Passive-aggressive emotes and RP

[NegInfinity]

*Turns away, their face pinched with annoyance*

All good.

(nitpicking) Let's say there are 10 people in vicinity. Which way is "away"?

*Ignores the annoying man*

Insulting to the player in an OOC fashion as it describes a thought.

Frankly, I do not find that insulting. A player is not their character, so whatever is said about character does not apply to player. No reason to be insulted.

* Shaytessa remains silent, her expression a mask of neutral indifference as she considers the possible reasons why so many elves, orcs, harpers, red wizards, paladins and zhentarim are standing around outside of FAI without killing each other, before concluding that one explanation might be the presence of Inn's fearsome guards who while most likely aren't paid more than a few gold coins each day, are the most dangerous warriors in the land and capable of quickly subduing those who have fought and defeated dragons. *

That'll take full minute or two to type. While it does sound interesting it is possible that targets of your emote will walk away before you even finish the phrase.

[Ghost]

before concluding that one explanation might be the presence of Inn's fearsome guards who while most likely aren't paid more than a few gold coins each day, are the most dangerous warriors in the land and capable of quickly subduing those who have fought and defeated dragons.

Sure, many characters may well be powerful enough to beat some guards. But in such a case, a DM must be present to control those guards. The rules about ignoring NPCs isn't about whether or not you'd be owned by the guards or not, it's whether or not if there is a DM around to let you.

Besides, rumours say that some of the guards are actually golems! And Bentley is a powerful little illusionist.

[MopKnight]

before concluding that one explanation might be the presence of Inn's fearsome guards who while most likely aren't paid more than a few gold coins each day, are the most dangerous warriors in the land and capable of quickly subduing those who have fought and defeated dragons.

Sure, many characters may well be powerful enough to beat some guards. But in such a case, a DM must be present to control those guards. The rules about ignoring NPCs isn't about whether or not you'd be owned by the guards or not, it's whether or not if there is a DM around to let you.

Besides, rumours say that some of the guards are actually golems! And Bentley is a powerful little illusionist.

I quite like the idea of "adventurers" being tolerated types by the locals, who occasionally get too big for their magic boots and find themselves dumped in a river with a big brick tied around their feat in a sack, when they get too annoying.

[Duster47]

I do not know if this was posted in jest or not. But to the OP's point, if my PC were to emote this, it would end as indicated via the Strike.

* Shaytessa remains silent, her expression a mask of neutral indifference as she considers the possible reasons why so many elves, orcs, harpers, red wizards, paladins and zhentarim are standing around outside of FAI without killing each other, before concluding that one explanation might be the presence of Inn's fearsome guards who while most likely aren't paid more than a few gold coins each day, are the most dangerous warriors in the land and capable of quickly subduing those who have fought and defeated dragons. *

Why? Because everything that is lined-out are the PC's thoughts which should only be available to mind-readers. AFAIK, mind reading is not a valid Feat or Skill on BGTSCC. Play your sheet.

FWIW, if I see such over sharing, I tend to let it pass/ignore it. Occasionally, I may send a tell suggesting "emote only what you can see" concept. Same idea holds for PC Examine feature. No life stories, only physical descriptions. Save the rest for actual IC conversations via collaborative RP.

[arakes99]

*Turns away, their face pinched with annoyance*

*Ignores the annoying man*

Insulting to the player in an OOC fashion as it describes a thought.

Frankly, I do not find that insulting. A player is not their character, so whatever is said about character does not apply to player. No reason to be insulted.

As Duster pointed out, its more that you are conveying a thought, hell an opinion via a mechanism that is not designed for it. What if there are 10 people. Are they all annoying? Maybe to you they are. Whether you find it insulting or not its basically using an emote to convey an opinion rather than describe an action.

I would agree the player shouldn't be insulted if it was RP, but an OOC "Thought" emote is not RP.

[NegInfinity]

As Duster pointed out, its more that you are conveying a thought, hell an opinion via a mechanism that is not designed for it. What if there are 10 people. Are they all annoying?

Problem: "Interpret "Annoying man" emote of target"
Solution:

• Recall last 15 seconds of conversation.
• If no interaction is found between target and anybody else dismiss emote as irrelevant.
• If interaction is found, investigate for possible sources of annoyance.
• If no sources of possible annoyance are found, dismiss information as irrelevant.
• Dismiss information as irrelevant if the whole process takes longer than 5 seconds or no potential interpretation of "annoying man" can be found.

