My personal RP pet peeve are OOC, out-of-game responses to in-game issues when active characters are involved.

For example, a few people from different cabals raid Empire, and an imperial immediately posts it on an out-of-game forum to "call them out."

Or, an imperial gank starts tearing up their range for a couple weeks, and some fortress guy posts a rant on an out-of-game forum to "call them out."

Or, your groupmate betrays you, and you run to an out-of-game forum to let everyone know to beware of the guy.

And so on.

This is one of those rare occasions when the rose-colored glasses reflect reality because waaaay back when I first started playing CF, there weren't any out-of-game forums, and situations like these had to be handled in the game using means like bard notes. Which was awesome because it had to be Roleplayed. This isn't just character assassination, it's taking the easy way out of situations that could be handled in a Roleplayed way that's more interesting for everyone involved. So for 2010, I say let's keep the in-game frustrations in-game and see what cool RP situations develop.

... I must confess that I've done things like that in the past... Doubt I even thought about bard notes at those times.

As daevryn has made clear the imms just don't actively enforcee fair play policies, even ones they have established to curb anti fair play behavior. Because the imms have given up this responsibility the only tool we as players have to try and achieve a level playing field is to apply e-social preassure to the parties to get them to change their behavior.

Do you think the change in behavior from full looting every kill to most people leaving most things most of the time happened because of imm involvement? Hell no it happened because as a social group we made it clear that was not kosher and people fell in line or risked being ostracized. Taking ic things to an ooc forum is a safety mechanism if you want to criticise it then you as administrators need to pick up the slack.

Personally I don't think the imms should be heavily and directly involved in this sort of policing all the time because frankly it will just wind up getting them flamed but as long as we have a secondary outlet for this kind of release we are ok.

>As daevryn has made clear the imms just don't actively
>enforcee fair play policies

Because there are no such policies.

>the only tool we as players have to try
>and achieve a level playing field is to apply e-social
>preassure to the parties to get them to change their
>behavior.

You'd be surprised what bard notes can accomplish, depending on the person who sends them out. As Mizfara, I witnessed some vulture duergar AP who was pretty decked, but where all he ever did is hang around cabal raids hoping to loot people on either side. So I told Humbert and Jalim's storm warrior to kill him and strip him. And I specifically suggested they do it together, in order to maximize their chances of killing him. And they did. Voila- justice done.

>Do you think the change in behavior from full looting every
>kill to most people leaving most things most of the time
>happened because of imm involvement?

Actually, yes I do. I think imm xp and imms being more free with titles has a lot to do with it. What I really don't think had any effect are whiney posts on Dio's.

>>As daevryn has made clear the imms just don't actively
>>enforcee fair play policies

>Because there are no such policies.
Actually I think there are some. For Outlanders it is "do not travel with dwarves as the minimum and attack them on sight as maximum", for Berserkers it is "Pride, Courage and blah blah".

Both these 'laws' were broken. I think that was the reason of posting it, not the fact of ganking.

Role-play is required. The things you mentioned are *potentially* role-play infractions, not rules infractions.

A given person's role-play may permit them to do all sorts of things that most of us would not consider "fair play".

The reason to post it wasn't ganking but it wasn't "do not travel"/"have pride, courage and blah, blah, blah". It was just one of the funniest fights I had in quiet a time. Realy. I gave it benefit of doubt even...about two rl hours as I'm not too dumb surely to not predict the ####storm it will cause. But I just couldn't resist. Also, if I realy wished to try and make it as char assassination I'd include fort and village running around the Thera hand to hand during half an hour trying to catch low handing fruit of ranking imperials even if I know that most don't see it as something bad.

No there isn't a policy.

Yes, Bard Notes can be helpfull.

So, you coaxed some people in to full looting someone who may or may not have been a chronic full looter.

Yes, people voicing their complaints (Rather than whining) is what caused the shift in our sub-culture.

Quas was pretty much dead on.

Social pressures can be applied by players and Roleplayed IC, in-game. Through bard notes, killing the people who frustrate you, spreading rumors like a "town crier," etc. All of these are IC, in-game, ways to respond to frustrating situations. All of these solutions immerse people further into the fun world of CF.

