Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

I have seen people claim "If others start hugging drow, I am leaving the server" and such other strange things that seem to motivate IC actions with OOC motivations. We are all biased as human beings, but sometimes it's too blatant. Others just talk but that's as far as they go.

It's very strange that after all the server history, people still act as if they never seen a drow on the surface. That didn't break immersion back then and certainly won't today, the lore is what it is and again, Drizzt stories are proof that people revision the lore to their personal likings, in order to justify certain behaviors, that would probably get yelled at in reality. Ed Greenwood stories are canonical, even Drizzt was allowed inside Silverymoon.

Holding others as metagamers for mistakes (Yeah we all make mistakes) also ruins immersion and especially when it gets spread to other players with only a piece of the facts, but that hasn't stopped anyone, and immersion is ruined again.

This is a game, not a book, it will never have the same level as immersion, but also depends where your expectations are, in the end, immersion is a personal thing, not something that others have to provide to you.

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:28 am - Be mindful that the PLAYER and the CHARACTER are not one and the same. This applies to your own role-play as well.
It is perfectly natural to incorporate some of your identity into your characters, but that does not mean that they should become purely a vessel of expression for you, as a person.

The inverse is also true. Characters shouldn't be assumed to be 'expressing the player's values', either. Characters can have reasons for believing these things that stem from who that character is, rather than assumed to have no separation and be just a vessel for the player to push their own OOC views. What a character believes about X might be a reflection of what that character has experienced over their life, their own personal beliefs and past interactions. People should be given the benefit of the doubt, IMO, and assumed to have good IC reasons, rather than OOC ones, for why their character acts the way they do.


Now, that being said, I'm definitely really against modern day vernacular being inserted into RP, because that is something that's much less a factor of IC beliefs and instead reflects a lack of OOC research or understanding of the setting/history by the player. This is usually born out of ignorance rather than malice, but is sometimes intentional. The lack of magical thinking by many PCs breaks my immersion, along with using scientific terms/principles that weren't known until the 20th century IRL. Same thing goes for just copy pasting from sourcebooks (especially ones about esoteric topics) even though most of that knowledge is meant for the benefit of the player (or rather, the DM, not the player. Players aren't supposed to read those books in most cases) and not intended to be known by PCs. Even PCs that would be 'in-the-know' shouldn't know everything, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point of playing, when there's nothing left to discover?

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:01 am

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:28 am - Be mindful that the PLAYER and the CHARACTER are not one and the same. This applies to your own role-play as well.
It is perfectly natural to incorporate some of your identity into your characters, but that does not mean that they should become purely a vessel of expression for you, as a person.

The inverse is also true. Characters shouldn't be assumed to be 'expressing the player's values', either. Characters can have reasons for believing these things that stem from who that character is, rather than assumed to have no separation and be just a vessel for the player to push their own OOC views. What a character believes about X might be a reflection of what that character has experienced over their life, their own personal beliefs and past interactions. People should be given the benefit of the doubt, IMO, and assumed to have good IC reasons, rather than OOC ones, for why their character acts the way they do.


Now, that being said, I'm definitely really against modern day vernacular being inserted into RP, because that is something that's much less a factor of IC beliefs and instead reflects a lack of OOC research or understanding of the setting/history by the player. This is usually born out of ignorance rather than malice, but is sometimes intentional. The lack of magical thinking by many PCs breaks my immersion, along with using scientific terms/principles that weren't known until the 20th century IRL. Same thing goes for just copy pasting from sourcebooks (especially ones about esoteric topics) even though most of that knowledge is meant for the benefit of the player (or rather, the DM, not the player. Players aren't supposed to read those books in most cases) and not intended to be known by PCs. Even PCs that would be 'in-the-know' shouldn't know everything, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point of playing, when there's nothing left to discover?