I would agree the player shouldn't be insulted if it was RP, but an OOC "Thought" emote is not RP.

If we wanna be pedantic, this is not OOC, but IC, because it is character's thought. But anyway.

I would like to divert that way of thinking into slightly different direction - turn away from the rules and proper ways of roleplaying and look at bigger picture.

The goal - of the server - is to have fun. Because when people do not have fun, they leave and you lose driving force behind characters you can interact with. There are rules in place to prevent people from having fun at expense of others of course, but....

Fun stops when people start talking about "proper RP". Or "My RP is more RP than yours". "Or my proper RP is more proper than your proper RP, therefore it is more RP than your RP, and your RP is not a RP!"

Following rules in extremely specific manner, or having extremely specific or ultra-uber high standards of roleplaying (that are not in server/forum rules) does not directly contribute to other side having fun. In fact, in my experience it tends to do the opposite. When player A has extremely high standards of anything, or believes that some way of playing character is "right" and (asmodues help us) takes PRIDE in own behavior and meet player B that plays character in slightly more relaxed manner, then there is a good chance that player A will attempt to ruin player B's evening by excessive lecturing. Should A succeed, B will leave.

Such behavior ("everyone should follow my standards!") creates toxic and unwelcoming atmosphere and should be avoided by all cost, because game is old and players are valuable.

Which is why I suggest to try to change YOUR point of view first. Relax a bit.
You are not a robot and do not require require precise non-ambiguous explanation of everything. You're (most likely) human, meaning your brain is flexible and behavior can adapt.

So. While you're playing you're mostly spectator (eye in the sky watching story the unfold (optional: while cackling manically from time to time)), and there's portion of your mind dedicated to what your character knows/feels. So, when you receive unwanted information filter it out to specific channels. If someone starts thought broadcasting, let it slide, filter it out and direct it to "spectator" part of you, ignoring "character" part of you. It will take split second worth of effort and everyone will be happy.

Trying to make people "properly" roleplay in the way you find agreeable is not going to work. If you voice OOC complaint in game, it will disrupt roleplaying for LONG time while everybody engages in heated OOC discussion. And if you by sheer miracle succeed in turning it into server rule, that, again will simply result in more OOC bickering when someone is caught "thought broadcasting". Which will not make the game more interesting.

So, just let it slide and continue story. If they take it too far THEN report it to DM, and let them handle that from there.

Keep in mind that other party is (probably) a human too, so they can make a mistake here and there, maybe they just had loong day at work and then had to spend 2 hours guarding door in guild event, who knows.

Be flexible, adapt to circumstances, and experience will be much more enjoyable. Going "they shouldn't do this or that" is not going to make the game more entertaining, as long as it isn't directly covered by server rules.

As I already mentioned this is a very small thing for me. Because I direct extra pieces information to the "spectator". I would reccomend to do the same. It will take less effort than enforcing your favorite behavior as server rule and it will make your game more enjoyable.

[grymhild]

I do not know if this was posted in jest or not. But to the OP's point, if my PC were to emote this, it would end as indicated via the Strike.

* Shaytessa remains silent, her expression a mask of neutral indifference as she considers the possible reasons why so many elves, orcs, harpers, red wizards, paladins and zhentarim are standing around outside of FAI without killing each other, before concluding that one explanation might be the presence of Inn's fearsome guards who while most likely aren't paid more than a few gold coins each day, are the most dangerous warriors in the land and capable of quickly subduing those who have fought and defeated dragons. *

Why? Because everything that is lined-out are the PC's thoughts which should only be available to mind-readers. AFAIK, mind reading is not a valid Feat or Skill on BGTSCC. Play your sheet.

FWIW, if I see such over sharing, I tend to let it pass/ignore it. Occasionally, I may send a tell suggesting "emote only what you can see" concept. Same idea holds for PC Examine feature. No life stories, only physical descriptions. Save the rest for actual IC conversations via collaborative RP.

Yeah, that emote was supposed be an example of a bad emote with ic thoughts, metagamey info ( my pc may or may not know ic about the affiliations of the of the pcs shes referring to—and even if she did, its SO wrong to tell other people without actually telling them ic) and, lastly a not so subtle allusion to my personal ooc feelings about npc guards.