I think that handling these same frustrating situations out-of-game is an ineffective tool that diminished in-game Roleplay and destroys the immersive feel for every player/character involved. That is why 99% of the time, the person complaining out-of-game is doing it anonymously, or doing it under the name of a deleted character - because they do not want to ruin their experience by tying their rants/complaints/etc. to an active character. Internally, they KNOW that out-of-game resolutions to in-game situations diminishes the fun to playing CF.

Regarding less full looting, I think the reason for that is more complicated than you're suggesting. I think it has something to do with a "do unto others" attitude (basically, I'm looting less with the hope that you'll loot less when you whack me), a recognition that full looting makes enemies delete & more enemies = more fun for you, some game mechanics changes, and so on.

awefw

1) You want a shift in player behavior that I perhaps don't. That's fine, but let's not pretend you're doing a job I'm too lazy to do.

2) The biggest problem with any attempt to enforce behavior in this way is that players are, mostly, full of #### / drama queens with respect to supposed unsportsmanlike behavior. For every ten people who bitches in an OOC outlet that they got full looted, maybe one and probably zero actually were.

I think that all he is saying is that peer preasure has a greater affect than the preasure the Imm's put out as they tend to be silent partners in this game.

That is, what they do is rarely made public so it's viewed (writely or wrongly) to have a lesser affect than the vocal crowd on the Forums.

It's my opinion though, the wrong people are allowed to voice that opinion. yes I am aware some people think I'm the pot calling the kettle black.

Of all my times rolling a char and running around the fields. Even when I played the empire twice, they still are the most annoying to me. I would rather roll a Villager who believes its ok to use magical Items and try to survive, than to even see another bloodoath, or any of the higher ups.

Even when I am matched against one of equal or less power than me, I would rather just type flee and get away from them.

What you are actually trying to say.

.

n/t

I can't really see a truely proud rager forking over his cash to an enemy cabal.

What's more I've been under the impression that it was expressly forbidden and an uninduction if it happened, or at the least became habit.

There are tons of people dying at the cents, I always assumed it was because they refused to pay, not because they could and were able to and not smart enough to pay the cent before fighting.

Trfdhg

Well I am just giving my petpeve. The Empire that is all. Though I am not going to stop playing just cause that simple little thing bothers me.

nt

Just there whole way of trying to get you to join, by killing you then saying see you wouldn't have to fall like that if you take the oath. Again It happens though it still bugs me, not gonna stop me from playing. Latley its also been kinda bothersome seeing many more Imperials than other.

nt

Normally mperials that kill you aren't actually trying to get you to take the oath. They are just killing you.

Generally speaking you know who is going to oath and who isn't. Nevertheless you still make the token "gesture" of saying "take the oath" when you pk someone. Even good aligned characters who you know cannot take it without losing all their powers.

This is the correct version, FYI.

>Even good aligned
>characters who you know cannot take it

Between old Empire and new Empire we realized that, in practice, the only non-evil characters who ever bloodoathed were super-newbs who didn't realize that it would essentially cripple their character to unplayability forever.

Because newbs using that didn't even realise what they were committing to rp-wise, let alone mechanics-wise.

The Empire. Enough said.

nt

.

Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

RP is slowly being strangled by the following situation.

A and B fight. Let's say they're opposite align. It's only natural for there to be some insulting/bitter speech between these two characters, they're mortal enemies, they aren't just going to smile and say "thanks for killing me, lets do this again sometime!".

So char A says something that's perfectly IC to char B, ("I'm going to gut you, gully dwarf, just you wait",) char B takes it as the PLAYER behind A insulting the PLAYER behind B, proceeds to take it personally, and begins griefing/full saccing/spam killing char A to "punish him" for talking back, when all he was doing in the first place was roleplaying.

So what I've been doing more often than not in the past few months is just not saying anything at all, not utilizing the interaction as an opportunity to roleplay, because I know the person behind the char has a big ego and is going to punish me, the player, for behaving like my character would.

The pervasive egotism its corrosive effect on the roleplaying environment is my biggest pet peeve.

Zz

I had 2 conversations the other day, with enemies.

