Breaking Character -- When to Break Character?

[Manhattan]

I use my judgement and common sense, however arbitrary that may sound.

[bracken]

Lizzie, I think you're being a bit harsh there. Say is a shortcut which enables you to get right to typing a meaningful response, before you both die of dehydration.  First things first, which for me is keeping the conversation rolling.  We are not noobs forever, though some of us stay that for longer.
Personally, I don't like "responding" to an OOC, as it drags the OOC moment out longer.

[Kronibas]

Correcting people using the OOC command for roleplay is about as cool, uh, a broken air conditioner. 

I only like to use the OOC command when coordinating good OOC times for IC events, really.

I agree.

I can't say I necessarily like using OOC at any time, yet sometimes it is a necessity or - at the very least - exceedingly helpful.


Off the top of my head, I can think of a few valid reasons for use of the command other than coordinating play times:

1.  Inter-clan Related Stuff.

     A.  If a player new to a clan/new to a position in a clan has tasks that require OOC duties, i.e. emailing the imms about orders, then I don't see a
          problem with explaining this with brevity.

     B.  Explaining syntax to newbies or recently-promoted PCs about how to get into and out of clan-specific areas or how to code-wise handle their new
          duties, respectively.  Or telling them how to get their scrumptious batch of gith stew from the cook NPC.

     C.  Directing players to your clan's staff and, given certain circumstances, personal email address to arrange projects, i.e. for a plot and/or
          the creation of a new item/building/whatever in the game.  If you're in a clan and do pass along your personal email address for such
          a reason, then it's a Really Good Idea (<tm>) to make it clear to whoever is to be emailing you to CC your clan's staff mail, the MUD
          account, or both.


2.  Emergencies
     A.  They happen.  For example, sometimes one might need to quit out in another clan's area right then. Letting someone that's a part of said clan-specific
           area know you aren't doing it just so you can log back in when no-one's around to get some loot is dandy in my book.  Dropping link or using
           the "gone" command just doesn't cut it sometimes, because if you die when you are gone, AFK, or link dead, the staff will not bring you back
           to life.*


3.  Explaining OOC time constraints, most importantly with RPTs.
    A.

I will often ooc with time issues: IE
The Guy says : Get your kank we're heading out.
OOC I'm going to have to log in 45 minutes, will that be enough time?

   To me, that's very kosher.  As someone who has played a leader before, I'd much rather see this beforehand than to have someone drop link half
   an hour into a two hour RPT that I'm attempting to coordinate/help coordinate.  This is double-plus important if the RPT is combat intensive/there is
   a possibility of combat transpiring.

4.  This is a given, but:  "Do you consent?"



*unless you mail Azroen beer

[Folker]

Sometimes, I use ooc when I see someone screwing up their walking emotes/ldescs and dont seem to be aware of it. Like say, someone going e (trudging alongside ~folker). I'd ooc or speak via the way if there are more pcs present, tell them that ~'s dont work in this type of emote. Or when somebody sets up an ldesc, but the situation changes, and they need to change it/remove it but arent aware of it.

Sometimes, I use ooc to apologize when I have to log off ... NOW.

Once, I used ooc quiet improperly. It was a series of emotes. Wasnt exactly a power emote per se, my character began a hostile process, but left it open ended for the target to choose its success, only to have the emote entirely ignored, and I asked to react to it somehow. But mainly because ... I didnt really know know how to finish the sequence without it appearing 'odd' or turning it into a power emote. Think Vanth commented about that to me later. Meh.

[psionic fungus]

Correcting people using the OOC command for roleplay is about as cool, uh, a broken air conditioner.

I understand people feel strongly about this... But how do you respond if someone emotes bashing your character's head into the table and then snapping his neck?

Personally, I -will- OOC and inform the player that they are power-emoting, it is against the rules, and I will be ignoring them...

And I don't think that is out of line.


edit It would be nice to be able to simply refer to "Help power emote" or whatever, but I just looked and there doesn't seem to be anything like that available... But, when I talk about 'correcting' role-playing, that's what I'm talking about... Not telling someone their cockney accent is out of place in Cenyr, or whatever... Hm.

[Kronibas]

But how do you respond if someone emotes bashing your character's head into the table and then snapping his neck?

Personally, I -will- OOC and inform the player that they are power-emoting, it is against the rules, and I will be ignoring them...

And I don't think that is out of line.

   I reckon that's a viable option.  But it ain't the one I'd pick first, cause there are always alternatives, and I'd try them out before I went OOC.
Some examples of alternatives?

  The brawl code, running to a nearby militia d00d screaming bloody murder, just ignoring them completely as PF said, sending in a
complaint, killing their ass, or paying someone to kill their ass are all suitable choices, IMO.

