|
|
|
Apprentice
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:06 AM
Posts: 20,
Visits: 231
|
|
Good point Shelford.
I guess i do use OC judgement to influence the game in ways i feel would beneficial to story or drama.
The car scenario though, i'd still say if ssomeone isn't man enugh to get over there character being killed for good roleplay reasons and story, then they're in the wrong hobby.
======================
PD - Pip Campbell, Clan Campbell
OC - Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
Shelford (9/22/2006)
It all depends on how you roleplay and how you define it. Some see roleplaying as playing the role of your character, letting that character get inside your head and then taking the actions they would take. Others see roleplay as playing a role in a story and being there to enhance that story, sometimes that may mean tailoring your IC actions to attain a moment of drama. The big clash occurs when players with different styles play in a large event and don’t understand each others styles.
Yes - that's why I think it's important that events clearly label what they are offering. Obviously, the organisers can't control how every character plays, but at least this way people can't complain if they attend a player-driven event and find that other players aren't respecting their narrative/attend a story-driven event and find that other players/refs are expecting them to restrict their autonomy.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:50 AM
Posts: 101,
Visits: 107
|
|
| I think personally its down to every case, again this is a black and white scenario, sometimes you should, sometimes you shouldnt, not everything is black and not everything is white basically. A prime example is when people who are well known when i LARP for being able to tell the difference between OOC and IC, so if your in time in, and someone insults you OOC, your reaction if its so will be taken IC i assume. Another prime example which happens to me, is i get someone going "Oh you better watch out later for whats going to happen, oh yes, oh yes" when the reality is nothing happens or its nothing bad at all, but OOC i am apprehensive naturally, thus go into the situation with some OOC knowledge or warning, which can either be positive to the situation or negative, usually negative. The point is usually though, its like acting, you have to be carefull how far you get involved, if you totally become your character i have seen people lose it slightly due to the character becomming them, not them being the character. I think rationality can be used OOC sometimes, because usually our characters are a alter ego of ourselves, so sometimes how we think OOC is how we think IC, you just need to give it a fantasy twist.
Seaxe&Sorcery: HMS (IC) King Heimer. Warbands: *Insert random dead character here* Unforgotten Realms: Asvaldr
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
MaximasVonBracey (9/22/2006)
Another prime example which happens to me, is i get someone going "Oh you better watch out later for whats going to happen, oh yes, oh yes" when the reality is nothing happens or its nothing bad at all, but OOC i am apprehensive naturally, thus go into the situation with some OOC knowledge or warning, which can either be positive to the situation or negative, usually negative.
I think this is at least one reason why splurging IC information OOC is frowned upon. Telling me your character is considering having mine killed is going to make it much harder for me to play my role if my character thinks yours is friendly and no threat.
But I don't think that's a case where you OOC considerations _should_ influence IC actions, merely where they may, if people are careless.
MaximasVonBracey (9/22/2006)
The point is usually though, its like acting, you have to be carefull how far you get involved, if you totally become your character i have seen people lose it slightly due to the character becomming them, not them being the character.
So long as you are careful of OOC safety/physrepping and respect time-in/time-out, I'm inclined to feel that it's up to the individual to decide how much time/energy spent on a hobby is reasonable. So long as they go OOC at time out and being deep in their role doesn't lead to anyone getting hurt/anyone's stuff getting broken, it's hard to see that it's anyone else's business.
MaximasVonBracey (9/22/2006)
I think rationality can be used OOC sometimes, because usually our characters are a alter ego of ourselves, so sometimes how we think OOC is how we think IC, you just need to give it a fantasy twist.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you mean that people should be largely encouraged to play themselves with a fantasy name, because it'll make the game safer, then I completely disagree. By and large, people seem better off playing characters as distinct from themselves as they can manage (less upset if the character dies/less chance of feeling insulted when the character's insulted/a lower tendency to see the character as an extension of their own ego).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:23 PM
Posts: 532,
Visits: 1,784
|
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:33 PM
Posts: 301,
Visits: 928
|
|
I'm not clear on what your last post means exactly.