One basically bitched me out, and said that I was level sitting (despite the fact that I was at the most disadvantageous level out of the 51 that I could be, and had only been there about 2 hours of gameplay time. The other I had great banter with for about an hour, and whilst the guy in question isn't the best pk'er from what I've seen, he's definitely makes the game experience better with his roleplay. Whereas the one that verged on ooc is a stacked player who is good at pk. Well, nothing that likely to kill you, but the kind of guy you end up running from a lot.

nt

My biggest peeve is when I spend hours collecting scrolls, potions, pills, flowers, herbs, roots and what not to prep for a fight. Then after all the work of collecting them and then prepping, one ****ing dispel or light of heaven manages to crumble every single spell and that's through primal tenacity and resist negative/positive. Then people gloat about crumbling your protections like it is something hard to do. It drives me insane. Saves do not seem to mean anything here and prepping against dispels specifically apparently does not either.

I'm curious to know what you think preps against dispels specifically.

This is one of the checks and balances against ridiculous over-prepping, btw. It's that way on purpose.

I'm pretty sure the reference is to saves not accomplishing anything. Using items that jack your saves against magic well into the high negatives should at least negate having everything but your undispellable sleeks ending up being dusted in one spell. Also I am pretty sure that light of heaven constitutes as a positive spell type.

>I'm pretty sure the reference is to saves not accomplishing
>anything. Using items that jack your saves against magic well
>into the high negatives should at least negate having
>everything but your undispellable sleeks ending up being
>dusted in one spell.

It really shouldn't. Dispel is pretty much exactly the intended counter to using a huge amount of low level affect preps. Additionally, having a ton of saves also helps you out a ton against the classes that tend to be pinging you with dispel.

Maybe you should play one of those classes for a while and get back to me.

> Also I am pretty sure that light of
>heaven constitutes as a positive spell type.

The type of damage it does is in the name of the spell. I'm not sure how much more obvious we could make it.

"Dispel is pretty much exactly the intended counter to using a huge amount of low level affect preps."

Whatever. That's a crock. Doesn't change the fact that they dispel everything on me without having to cast the spell more then once and that includes my own spells (Which I'm pretty sure are all at level 51).

>Doesn't change the fact that they
>dispel everything on me without having to cast the spell more
>then once and that includes my own spells (Which I'm pretty
>sure are all at level 51).

If you're saying that happens more than once in a blue moon, you're exaggerating.

Attacking neutral guildguards to get at you, attacking in town etc... It just really grinds my gears. I would love the IMMs to tighten up the wording on article 9; especially while we're handing out virtues like candy...

What you see as a loophole, I see as something we made to vary by religion somewhat on purpose.

Make your next character a paladin.

Breaking the law I get, but are you saying killing neutral guild guards is acceptable Paladin behaviour under certain (good) religions?

If so... FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>Breaking the law I get, but are you saying killing neutral
>guild guards is acceptable Paladin behaviour under certain
> good) religions?

Depending on why the guild guard is being killed, yes.

You've effectively just admitted that obeying Tribunal law is not fundamental to being a paladin at all - in which case why include it in the paladin code? After all, you and I both know that the rationale behind article 9 has nothing to do with the essential 'goodness' of the laws of the land, but is rather designed to avoid the undesireable consequences of getting wanted and having to fight good-aligned guards. It is a tautology - subsumed by the other bits of the code that say 'don't intentionally harm those of the light'. So get rid of it.

I mean. I'd rather keep the rule and just ban all paladins from attacking in town for game balance reasons, but at least this way less n00bs will think Galadon is safe with a paladin is in range, and will not get assbagged by the cheap hidden room summon trick.

Maybe you could also address what I see as the blatant double standards in play. I recently had an char (Jysste) straight anathed by a snooping IMM for attacking a village applicant in Seantryn with no Tribunal present (no chance to argue situationally that Imperial law was being served, in the same way that a paladin would defend himself to charges that he was dishonouring the code). Also I had a very in depth conversatino with Baerinika about this very topic with my paladin (who also got a smack on the wrist for attacking in town). Her argument boiled down to "innocents might get harmed by fighting in town". If that's good enough for the patron IMM of Fort, it should be good enough for all paladins.

It's my opinion that things should be black and white with them with reguard to the code.