As someone who tends to write IC books, I actually found it surprising how a number of seemingly modern math terminology and similar things can be dated back to the 15th/16th century. A period that I feel is representative of 14th century sword coast, considering we have weapons and armour that are more fitting of a few centuries more advanced setting (fullplate for instance, alongside rapiers unless said rapiers are counted as sideswords instead). I do mostly try to find more pre-newtonian terminology at times, but it can be difficult, or one can discover it already existed if not in a nuanced manner. One ought also consider the age of the setting (civilization for many thousands of years with decent records) which makes me feel at least mathematics, as pertaining to ways to describe magic and design new spells (so geometry and expressing change) would be well developed.

Astronomy wise, FR is surprisingly modern in its understanding (Toril orbits the sun, Wanderers are just like toril. Stars are a mystery tho)

As for non-magical thinking being frustrating, I do agree with that. Especially when it comes to medical matters.

For esoteric things, it depends on the type. Afterlife and such would be well known, as clerics can communicate clearly with their deities (although some deities prefer to answer in riddles/visions than direct words) and afterlife is a central concept for all religions, unless the god is chaotic evil or something like that, and tries to deceive. For the mechanics of magic, I feel that'd be more of an ICly contentious field, and would be interesting if more wizards tried to propose their own explanation for how the Weave works.

Hoihe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:12 am As someone who tends to write IC books, I actually found it surprising how a number of seemingly modern math terminology and similar things can be dated back to the 15th/16th century. A period that I feel is representative of 14th century sword coast, considering we have weapons and armour that are more fitting of a few centuries more advanced setting (fullplate for instance, alongside rapiers unless said rapiers are counted as sideswords instead). I do mostly try to find more pre-newtonian terminology at times, but it can be difficult, or one can discover it already existed if not in a nuanced manner. One ought also consider the age of the setting (civilization for many thousands of years with decent records) which makes me feel at least mathematics, as pertaining to ways to describe magic and design new spells (so geometry and expressing change) would be well developed.

A lot can, yeah. Complicated mathematics is typically fine. I'm mostly referring to stuff that can't be dated so far (I often double check the history of a particular term or principle before I complain about it, just to make sure I'm not complaining for no reason).

For esoteric things, it depends on the type. Afterlife and such would be well known, as clerics can communicate clearly with their deities (although some deities prefer to answer in riddles/visions than direct words) and afterlife is a central concept for all religions, unless the god is chaotic evil or something like that, and tries to deceive. For the mechanics of magic, I feel that'd be more of an ICly contentious field, and would be interesting if more wizards tried to propose their own explanation for how the Weave works.

Yeah, meaning picture perfect knowledge of the planes of existence and the creatures that inhabit them. A lot of times, it feels like people know more about the planes than they do about real nations and cities on Faerûn.

For the mechanics of magic, on the other hand, player mages tend to know less than they should, rather than more.

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:41 am

Hoihe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:12 am As someone who tends to write IC books, I actually found it surprising how a number of seemingly modern math terminology and similar things can be dated back to the 15th/16th century. A period that I feel is representative of 14th century sword coast, considering we have weapons and armour that are more fitting of a few centuries more advanced setting (fullplate for instance, alongside rapiers unless said rapiers are counted as sideswords instead). I do mostly try to find more pre-newtonian terminology at times, but it can be difficult, or one can discover it already existed if not in a nuanced manner. One ought also consider the age of the setting (civilization for many thousands of years with decent records) which makes me feel at least mathematics, as pertaining to ways to describe magic and design new spells (so geometry and expressing change) would be well developed.

A lot can, yeah. Complicated mathematics is typically fine. I'm mostly referring to stuff that can't be dated so far (I often double check the history of a particular term or principle before I complain about it, just to make sure I'm not complaining for no reason).

For esoteric things, it depends on the type. Afterlife and such would be well known, as clerics can communicate clearly with their deities (although some deities prefer to answer in riddles/visions than direct words) and afterlife is a central concept for all religions, unless the god is chaotic evil or something like that, and tries to deceive. For the mechanics of magic, I feel that'd be more of an ICly contentious field, and would be interesting if more wizards tried to propose their own explanation for how the Weave works.

