement works much less and can lead to all sorts of issues.

 

I totally understand the frustration with RP grifers, folks with completely silly names, and people who seek to mock RPers. It breaks the flow, and it can get very annoying at times, but I'd take all of that and just report greifing, while filling my ignore list, than have a set of strictly enforced 'rules'.

 

Think if it this way, I have a Chiss, his name is Nuadain. It's not a traditional Chiss name because he was not born on Csilla. What if we had player enforced rules that said I had to stick to cannon, or that all my character names had to be 100% cannon. I'd be denied, or forced to change his name.

 

What if the player enforcers, or the GMs had there own agenda? Letting some folks have some names ,and punishing all the rest? What about player enforcers with deep personal intolerance, and prejudices? Like if my Chiss was in a same gender relationship and someone once again, said 'non cannon' or 'I dont like that' and gave me the boot out the server door.

 

I'd never touch the RP servers again if that happened....and I'm sure many others wouldn't as well.

 

You know that old saying "The road to hell, is paved with good intentions."

 

Unless those rules are flexible, imagination friendly, and free of personal bias, then it just won't work at all.

 

...but that's just my 2 copper.

 

Couldn't agree more. I have played in worlds with real people running RP, enforcing RP (and PvP and server) rules, and other traditional GMly duties. It's a disaster. It degenerates rapidly into favoritism and elitism.

Edited April 4, 2012 by CosmicKat

Wow. I've been playing PnP RPGs since 1980, starting with 1st edition AD&D.

 

And I was part of Gary Gygax' original group, and you can find my name in the 'Greyhawk' pamphlet, and in the 1st Ed PHB. (my sig includes my last name, look it up)

 

I've never told anybody "your roleplaying is unacceptable," but I have told people they were being jerks and making the game less fun for other people and that they would either have to change their behavior or leave.

And I was part of Gary Gygax' original group, and you can find my name in the 'Greyhawk' pamphlet, and in the 1st Ed PHB. (my sig includes my last name, look it up)

 

I've never told anybody "your roleplaying is unacceptable," but I have told people they were being jerks and making the game less fun for other people and that they would either have to change their behavior or leave.

 

If I can't blame you for my character's death on Isle of the Ape then I don't want to hear it!

 

And your sig is off!

I get malaria flashbacks from this thread.

I agree that people using non-RP names on these servers is really off putting. I really find it distasteful. But as much as I don't like the names of even the concepts (one in particular comes to mind). But to each his own and as long as they don't ruin my experience by being ***** then I say live and let live. Because ultimately, what is the alternative? If bioware starts policing the names, what will they classify as a non-rp name?

Most of the names that I have seen that seem to be a little in left field are normally covered by the TOS in some way..

Game mechanics handed us a great tool to deal with immersion problems in RP. We have the ability to turn name plates off. I have that power. No one is preventing me from using that power. People are even trying to support a mechanic that turns off name plates by individual basis for people/legacies I put on my ignore list.

 

So I have to ask this: Why are these people blaming others for something that is completely in their power to control? Oh... I get it, because they won't take active responsibility for their own happiness. It's so much easier to blame other people for something than to take care of it yourself. These people don't really want to stop seeing names that offend them, because if they did, they'd turn that feature off. No, what they really want is to boss other people around. Here they are with a perfectly good control to avoid this issue, but they decline to use it.

 

The argument about character names as a reason to support strict RP policies is completely invalid. There's a fix for it, yet complainers refuse to use the tools given to them. They have no one but themselves to blame. It is also hypocrisy to use blatant meta-game techniques of game mechanic statistics for the use of your Role Play.

 

Control your own game environment, not other people.