That is the rule for Baer paladins. Baer doesn't empower all paladins.

- Which is that article 9 is only relevant to Baer paladins, is therefore not an essential part of being a paladin and shouldn't be in the code.

Following the law only when Trib are around and crapping on it at all other times isn't 'respecting' it. I think even the most weaselly of lawyers would blush to make a case for something like that.

I just dont see it the way you do in regards to the code's rules about following the law. In some ways this ties into the paladins beliefs whether or not they would break tribunal law, perhaps the paladin believes that the wicked are not worthy of being protected by the laws and that the laws are there for the protection of the innocent. There's so many takes on what is and can happen for each class or cabal. If everything were set in stone the way you seem to want it to be set, then thera would not be a diverse world open to all kinds of unique role playing opportunities and everyone would be pigeon holed into a cookie cutter roles as soon as they chose thier align/class/cabal. I much preffer that charachters are allowed to find thier own interpretation of the code that conforms to thier religeon and charachter's history/role. It makes for some interesting roleplay when two paladins one a tribunal, one a maran have to come up with a way to deal with a situation the provides both charachters with a conflict in thier beliefs and morals.

I will add that one of my biggest pet peeves in CF is so many "elite" players who believe that thier take on a religeon/cabal/dogma within the game is the only correct take on it, instead of understanding that the IMM staff intentionaly left them open for a little interpretation to allow for diversity. So they claim that X was a poor outlander/villager/Maran because they didnt play a maran the way that Y(the elitist) believed it should be played.

Seem to have roles that enable them to avoid the downsides of a combo but still reap the upsides?

e.g. players who travel with tribs right up until the point of induction to outlander (minutes later). The same thing goes on in a lot of cabals, and I reckon it is a small number of players that keep doing it.

and I wasnt one of them, though that's something that is gonna be more up to the imms to catch a lot of the time, as leader chars dont have access to snoop or imm comments.

I hate not being able to edit, because my account needs unlocked because it never got activated, but my email address is in use by it. But anyways I did the opposite of that and kept to my role even after I left the cabal that required it. Why? Because I didnt feel Tangni's beliefs had changed in a way that allowed it, so I still wouldnt travel with dwarves or conjurors and let paladins know I wasnt happy with thier choice to follow the code and tried to convince them of the wrong they did by doing it. Still didnt use coin (and it nearly cost me a few deaths because I would not have a few barter items on me, and need to cure plague/poison, and not be able to do it, so I'd be sitting there just hoping to last it out, unable to move for 10 minutes, which was frustrating as hell cause it would have been so easy to just use coins..

Think more highly of you for doing that.

You chose to stick to ideals despite a cost in game. Good on you.

What gets me is seeing leaders who basically take no risks, whilst their underlings do, and still get rewarded for it. What it feels to me that imms fail to assess properly is risk to a character. A character with abs can often go up against 3 enemies at no risk. A character without can often not go up against 1 without risk. And yet if each go up against 2, the dude at no risk gets the rewards because he's ended up with the better result.

nt

Seem to come up with a version of the code that allows:

- talking like they live in the hood (be fair of speech and action)
- ganking in completely one-sided fights and then calling their enemies cowards when they have to flee convulsing, but not fighting without backup ever
- leaving allies to die, when they could save them without a great deal of risk
- breaking the mortal laws
- having a lot of gold

There are even ways to get rewarded for these things. e.g. Have lots of gold stashed in the bank to donate once you hit 1000 gold. But in the meantime, you've got access to a pile of gold as needed.

I've even had fortress paladin leaders say that they wouldn't fight my aps unless they had invoker shields. Hardly the behaviour of a leader, imho. Especially when you are decked with the likes of defiance and shield of light.

Let's not pretend this is all about people's sooper l33t RP.

It's about bored players wanting to get easy PKs.

See also: battle applicants who used a root to get their first mage kill... outlanders who like to assbag the sole retrieving Empire raider outside the fortress (but pass on the decked paladins that come their way) etc etc.

Not to be totally dismissive, but what's the name of the paladin that you played that did these things "right"?

You strike me as a very bitter person. I will just continue to enjoy the game and the diversity that it allows for. You can continue to enjoy complaining and whining about anything that doesnt fit your perfect mold of how things should be. Have fun with that.