  I'm reminded of a story from back in the early 2000's, when a buddy of mine that I had introduced to the game emoted taking a shit on
a Byn sergeant.  I'd put money that this is one of the best examples of a power emote to grace Armageddon, evar.

  Fortunately for everyone watching, the Byn sergeant didn't ignore the guy.  He merely rolled with the punches and pointed out that the
feces-flinger had not emoted taking off his pants, and as such... he had just soiled himself.  Then the poo dude went to the dungeons, and
eight years later we're still laughing about it.

    And so, I reckon if there's a moral to that story, it's this:  Sometimes it's worth it if you put forth some effort when dealing with
folks who haven't got the gist of it yet.  They might one day be That Guy who has a huge impact on the game.

[psionic fungus]

...just ignoring them completely as PF said

First... How the hell did you hear me say that?  It was out-loud and after I posted...

Second... I think it is mostly a matter of circumstance and degree... Some power emotes you can ignore, some are manageable ICly, but sometimes a player comes along that just doesn't get it and they need to be informed of what they are doing wrong...

If a quick OOC is all it takes to set them straight it is good for everyone.  If it is a real newb, I'd rather move away from OOC, get their IM, and talk to them there, so my Arm window remains sufficiently escapist...

Unfortunately, there is the occasional player who feels the need to inspire emotion with their every action, and sometimes I do -want- to OOC them about it... It's almost always a better option to email the staff (or use the request tool) to deal with more subtle role-play 'corrections'.

I agree that the use of OOC is generally jarring and undesired, if that was in question.

I just have to be clear, because I have used OOC to tell someone to stop power-emoting, and I don't feel bad about it!

[My 2 sids]

Actually, I sometimes am more jarred when people don't use the OOC command.  I don't like having my PC forced to do things s/he wouldn't normally do such as come up with a million reasons why they can't or won't be able to do their job (just OOC communication times!)   Or, having to explain why they didn't kill said person when it was IC approprate (just OOC that person is link dead)  or being forced us role-play 'guess the emote' for 10 minutes when a simple OOC answer would have provided the needed informtion in 10 seconds.

[Bebop]

Hmm, I used to think of going OOC as this big taboo thing.

Now I use it more regularly.  Not ALL the time, but I use it to coordinate playing times, I'll use it to help newbs, I use it to help people join boards, correct typos that may significantly alter my play.

Code Select Expand

You say to the large, foreboding templar loudly in sirihish, "I am a magicker Lord Templar!"

oocly Whoa, AM NOT... NOT.

As far as people exchanging IMs via OOC I think it can be helpful to coordinate playtime or help newbs.  I think it used to be a lot stricter on not telling people who you play.  Now it seems more like an optional thing, or a don't ask don't tell rule.  Or maybe it's just that I've been here three years and now I realize how widespread it is.  Also with the use of clan boards, people just go through the circle of life and death and slowly find out.  Or even if people don't mean to a lot of times their posts are easy to read on the boards.  It just happens.  And you know honestly for the MOST part (not ALL) I think people still manage to play well with/without the knowledge of who is on the other side of the keyboard.  I mean does it REALLY matter who is behind the keyboard as long as you aren't swapping IC sekrets?

[Simple]

Hmm, I used to think of going OOC as this big taboo thing.

Now I use it more regularly.  Not ALL the time, but I use it to coordinate playing times, I'll use it to help newbs, I use it to help people join boards, correct typos that may significantly alter my play.

Code Select Expand

You say to the large, foreboding templar loudly in sirihish, "I am a magicker Lord Templar!"

oocly Whoa, AM NOT... NOT.

As far as people exchanging IMs via OOC I think it can be helpful to coordinate playtime or help newbs.  I think it used to be a lot stricter on not telling people who you play.  Now it seems more like an optional thing, or a don't ask don't tell rule.  Or maybe it's just that I've been here three years and now I realize how widespread it is.  Also with the use of clan boards, people just go through the circle of life and death and slowly find out.  Or even if people don't mean to a lot of times their posts are easy to read on the boards.  It just happens.  And you know honestly for the MOST part (not ALL) I think people still manage to play well with/without the knowledge of who is on the other side of the keyboard.  I mean does it REALLY matter who is behind the keyboard as long as you aren't swapping IC sekrets?

Ditto

[LoD]

As a player, there are times when I feel OOC discussion to be warranted and times when it is being abused.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not mind (as a player) OOC being used as:
----------------------------------------------------------------

A way to teach a new player game mechanics.

You say, out of character:
    "To hitch your mount to you, type hitch kank me."

Letting people know when an RPT may be.

You say, in sirihish:
    "Are you going to be available for the mission next week?"