Yeah, meaning picture perfect knowledge of the planes of existence and the creatures that inhabit them. A lot of times, it feels like people know more about the planes than they do about real nations and cities on Faerûn.

For the mechanics of magic, on the other hand, player mages tend to know less than they should, rather than more.

Places like the house of Triad, Arvandor/Arvanaith/House of Knowledge etc. might be decently well known to their worshippers. Seldarine specifically makes a point to their worshippers of how individual identity is important, and provides guarantees and such that it will remain even past reincarnation and such.

For planes like Limbo/abyss/Far Realms tho, yeah >.>. Just in general knowing more about Far realms than "That place will mutate you/kill you/drive you insane" tend to belong to people who are already insane and in need of a Miracle to be saved. Yet, some PCs talk casually about visiting limbo or even far realms, as if they were visiting the plane of air.

yyj wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:01 am I have seen people claim "If others start hugging drow, I am leaving the server" and such other strange things that seem to motivate IC actions with OOC motivations. We are all biased as human beings, but sometimes it's too blatant. Others just talk but that's as far as they go.

Agreed, 100%. The bias swings both ways, and if people want to bail over this sort of thing, then that is their prerogative. I personally found the whole escapade that you're referring to damned enjoyable, it actually gave my character something to do! To actually run around and investigate, while being the provocative jerk that he is, I love that sort of thing... BUT, alas. Conflict RP does tend to draw the ire of some folks, and so I made the OOC decision to take a huge step back, and just let the other camp do their thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (.. but still leave the occasional little IC jab or smarm here and there)

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:01 am

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:28 am - Be mindful that the PLAYER and the CHARACTER are not one and the same. This applies to your own role-play as well.
It is perfectly natural to incorporate some of your identity into your characters, but that does not mean that they should become purely a vessel of expression for you, as a person.

The inverse is also true. Characters shouldn't be assumed to be 'expressing the player's values', either. Characters can have reasons for believing these things that stem from who that character is, rather than assumed to have no separation and be just a vessel for the player to push their own OOC views. What a character believes about X might be a reflection of what that character has experienced over their life, their own personal beliefs and past interactions. People should be given the benefit of the doubt, IMO, and assumed to have good IC reasons, rather than OOC ones, for why their character acts the way they do.

Fair. I wasn't specifically referring to anyone when citing that, as I don't believe anyone is out their simply RP'ing "themselves". I think I was more referring to the player laziness I mentioned... and how players sometimes neglect trying to convey their characters persona. For example, and this is not me accusing anyone, or attempting to call anyone out, but this kind of thing happened to me last night on my UD character. All it took was one IC comment(which I will not repeat) that bore no relevance to the RP at all, and it nearly took me right out of it.

Now, that being said, I'm definitely really against modern day vernacular being inserted into RP, because that is something that's much less a factor of IC beliefs and instead reflects a lack of OOC research or understanding of the setting/history by the player. This is usually born out of ignorance rather than malice, but is sometimes intentional.

Agreed, these instances never strike me as malicious, but they're certainly careless(bordering on selfish).

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:59 am Conflict RP does tend to draw the ire of some folks, and so I made the OOC decision to take a huge step back, and just let the other camp do their thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's unfortunate. Conflict RP provides a lot of spice, provided it's all IC rather than OOC.

Fair. I wasn't specifically referring to anyone when citing that, as I don't believe anyone is out their simply RP'ing "themselves". I think I was more referring to the player laziness I mentioned... and how players sometimes neglect trying to convey their characters persona. For example, and this is not me accusing anyone, or attempting to call anyone out, but this kind of thing happened to me last night on my UD character. All it took was one IC comment(which I will not repeat) that bore no relevance to the RP at all, and it nearly took me right out of it.