> outlanders who like to assbag the sole retrieving
>Empire raider outside the fortress (but pass on the decked
>paladins that come their way) etc etc.

Because I actually did the above, I feel like I should explain why.

Chances of me killing Dupmasione = zero.

Chances of me killing Empire raider = substantially higher than zero.

Trust me, if I'd seen himthere writhing I'd have ambushed him. But that's about the only way I was ever going to kill him, and one solo Empire raider is not going to make Dupmasione convulse.

I did attack other paladins not named Dupmasione.

Having played a few paladins when I was playing, there were some who had a rationale for attacking in a town and others who would never do it.

More times than not, the actual city I was in played a major role in my decisions on whether or not a guild guard should be attacked or not. From one aspect, any city that has slave pens in it is not "acceptable" law. Although, I have played tribunal, arbiter and justice paladins that protected that area. But, on the flip side, I would have a hard time explaining attacking a guild guard in a city that is good in it's principles.

Religion plays a huge role from my experience as well. For example, and I will use gods that I have followed that are not active, a Shokai paladin could justify it if he were a retribution-type of paladin, whereas a Stellyx paladin would be more of a hope-type of paladin who most likely could not.

Are seemingly designed 100% to pimp the character that I am playing.

Literally leaving zero chance for my character to win the fight, and little chance for my character to survive the fight.

And *STILL* the player feels the need to trigger-hoe it. In an obvious way.

That's a pet peeve.

Not that the triggers made a difference, because the matchup was so wrong anyway. just the fact that he was monkey-roboting when it was COMPLETELY unnecessary.

The one that says triggers work and win fights.

If they didn't people wouldn't use them.

They simply ARE that good if set up right.

Don't be a lib and try to appease those people who would have you believe they don't have as big an impact as they do. They won't respect you anyway so speak the truth.

In your case, it's well-documented that you can't tell whether or not someone is using triggers.

I'm used to missing a lot. That doesn't mean eventually I get a hit.

Collateral damage is good campfire talk.

.

Splntrd

for someone who endlessly extols the virtue of his superior logic, you sure do post a lot of stupid, nonsensical ####.

I once made a bagel with extra cream cheese. The point is definitely made now isn't it. Sometimes I realize I don't put enough on to satisfy my taste buds.

So how does being in the Infantry have anything to do with triggers?

It was an anallogy.

I would throw out a thousand rounds of ammo over a large area.

I hit a lot of stuff in the beaten zone that wasn't the target, but I would hit the target as well.

Then when the mission was over we would sit around flexing our muscles, clean weapons and talk about how we were better than every other fighting force in our army or any other.

So thats what my tax paid money goes to...

I'm retired. 20 years and two wars was enough.

Now I spend my time encouraging people not to join.

No - not serious

Sure, there are some builds, where trigger-hookering takes them from annoying to beyond frustrating.

And, I disagree with, and dislike, people using those.


But....it's worse...when their build is OBVIOUSLY 100% designed to kill another build with zero risk....and they STILL use trigger scripts.

That's just ignorant, in my opinion. And few things are as strong a pet peeve for me as wilfull ignorance.


For instance. Those outlander dash-spec warriors who trigger their dash-chases. Those are beyond annoying, yes. does it make them far more successful than they should be? yes. Are they beatable? damn right.

But, (as a general example) Take a full a/b/s air/off shifter with a ram form, who uses triggers to chase down a link-dead unempowered gnome healer with no preps up.

Yes, I have seen examples of this that are that bad, and worse, in the past 12+ years.

sdfvd

>My pet-peeve is when you ask someone if they want to group and that person says NOTHING. You send another tell asking again, still NOTHING. The ever l33t silent RP.<

Yeah, I'm totally guilty of this. I miss so many tells (afk command is my new favorite command) and I feel bad about it, but a lot of time I'm off solo'ing a mob I shouldn't be fighting at the rank I'm fighting, or PK'ing someone, and I miss a lot of spam.

Just saying, the guy who ignores ISN'T ALWAYS ignoring you because he's a ####.

I totally agree with the rest of your post.

My pet peeve is when someone tells me, IC, "You should really tell Forsaken not to give away who you're playing".