You say, out of character:
    "Tomorrow evening, 9pm EST"

Telling someone what to do when inducting them into a clan.

You say, out of character:
    "Please check out www.armageddon.org, the clan section, My Clan, password xxxxxx and send an email to OurImm@armageddon."

Someone helping another player with part of the world.

The new player says, in sirihish:
    "It says on the board that there is a man looking for work."

You say, out of character:
    "The board is considered to be gossip/rumor and isn't really something visible to be read.  In fact, literacy is usually illegal amongst the common man."

To let someone know of an emergency situation.

You say, out of character:
    "An Imm has told us all to hold positions and to disregard whatever we see."

---------------------------------------------------------
I DO mind (as a player) OOC being used:
---------------------------------------------------------

To laugh at a mistake or funny IC event.

You say, out of character:
    "lol!!!"

To bring up a part of the game world that may not be common knowledge.

You say, out of character:
    "Since when did gurth start paralyzing?"

To correct spelling or someone else's RP.

You say, out of character:
    "It's sincerely, not sinceerly.  And you shouldn't act so friendly, elves aren't friendly."

To explain your IC actions.

You say, out of character:
    "My character believes that he's a magicker because he hid while 5 people were talking to him, and that's crap."

To talk about RL issues or events.

You say, out of character:
    "Joe, are you going to the movie later?"

To apologize for a spelling mistake or mis-emote.

You say, out of character:
    "You know what I meant."

You say, out of character:
    "lol!  I meant the dwarf! =)"

Those are just a few different times when it takes me out of the game world or frustrates me as a player trying to maintain my imagination.  The Imms, of course, are the ones responsible for policing the use of OOC and they may feel differently about the legitimacy of my examples, but that is how I feel when players use OOC in varied circumstances.

-LoD

[Zoltan]

I'm in complete agreement with LoD, but I'd like to add something else.

Sometimes it irks me when people go OOC to let others know that they have 'mercy' on. Now, I know that the mercy flag is something a new player should know about, especially when they're dealing with the combat code for the first time or whatever. I just get bothered because in most situations, I shouldn't -know- that the other PC is going to hold back.

[Marauder Moe]

Are you sure they weren't asking said new player to put mercy on?

EDIT: That is to say, reminding them about the mercy code, since just like I shouldn't know you have mercy on, you shouldn't really force someone to turn it on either.

[Zoltan]

No, I don't think so. I've seen it a few different times with different characters. To clarify, I'm cool with someone instructing a new player about the mercy option with OOC speak. I just don't really like it when someone lets me know they have it on. Of course, maybe they just thought that I'm a n00b in need of direction. 

[brytta.leofa]

We often seem to wrap OOC considerations in IC excuses, and that's usually a good thing.

If an OOC or strictly code-related concern is starting to cause IC craziness, it might be better to communicate out-of-character exactly what the problem is.  That's far less jarring than driving the plot somewhere you never intended.

Stupid made-up example:
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "Don't you touch those taints, Amos!  Eat that pizen-cure first, in case yer hand slips."
The tall, muscular man says, setting his crumbly black pill on an agafari table,
  "Naw, sarge.  I'll just keep it close to hand."
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "That's an =order=, Amos."
The tall, muscular man says, protesting,
  "But it ain't sensible to waste a cure like that!"
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "Is too sensible.  Cure's cheaper than a new Corporal, ain't it."
The tall, muscular man says, stubbornly,
  "Ain't gonna do it."
You say to the tall, muscular man, raising your voice,
  "You mangy stupid runt of a GORTOK. Don't think you gotta foller orders, eh?"
You stand up from an agafari table.
You expel the tall, muscular man from "Marik's Marauders"!
You draw an obsidian greatsword.
The tall, muscular man OOCs,
  "NOoooo! It won't *work* if you take it *before* you're poisoned."

[LoD]

We often seem to wrap OOC considerations in IC excuses, and that's usually a good thing.

If an OOC or strictly code-related concern is starting to cause IC craziness, it might be better to communicate out-of-character exactly what the problem is.  That's far less jarring than driving the plot somewhere you never intended.

Stupid made-up example:
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "Don't you touch those taints, Amos!  Eat that pizen-cure first, in case yer hand slips."
The tall, muscular man says, setting his crumbly black pill on an agafari table,
  "Naw, sarge.  I'll just keep it close to hand."
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "That's an =order=, Amos."
The tall, muscular man says, protesting,
  "But it ain't sensible to waste a cure like that!"
You say to the tall, muscular man,
  "Is too sensible.  Cure's cheaper than a new Corporal, ain't it."
The tall, muscular man says, stubbornly,
  "Ain't gonna do it."
You say to the tall, muscular man, raising your voice,
  "You mangy stupid runt of a GORTOK. Don't think you gotta foller orders, eh?"
You stand up from an agafari table.
You expel the tall, muscular man from "Marik's Marauders"!
You draw an obsidian greatsword.
The tall, muscular man OOCs,
  "NOoooo! It won't *work* if you take it *before* you're poisoned."

