The OOC RP Discussion Meme

[museboxy]

The OOC RP Discussion Meme

[How To]

1. Discuss anything to do with RP-ing - Plots you want to try out, characters, characterization, head canon/fan theories, game ideas, meme ideas, fic and fanart ideas, AU and crossover ideas, Verse/PSL ideas, etc, etc. Game and comm promotions are fine, too.

2. Comments can be anon or non-anon, it's up to you.

3. Please do not bash, flame or name drop any mun or game in a negative fashion. No wanking, please!

4. Have fun!

Comments

+1 -1

[(Anonymous)]

The big problem I see with a plotted game with no AC, is that AC, as far as I have always understand it, is largely in place so that since there generally exists only one version of a character at a time, that people aren't essentially "sitting" on muses when they're not actively playing them.

Ie, in this hypothetical no-AC game, how do you separate people who are inactive and not playing from people who are dealing with RL stuff? And, at what point is "RL stuff" treated as being inactive in a way that's fair? Because I do think that an RP comm does suffer when people aren't getting their best/favorite muse simply because someone doesn't want to drop them despite their inability to actually have the time to play them.

Personally, I think it sounds more like you're talking more about overly restrictive ACs, than anything that argues against their existence implicitly. I mean, rules typically exist to prevent problems; AC isn't about whether everyone 'plays the same' or not, but are you still involved in the game: yes/no? And while some characters may lead 'quiet lives'... if they're not interacting with anyone, then what is exactly the point of having them in a game? I could see an option for prose-style journal entries detailing a character's activities as a substitute for AC, but with an absolute lack of interaction, what would be the point of such an exercise?

Which isn't to say that AC is without problems. I always thought AC should be measured in tags, not in threads, because going off threads prioritizes thread-dropping once you've achieved a certain length to ensure you make AC. And I don't agree that x-number of threads of ten tags each does more to enrich the play environment than one involved thread could.

And there's also the fact that demanding a given thread length bases my ability to meet AC on other people, resulting in situations in which I try to thread with a number of different people, but none of them continue the thread long enough to meet the criteria.

I also feel like games seem to get away from the idea of AC as a measure of activity and attempt to use it to enforce socializing, resulting in ACs with complicated and estoeric rules.

"Three threads of ten tags or more with different characters, two with a non-canonmate, one of which involves two or more other characters, one thread designated as part of an on-going plot...... and one thread written while balancing a kettle on your head."

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Trying to answer your questions now.

in this hypothetical no-AC game, how do you separate people who are inactive and not playing from people who are dealing with RL stuff? And, at what point is "RL stuff" treated as being inactive in a way that's fair?

I'm not sure if I need to separate them. However, I do yield so much that I agree a game could (and maybe should) have AC every month to ask the players "do you still want to be in this game? If yes, please participate. If not, please let us know."

The thing with the rules is that a fast player (A) might meet the AC requirements in just a few days after which they can "disappear" for the rest of the month. Another player (B) might be slowly playing for the whole month and just before they get the needed number of tags/threads together, RL stuff happens. Player A doesn't have to explain their (possibly 3-week long) absence to anyone while player B needs to explain their one-week long absence, just because of a few missing tags.

Because I do think that an RP comm does suffer when people aren't getting their best/favorite muse simply because someone doesn't want to drop them despite their inability to actually have the time to play them.

Ok, I admit such a possibility didn't come to my mind. I've been in two games. One was a small fandom based game (that accepted OCs) and they were constantly in need of canon muses. The other was a OC game completely. I haven't seen a situation where more than one person wants to play a particular muse but can't because someone else is holding onto said muse but won't play.

if they're not interacting with anyone, then what is exactly the point of having them in a game

I was thinking of the three threads rule. One should be enough for a muse that is not important to the plot. I've seen people have one liner threads that have little meaning just to meet AC. Example:

- How are you?
- I'm fine. And you?
- I've been sick.
- That's too bad.
etc. etc.

I think it's better to have one meaningful thread than two nonsense threads.

And there's also the fact that demanding a given thread length bases my ability to meet AC on other people

That's exactly what I was describing in the situation with players A and B. Also some players have more friends in the game so they have easier time getting enough tags for their threads.

Your last paragraph is very fitting :P. Add to that "can't tag muses of the same mun". Apparently some games have this rule. I think it's crazy. It really focuses on the wrong things and forces people to try to get tags from muses that their own muse has no reason to interact with at that time.

You're right, I'm not against all AC rules, but sometimes it seems that "following a rule" becomes more important than actual activity.

[(Anonymous)]

I've been in a game where the "all your threads can't be with the same mun" thought was tossed around mostly because of accusations of "cliques" and people feeling like the same couple of people kept tagging each other and no one else.

Ultimately, the rule didn't go into place, but it was at least thought about in response to player concerns.

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I can see the thought behind that and it can be an OK thing if there are enough players.

However, I saw it mentioned in a game that had only a handful of players. So what's a player to do if you've already tagged two different muns and a few others are on hiatus...? You're are possibly forced to find someone who makes little sense whatsoever to tag with at that point. Perhaps that player has already done all the threads they need and don't have time to play with you. What then?

Forcing to tag different muns could also mean that you don't have time to play out a more important plot with someone (a different muse but by a mun that you've already threaded with).

I know this sounds like I'm trying to find out only the neagative things about game rules, but really I am not. I'm only stating what I felt didn't work out so well in the games I've been in. There are good rules, too.

I've seen people drop out as soon as stricter AC is implemented. Is it really better to not have those muses in the game at all? I can't understand if someone really feels that way.

I'm just hoping there was a game or two that wasn't so strict about the number of threads or tags. The argument of "what's the use of being in a game if you're not as active as I am" is kind of boring and rude even.

Having one thread a month is not the same as dropping threads. Sometimes the people who play the most also drop threads the most. I am committed to every single thread I tag in.