I hate that.

nt

>My pet-peeve is when you ask someone if they want to group and
>that person says NOTHING. You send another tell asking again,
>still NOTHING. The ever l33t silent RP.

I agree that this is annoying as hell. I'd don't think it's bad RP per se, but the problem is, I eventually have to end up saying something along the lines of an RP version of "Hey stupid I can't know whether you missed my tell or are just RPing an overflowing ####bag" Basically intentional silence mimics a technical shortcoming in the communication system. At least respond to my tell with "..." or "" or something so I can move on.

I used to set up triggers to continually resend greetings and messages to Shifters who were in form and who's shape I didn't know. Apparently there was an anti-spam code added to the game so that if you do spam multiple comments you completely lose all ability to communicate including emotes and socials for what seems to me to be a RL hour.

I set this thing off twice that I know of and I suspect I set it off more than that and never realized it. But I was going rabid because I couldn't figure out why people weren't responding to me. Other people were going rabid because I wouldn't respond to them!

I see why the game has it but it affects an area it shouldn't, IMHO.

of what you've said here and on the Pro thread.

I completely agree, that it is valid rp, but equally some people don't respond because they are jerks, or because they missed something in spam, or because they are having link issues. So the guy asking the question doesn't know which.

"I don't talk to X is just incompatible with the game". Just -say- that you have no intention of having a conversation with a farging X, if you want.

I second the thing re ignore. Especially the people who say something and then switch on ignore without letting you do a single tell in response.

It has got far worse of late. I think one session I had 5 or 6 characters I'd never met before fail to respond.

The two you mentioned are HUGE ####ing peeves of mine, but I admit that I use the ignore command if I am arguing with another character otherwise I go insane. I would just rather do something else.

I hate when people talk about gear as if they are reading off of Dio's. Hey let's go kill Diana for her sword. It does wrath damage so we can go rank in the Maus.

If I ask some to group and they say, "Got a third?" I almost always disinvite them.

And the number one peeve is not using the shift key or punctuation. I like purposfully misinterpreting what people are saying when they don't use the appropriate punctution.

So you're the one I keep running into whom I can never keep happy with "the way I talk". Seriously dude, I have grouped with you with 5 characters of mine, and 5 or more of yours, and no matter how hard I try to talk in a way that you find IC acceptable, you're never satisfied. I'm getting to the point that I just want to make a super pk character and spam kill every one of your chars who I find doing that.

There are perfectly legitimate IC reasons for knowing what item A does, and where item B is found; ESPECIALLY when the character in question is a studious type character (i.e. mage, arcane thief, explorer type char, bard, any random gnome/svirf with racial lore 100% etc...). Thief can linger in the shadows listening in on conversations of more experienced players. Mages are very studious people who do lots of reading about a wide variety of things. How else do you think they gain all this arcane knowledge? And Bards are SUPPOSED to be knowledgeable about many things, hence the 100% lore. Speaking of which, what exactly do you think the LORE skill represents? I refer you to Alduk in the Inn, who's description indicates that he's very well traveled and knows just about any item out there. Lore means you know about many things. It's not identify which magically discerns the properties of an item. It's KNOWLEDGE. Any Herald regardless of anything else, has ample IC reasons to know this or that. People go through there all the time. PCs are not the only characters in the game, and the NPCs aren't just wooden posts standing around. They're CHARACTERS too, who have knowledge of their own, experiences of their own, talk, and share stories. Because this is a coded computer game, they can't be programmed to act exactly like a PC, but it's understood that they have all those qualities and those things are going on whether you see them or not. Therefore, anyone who spends ANY amount of time at the Inn has a justifiable IC reason to know just about anything in the game.

If they know, let them know it! I'm not saying this condones the spread of certain information OOC. That's an entirely different subject. I'm just saying, if you have a veteran player who knows items, areas, and NPCs, don't expect him to "forget" everything he's learned over the 10 years or so that he's played the game, and act like he's a complete newb, bumbling around and getting killed on everything in the game cause he doesn't know if it's too big to handle. Likewise, don't expect him to blindly stumble his way to Aran'gird, and "accidentally" figure out how to get through the gate, then intentionally die to the guard because his character isn't supposed to know how to get by them safely, etc..., just so THAT character has learned from experience.