Gotcha.

And sorry to hear about that.

I normally assume that someone has their own IC reasons to act in a certain way as my character has hers.

In regards to the modern terminology I admit I am probably partly responsible for that since I am not a native English speaker and I sometimes lack the insight to properly convey a discourse in a more old-fashioned way. As I play a scholar of Candlekeep with almost every lore skill ranked I give myself some more freedom about what I might or might not know, although I still like to inspire my character to renaissance scholars occupied with many intellectual activities. Now this not always succeeds because of the aforementioned reason and because I still have to add the fantasy element to the equation, the faerunian element specifically, to which I am quite new.
Now, of course if I see a farmer giving a lecture about planar lore it would probably break my immersion too, although I tend to cut some slack to people in regards to their knowledge of the lore and the style they use.

About metagame, that in my opinion is a bit more immersion breaking, but here too I understand that someone might make mistake and forget they heard said thing with said character or that what they heard was OOC. I personally find helpful to write down whatever important thing I hear, who said it and when as a quick note.

Almarea90 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:25 pm In regards to the modern terminology I admit I am probably partly responsible for that since I am not a native English speaker and I sometimes lack the insight to properly convey a discourse in a more old-fashioned way. As I play a scholar of Candlekeep with almost every lore skill ranked I give myself some more freedom about what I might or might not know, although I still like to inspire my character to renaissance scholars occupied with many intellectual activities. Now this not always succeeds because of the aforementioned reason and because I still have to add the fantasy element to the equation, the faerunian element specifically, to which I am quite new.

I'm fairly certain that you do a far better job than you give yourself credit for, I personally haven't noticed you goof up at all, and you RP your character well. Does my character agree with your characters views on certain things? Heck no! But you play a mage/scholar a hell of a lot more capably than I do.

Now, of course if I see a farmer giving a lecture about planar lore it would probably break my immersion too, although I tend to cut some slack to people in regards to their knowledge of the lore and the style they use.

^ - This is one of those things that usually inspires my characters(and me) to just flee. As much as I want to cut people more slack, my tolerance levels towards certain behavior is zero.

About metagame, that in my opinion is a bit more immersion breaking, but here too I understand that someone might make mistake and forget they heard said thing with said character or that what they heard was OOC.

Yep, accidental meta happens, and it's totally forgivable, provided all parties are willing to discuss things cordially, or retcon where applicable. I myself am absolutely 100% guilty of being the kind of player who automatically starts knee-jerking in self defense when encountering any kind of meta. As in, I will usually go instantly on the attack, but I'm trying to adapt. Years and years worth of being privy to(and the target of) countless meta shenanigans, from unintentional to malicious, has not done me or my temper any favors, that is for sure.

Unfortunately, we're playing in an era where we players have such easy access to meta that(as I've rambled on about repeatedly) it has become a part of the culture. We're all guilty of engaging in it to some degree, and I know for a fact that some of the platforms we use to communicate are highly susceptible to meta-dumping, hence another part of the reason why our collective sense of immersion is suffering, perhaps(not perhaps. It's a fact).

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:04 pm

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:59 am Conflict RP does tend to draw the ire of some folks, and so I made the OOC decision to take a huge step back, and just let the other camp do their thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's unfortunate. Conflict RP provides a lot of spice, provided it's all IC rather than OOC.

Conflict RP usually means someone will come out ahead, and everyone wants to be the winner here. Some even feel they are entitled to it because this is D&D and "I am the hero". Hence, conflict RP always ends in tears and regret here.

c2k wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:37 pm

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:04 pm

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:59 am Conflict RP does tend to draw the ire of some folks, and so I made the OOC decision to take a huge step back, and just let the other camp do their thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's unfortunate. Conflict RP provides a lot of spice, provided it's all IC rather than OOC.