So, BAD SHAY!!!

BAD!!!

BAD!!!

[arakes99]

Its not about nitpicking other people's RP Neg, and my example is pretty subtle and I doubt anyone would call anyone on it. But the emotes that likely started this thread, and that so many of have seen are pretty detailed and contain information that's ridiculous to be spread as part of a system designed to show a characters action.


Its not about the quality of RP, its the simple fact that a thought like "Bobby thinks jenny is a moron" has no business in an emote. The whole lets let it slide thing, sure, we all do that. But letting it slide can take effort, especially if these emotes are insulting, which they usually are.

Most of the examples talked about are insults, which people are only emoting insult another players RP or to throw around insults that cannot be reacted to. If that's a major source of fun for people then they have a skewed idea about what is fun for the rest of us.

If we should put effort into ignoring things, then conversely the other party should put some effort into coming up with more creative ways to share an idea then broadcasting thoughts like they are an illithid.

[NegInfinity]

Its not about the quality of RP, its the simple fact that a thought like "Bobby thinks jenny is a moron" has

Look, OP gave two examples, and this was not one of them.

*She ignores the annoying, mouthy man* - passable, indicates action (ignores) and has some extra narrative (annoying).
*He thinks XXXX is noisy, so ignores them* - barely passable, unless char is in a hurry. Still has character's action (ignores), the problem is that said action takes backseat, and primary one is "thinks", which is imperceivable.

Now, regarding: "Bobby thinks jenny is a *****", did you encounter that or just made up an example?

[arakes99]

Not too many Bobby's or Jenny's on BGTSCC that I know of, so no I haven't seen that specifically. I think I have seen "Walks briskly by the group of idiots" though, and I ask, to whom does that bring a more enjoyable RP environment?

[NegInfinity]

Not too many Bobby's or Jenny's on BGTSCC that I know of, so no I haven't seen that specifically. I think I have seen "Walks briskly by the group of idiots" though, and I ask, to whom does that bring a more enjoyable RP environment?

Said character is baiting for roleplay, indicates that he exists, noticed a group and probably threw annoyed glance at them. (typing anything specific while walking manually is kinda hard).

I think the proper way to respond to that would be "hey, why did you look at me like that?" and take it from there. (Good luck proving that you didn't look to chaotic evil)

Also it could be a reminder that chatting in the middle of the road may not be the best idea.

Instead of suggesting to "take action" against people that broadcast thoughts i might be a better idea to make a rule which says that information broadcast via thoughts may be interpreted by onlookers as something that is instantly obvious. Meaning if you emote "ignores annoying man", it means that emotion of being annoyed is instantly visible on character's face.

Might be a bit too tricky to handle but may be worth considering.

[arakes99]

My opinion on all such things is why do adults need rules for common courtesy? Because that is the only thing the OP was asking for.

[Duster47]

... if you emote "ignores annoying man", it means that emotion of being annoyed is instantly visible on character's face.

If this was my PC, I would instead emote something on the order of "annoyed glance". It should be obvious my PC is annoyed about something. Though what is open to interpretation. It is a hook though for the other PC(s) to grasp at, "Hey, what's the problem? You seem to be troubled by something." Or simply let it pass.

[Wolfshear]

Honestly if someone wants to insult another person's character or their IC actions or whatever else, they should just suck it up and actually say it icly. Otherwise it's purely just a little ooc dig that serves absolutely no purpose other than that person avoiding any sort of IC consequence.

To me that is incredibly dull, If I want to insult people I do it icly. I enjoy the reactionary rp that comes from it, good and bad. Its not at all conductive to rp in any fashion to hide from ic consequence, whether its a drawn blade or a witty counter remark. And those that dont give a *2 either way are probably just trolling, and most assuredly not contributing anything meaningful.

[Shad]

Sometimes, it easier to describe PC's feeling that brought up some pose or gesture, then really describe the pose itself for it to be read right.

*she was overwhelmed by anger, gravely insulted by that meanie* is short and anyone can easily imagine how it would look.
It may be much better described other way, yes, and some skillfully described emotions are really admirable and pleasure to read, but meanie may just go somewhere.