There is nothing wrong with knowing that a flickering gem rejects those who walk a balanced path, therefore, the person holding the gem clearly is not balanced. Then said person groups with an elf, who clearly cannot group with a darkheart. Therefore, said person clearly is not dark. Put them both together, and, what do you know?!? That person must walk in the light too! Oh, but that's just TOO MUCH knowledge for a low level character to have! Nevermind that the character with that knowledge might have "found" that gem himself, tried to use it, and found that it rejected him.

Seriously dude, don't expect that everyone else should roleplay exactly the same way you do. I've even grouped/interacted with mortal chars of Imms (some of whom have been remarked about as being exceptional roleplayers) and listened to their characters do the exact same things you complain about so much. I even had one mortal character of an Imm who became a cabal leader talk to me about tactically discerning information about a person I was hunting by paying attention to the gear they were wearing. By your standards, even tells should be considered OOC because people just can't talk to each other from across the world! Instead of picking on every little detail that doesn't quite jive with your view of roleplay, you should try to see how this person might actually have a justifiable reason to know such-and-such information. I even remember talking to one of your characters about Aran'gird one time, and you bitched at me and actually went semi-oocish telling me that I had no reason to know that (we were like, mid-30s or something). The really annoying part was, with that character, I actually HAD been to Aran'gird. A hero gave me the item needed to get in safely, and offered to take me there. But in your zeal to call out something you thought was OOC, you actually bitched about my character's perfectly justifiable IC experience.

To put it plain and simple, "You have NO WAY to determine if person x has a justifiable IC reason to know information Y. AT ALL." And when you start going off on one of your rants about it IN THE GAME, it not only sets off a HUGE red flag that says, "THIS IS PRO!!!!!" it also looks hugely OOC to everyone around. When you refused to group with me and another lowbie in FoN just a week or so ago because of my comment about the flickering gem, the other dude was like, "What the hell?!? Did you rape his sister or something?" (That's an exact quote, by the way.) Ironically, the most OOC thing and the worst roleplay about that entire interaction was YOU. Especially after you tried to justify your reaction with the comment, "I don't like it when someone starts talking like they're reading off some other-worldly list in their mind." Now that may not be an EXCACT, WORD-FOR-WORD quote, but the part "other worldly list in their mind" IS.

Now then, on to punctuation... In real life, when you talk, you don't HEAR capital letters. If I'm standing next to you, and I tell you about my friend Jill, you're not going to know whether I capitalized her name or not. Similarly, if I make a statement, that's a complete sentence, but only ONE sentence, you don't HEAR the period at the end. The words stopped coming, so therefore, you know there's a period. You don't see it, hear it, touch, taste it, or smell it in anyway. Therefore, why in the world would your CHARACTER know that it was missing, enough to complain about someone "not talking right?" Now granted, there are times when you can "hear" punctuation in someone's audible speech. For instance, if you read this sentence aloud, you can hear where I've put the commas because they represent a light pause that separates the two prepositional phrases from each other and rest of the sentence. But if I were standing next to you, and spoke that sentence aloud and didn't pause between the prepositional phrases, you wouldn't suddenly start wigging out that I was "not talking right" unless you had some kind of emotional or social disorder like autism or something.

In short, by acting the way you do IN GAME, you're actually being a much worse roleplayer than the very people you condemn.

EDIT: I know that others take issue about the punctuation/capitalization thing, including Iunna and Kasty (if I'm not recalling incorrectly). This could be why none of my characters have ever had a positive interaction with Iunna, even when she was still a mortal. She's certainly entitled to her view, as are you. But at least Iunna doesn't wig out and go semi-ooc on me because of it. She just generally ends up being cold and distant. As for Kasty, as far as I know, I've never had much if any interaction with him since he Immed, though I did have quite a bit during his mortal days and we didn't seem to have any issues then.

So, here you go, Jhyrb. Here's my biggest pet peeve about other people's roleplay--when some bonehead can't get outside of his miniscule box and expects everyone else to roleplay by his extremely narrow, one-dimensional rules of roleplay, and then gets pissy about it afterwards.