Conflict RP usually means someone will come out ahead, and everyone wants to be the winner here. Some even feel they are entitled to it because this is D&D and "I am the hero". Hence, conflict RP always ends in tears and regret here.

https://youtu.be/ZLXEAMfnMBs

c2k wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:37 pm

Rhifox wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:04 pm

Snarfy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:59 am Conflict RP does tend to draw the ire of some folks, and so I made the OOC decision to take a huge step back, and just let the other camp do their thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's unfortunate. Conflict RP provides a lot of spice, provided it's all IC rather than OOC.

Conflict RP usually means someone will come out ahead, and everyone wants to be the winner here. Some even feel they are entitled to it because this is D&D and "I am the hero". Hence, conflict RP always ends in tears and regret here.

Problem is with conflict RP is that there's a particular group of players on BG who will go onto discord and defame players who refuse to permakill/permamaim their characters after losing to them in any way. I've been personally witness to a lovely individual going on a tirade about how bad of an RP someone was since they didn't roll their character after being beheaded.

You know, in a setting with (True) Resurrection.

Or they go on to mutilate characters, collect trophies, then make a forum thread whining about players being bad RPers since they healed those scars/disfigurements.

c2k wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:37 pmConflict RP usually means someone will come out ahead, and everyone wants to be the winner here. Some even feel they are entitled to it because this is D&D and "I am the hero". Hence, conflict RP always ends in tears and regret here.

Conflict RP probably should end in tears and regret (or an oath of vengeance) for the losing party. Conflict is like 80% of what drives a narrative. The problem with conflict RP here is threefold and two of the issues have already been mentioned:

• Players not respecting that the character is not the player, thus creating OOC grudges and other nonsense

• Everyone wanting to win all the time because they are the hero

The third issue is a weird one and it's partially a result of the first two, partially a lack of...something (whether mechanical or RP-wise) and partially a result of the age of the PW:

• No good way for players who end up on the losing side to respond in many cases

Whether this be because there are hyper-established legions of epic level good (and neutral) players who will instantly smack down a small group of evil players, because character vs. character conflict and scheming may require DM input (which many DMs are averse to because of existing fears and issues), or because established PvP rules mean everyone has to kind of just go home at the end of the conflict and pretend all is well again in the world (amnesia!).

It really is a shame because inter-character conflict gives players greater agency and makes things feel more alive in a world with many mechanical limitations. I played here waaaaaay back in 2012 as a highwayman and some of the best PW RP interaction I've ever had was robbing people on the way to the FAI and trying to set up an actual bandit gang (sadly, RL events took me away).

In a setting where you have good and evil player factions there is always the potential for some conflict in the RP. Sometimes it escalates to pvp sometimes it’s just some IC bickering.

Any attempt to draw a line in the sand about how far you should or should not go really just hinders RP.

As to what is said on discord afterwards... who cares? Seriously.

Discord is great for asking questions about the game when you need a quick answer. Like “is it me or did the server crash again?”

It’s also great for coordinating play times between people who are trying to do things together.

Outside of that it’s just a bunch of nonsense chatter that only has bearing on your game if you let it.

Tanlaus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:26 pm In a setting where you have good and evil player factions there is always the potential for some conflict in the RP. Sometimes it escalates to pvp sometimes it’s just some IC bickering.

Any attempt to draw a line in the sand about how far you should or should not go really just hinders RP.

As to what is said on discord afterwards... who cares? Seriously.

Discord is great for asking questions about the game when you need a quick answer. Like “is it me or did the server crash again?”

It’s also great for coordinating play times between people who are trying to do things together.

Outside of that it’s just a bunch of nonsense chatter that only has bearing on your game if you let it.

Does not change the fact that people shame those who refuse to play along with their grimdark permadeath/permamaim/permadisfigurement.

There was also a forum thread a few years back by a player who often PvP'd others and then ate his victims/tortured them, that, after being told people don't enjoy that, went on to complain about the server not being a proper place for roleplay and people are immature.