If you mean should a crew have ooc consideration for a player because of their position, then it depends on the game. In the LT crew are not allowed kill players full stop. I presume in Maelstrom they can because there are no IC's just monsters.
A player should have the right to kill a crews character because ooc reasons tend to ruin ic play.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 7:39 PM
Posts: 587,
Visits: 3,959
|
|
Depends on the social contract of the LARP in question. I'd say that Maelstrom and DUTT have the social contract 'do everything IC, take everything IC' and only really extreme OOC influences (like actual health issues) should influence IC behaviour. CUTT has almost that level of social contract, with a side order of 'try not to play too many murderous assholes, you'll get typecast' and 'you may have to be ready to explain yourself if you suddenly flip out and start killing PCs'. Other games have different social contracts, like 'do everything for the good of the story and narrative' or 'make sure you don't offend anyone deeply OOC first'.
Crew are often working under a more restrictive social contract than players - for instance, CUTT monsters generally operate under the rule 'don't hack up people on the ground until everyone's down and even then don't do it too efficiently - wait for guidance'. This is a feature of individual games. I'm reasonably sure Maelstrom's NPC social contract is 'the NPCs will be just as purely-IC and likely to screw you over hard as the other PCs'.
Maelstrom: Jessily the Wemic, previously Tourmaline of Weaver
CUTT: Kerriville the Ninth, previously Ref 07/08
EOS: Study the Venin
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:18 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,520
|
|
ChessyPig (9/23/2006)
Depends on the social contract of the LARP in question.
It would be good if more games stated their social contract explicitly - less offence/confusion/upset all round.
I've attended a game where you weren't allowed to strike someone with a larp weapon without their OOC permission. Quite unusual for the other larps I've seen, but the game catered to quite a few older players and people with health issues. Wasn't something I had a problem with (I don't think I touched a larp weapon for the entire event), largely because it was explicitly stated before I signed on. If I'd turned up and found out the rule halfway through the game/just after attacking someone I'd have been really pissed off.
Point being, you can have any kind of weird social contract so long as it's stated explicitly. If it's not stated, then you can't really expect people to feel beholden to something which may only exist in your head.
ChessyPig (9/23/2006)
Crew are often working under a more restrictive social contract than players - for instance, CUTT monsters generally operate under the rule 'don't hack up people on the ground until everyone's down and even then don't do it too efficiently - wait for guidance'. This is a feature of individual games.
Running DUTT adventures, I generally preferred to avoid giving OOC instructions if you can simply fold them into the IC brief (if you're distressed by the thought of the characters being butchered where they fall, give the monster factions some reason to keep them alive - slavers nearby who hand out quite a bit of money - blood sacrifice altar down the road, bennies for successfully completely _living_ sacrifices).
Interactive NPCs tend to require a certain amount of neutering to counter the advantage of having access to a superior source of information (it's hard to brief the characters as well as you brief the NPCs without interfering with their autonomy - simply having more contact with the refs/people who designed the system makes you more confident about how certain things should be applied) as well as the freedom from personal failure that comes from being an NPC (you have less to lose and if you do push your agenda and fail/get killed for it, well, partly it's a job well done and partly it's the refs fault - so _you_ haven't failed, you've played the role of someone destined to fail and hopefully played it well).
Still, I think that's matter of design rather than something to carry in your head while playing the role. Create NPCs with low initiative and a tendency to defer. If they get pushed out of that state by events, fair enough, so long as it's "elastic deformation".
To be clear - the amount of neutering needed depends directly on the weight of the advantage gained above (how contaminated someone is by excess knowledge/how freed they are from personal failure). The head ref get extremely limited roles - the less contact with the refs you have, the less limited the role needs to be.
Marios
|
|
|
| | |