|
Castiel
|
May 18 2017, 04:47 PM
Post #1
|
|
Destiel Trash. Deal With it. Also: GM, Admin
- Posts:
- 179
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2017
|
It's come to my attention that one of the previous primary Supernatural rules worked on permission clauses and while we have made it immovably and irrevocably clear that we do not engage in permission rules, there's been some shade flying around about it from people who were previously dependent on the clauses established, so I'm about to nip that in the bud and address why permission rules do not exist.
Accountability
- RP Origins
Back in the day, RP was a bloodsport. Your fate was left to the dice gods, you statted out your characters and prayed. Sometimes you played on MUDs, and they were even less forgiving with clunky text based environments and little visual queues or input. Over time, RP evolved, and communities divided. There were the various clans of Yahoo and AOL, for example, such as Ayenee and Klickalack, and each held their own systemic methods. Sub-groups began declaring different rule sets, and those were fine for those rules, and those groups. But everyone has to mind that your group's idea of etiquette and our group's idea of etiquette are very different things. I've seen a lot of people lording their personal groups' method as the One True Method, or the Origin. Unless you were playing core dice or early MUCK, you aren't playing origin. Here, you can only be screwed by your own choices, not dice, but there's still open game laws otherwise. I never again want to hear a user try to claim that permission rules are universal etiquette any more than you think handshaking is global courtesy. RP groups are diverse in origin, but many older circles refuse permissions, and we're going to break down "why" below.
- "You can't tell me what to do with my character."
This is the biggest fallback argument I see whenever someone gets pinned into a death corner. And that's right. We can't. But you can't tell anyone else what to do with theirs, either. That includes not forcing a character to change a natural course of action. So here's where we fall down to other rules. Godmoding, powergaming, and autohitting is not allowed. I can't tell your character to stay still and get shot any more than I can tell the other character not to shoot you; I can't tell your character not to turn into the dead end alley way any more than I can tell you not to try to run away. These are your choices with your characters and in this room, there are penalties. If you acknowledge that your character has weaknesses like being subject to death from taking a bullet to the brain, if you get yourself in a position where you get a bullet in your brain, the only thing that tells you that your character is dead is the natural restrictions of your race or type, as based on canon systemics and approval. And your conscience. Cuz in the end. You know. You don't have the right to say "Your character has to change his mind and not kill me" any more than you have the right to say "Your character puts his gun to his own chin and blows it off". That, my friends, is an auto; and that, my friends, is godmoding. And that, my friends, is in fact against the rules. Permission clauses are little more than an occasionally socially acceptable format of autos and godmoding. Those who trumpet loudest about not forcing things on their characters themselves are forcing rewriting of someone else's characters simply because their own choices, actions and writing failed them personally and did not deliver them in the direction they desired, and this is not considered acceptable here.
- "Nuh-uh, it STOPS autos, and people will just godmode and PK everywhere!"
Uh, no. That's why there's rules against godmoding, against metagame, against auto-hits, against powergaming, against beta-reading, and all of the things T1 actually does globally prevent against. You have every right to try to tactically maneuver out of a bad situation. The only time a hit is ever "forced" is when you, deep down, know that you've been outgamed. You have the right to play smart, react, and dodge, ergo, it is not an auto. Everyone in this room has gone through an approval process regulating the power kits to a specific balance so that isn't a problem. And if they're a big character? They're a villain for a story purpose; empowered characters are something that are reviewed for community storyline purposes and group engagement before approval, they're not gonna piss in random buckets. I can't control if you choose to piss in theirs alone. Then we're back down to liability and me not controlling your character. Again, you're right. But if you try to shove a firecracker up Lucifer's ass, you may not like the backdraft. Just sayin'.
- "It's just not fair."
I came from an era where people didn't even try this complaint, because they understood that fair is fair. That effort, thinking, tactics was fair; that if someone played better they might win. Because that's fair. You know what isn't fair? People wandering around, not caring how they influence people, not feeling liable for their actions; worlds where people can scream, shout, hit and abuse but then never have to put their money where their mouth is. Worlds of bubblegum fairy assholes; worlds where everyone can monologue, and treat people terribly, and never be held accountable. Worlds where plots can't go anywhere because you're too special for consequences unlike everyone around you. ... You really think that's fair when everyone else in the room holds themselves accountable? Are you that special, that you and your idea is so important that it outranks everyone else's efforts and thoughtful approaches? No. And you know better in your heart.
Edited by Castiel, May 18 2017, 05:36 PM.
|