END RANT

p.s. If this post seems a bit heated, it's because that's been building up for a very long time, and finally I know who to direct it to, since I can't do it in the game.

Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

I have gotten to the point where I don't raz on people who are trying to RP and suck because they can't write.

But I wander off when they do it and talk about gear. It's lame, and it's the white trash/ghetto talk of CF.

It's pretty hard for me to immerse when you don't put some effort into your own RP.

You could say something like, "I've a grudge with a woman named Diana. I'm ready to settle that score."

What's worse, is when I say something similar, and another player is like, can you get me her brass knuckles too?

It's terrible RP.

And avoid you. I have come to realize that when I meet a certain kind of asshole, it's you. And I never group with them again.

So I'll try once again to make clear.

You complain about other people's bad roleplay, and yet, your IN GAME response to them is actually WORSE roleplay than what you accuse them of. (i.e. "Quit talking like you're reading off some otherworldly list in your mind.")

It's pretty difficult to convince someone that they are the ones with bad roleplay when you you step out of character much worse than they did.

And as I took such great pains to show in my previous post, knowing what this or that item does, where to get it, and the best possible use for it is NOT ooc in any way. How is it bad roleplay to know that duergar are susceptible to holy damage, and therefore, using a weapon that deals holy damage is a good idea?



Klaak

Great spirits have always met violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

Anything you say will just keep getting sucked up and your valid points will never see the light of day. The guy is never wrong, he just consumes attention.

Just stop, please don't feed the Pro.

As long as you aren't cheating to do it, Pro never gets immteraction (probably precisely due to the petty anal-retentive reasons he cited above), never gets above 40 and never gets any leader positions. He'll also never be in any cabal worth a damn because the people who he decides are ESL tend to be in a higher skill echelon than him.

So if you full sac him enough times, he stops playing for a couple months, usually silently.

It's like how everyone managed to guess who Graatch's Herald was about two or three months prior to his actual death because he picked the absolutely most annoying way to go about pacifism possible, up to and including ruining everyone else's groups. They're just different flavors of the same douche.

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

Bard Repertoire Clarifications:
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=

nt

NT

You're being obtuse and missed his point as well. I don't often want to defend this guy, but right now I agree with him. A lot. There are much better ways to phrase what you say in CF instead of, like he said, like you're reading it off of Dio's. Also, your post... TL;DR.

Since I'm pretty sure I grouped with you and an elf and you later commented how amazing it was the elf didn't realize I was evil.

The meaning is clear, so what's the problem? It's nothing to do with roleplay, and I have good English skills. It's just completely irrelevant and I see no harm in dispensing with with in order to communicate more readily in a game where communication is somewhat hampered by it being a text based medium. (I much prefer muds to graphical games though, because the gameplay is superior.)

I capitalise JUST to keep you happy. Seriously. And that's ####ing sad.

And it looks like a chatroom to my eyes.

Punctuation and capitalization make it easier to read and determine meaning faster.

zsdvad

I ESL but my English verymuch good.

>The two you mentioned are HUGE ####ing peeves of mine, but I
>admit that I use the ignore command if I am arguing with
>another character otherwise I go insane. I would just rather
>do something else.

This is just ####ty RP in my opinion. It's an equivalent of putting your fingers in ears and shouting LALALALALA! in order not to hear what the other person is saying. The argument will die out if you don't have anything to say in response, I see no reason to use ignore for a normal argument.

>I hate when people talk about gear as if they are reading off
>of Dio's. Hey let's go kill Diana for her sword. It does wrath
>damage so we can go rank in the Maus.

I think that the best plan with this is either to force them to RP better with your own RP or imagine that they RP:ed it better.

>If I ask some to group and they say, "Got a third?" I almost
>always disinvite them.

Do you have an RP reason to do so? If not, you're RPing badly. I suggest sucking it up and RPing, they might find their RP along the way if you do so too.

>And the number one peeve is not using the shift key or
>punctuation. I like purposfully misinterpreting what people
>are saying when they don't use the appropriate punctution.

How do you RP that? There is no phonetic difference between a capital letter and lowercase letter as far as I know. It's just bad RP in my opinion. Just keep using caps correctly and hope that they pick it up, it's not worth ####ting on your own RP.