I happen to think this is a bad use of the OOC command.  You're explaining IC sensitive information with the OOC command.  You don't know who else might be watching, nor if the sergeant knows this particular tidbit of information.  You don't know if the sergeant really wants to kill the Corporal and is trying to persuade the character to follow one course of action because the player is choosing to take the OOC route and negate any attempts at that avenue of play.

If your character knows this bit of information ICly, then contest it ICly and accept whatever results come as a consequence. Confusion, misunderstandings, and bad information have likely led to some of the most interesting story developments this game has ever seen.  The scene just started to turn interesting when the tall, muscular man went OOC.

This is a good example of how -not- to use the OOC command, IMO.

As an example of two situations somewhat close to each other, but different in what is being asked:

Question about Syntax

The tall, muscular man says, out of character:
   "How do I drink this bottle-o-poison cures?"

The tall, muscular man says, out of character:
   "How do I use the poisoning skill?"

Question about IC Information

The tall, muscular man says, out of character:
   "When do I take the bottle-o-poison cures so I don't die of poison?"

The tall, muscular man says, out of character:
   "What will happen to me if I accidentally poison myself?"

You have to consider whether the answer you are giving is including IC information or not, and this falls into that trap of veteran players considering one particular tidbit of knowledge so commonplace that they sometimes forget not everyone knows it, or assumes that it's in the documentation somewhere.  It's better to err on the side of caution and respond ICly or encourage them to wish up if you aren't confident the answer is completely OOC like a piece of documented syntax.

If you feel that it's a simple matter of logic to come to a certain conclusion, then give the other players the benefit of the doubt that they're able to reach that same conclusion without you using the OOC command to "help".

-LoD

[Marauder Moe]

I think that's an ok time to use the OOC command, just it should have been used a lot earlier in that scene.

If the sergeant was using the fact that cures don't work that way to kill his subordinate, well, that sounds like a code inconsistency abuse to me.

[Synthesis]

Ordering someone to take a cure before poisoning them constitutes pretty blatant metagaming, IMO.

Realistically, when you take the cure wouldn't really matter (within a certain time frame), because your body would still be processing the antidote when poisoned.  In fact, taking an antidote beforehand would probably be a better idea than taking it after the poison was already doing its thing.

However, the code doesn't reflect that level of realism.  Most of us know that.  Sure, some people don't, but it's a -code- issue.

It's roughly equivalent to saying, "Haha, this guy is following me, but I have a maxed climb skill...if I jump of this cliff, he'll follow me right over, but I'll grab onto the ledge by default, and kill him at the bottom!"  That's fucking bullshit, and so is trying to get a guy to waste his only cure by taking it beforehand.

[staggerlee]

I don't think you're looking at it from the right angle. To some extent the code ends up reflecting the reality of the game world. Sometimes, such as in the case of coded hp loss, yes it makes sense to continue rping wounds after hp go away.  But in other cases, assuming that the game world works the way you conceptualize it, despite the code, doesn't work so well.

Maybe the cure acts by flushing the poison from your blood stream, and will pass ineffectually if you take it early?  Or insert your own colorful reason for the cure's mechanism here. 

If told IC to take a poison cure before getting poisoned, my response would be an ic protest of "Wait a minute, I've never seen anyone take a cure before getting poisoned, are you sure that works?"

Likewise the cliff example doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. If you know ic that you've got a good chance of being able to stop your fall, then leading a clumsy opponent off a cliff seems perfectly reasonable.  It's not like your character doesn't remember all the times they've caught them self half way down a cliff. although they may balk at the risk.

I suppose the point is try to stay ic, and try to give events the benefit of the doubt.  Don't assume that things are ooc.
If you're genuinely trying to help someone with some code syntax, it's not an issue. But the cases listed above definitely seem ic to me.

[LoD]

Ordering someone to take a cure before poisoning them constitutes pretty blatant metagaming, IMO.

Realistically, when you take the cure wouldn't really matter (within a certain time frame), because your body would still be processing the antidote when poisoned.  In fact, taking an antidote beforehand would probably be a better idea than taking it after the poison was already doing its thing.

However, the code doesn't reflect that level of realism.  Most of us know that.  Sure, some people don't, but it's a -code- issue.

It's a dangerous assumption to claim it's a code issue unless the Imms have specifically mentioned it as such.  Perhaps I missed that somewhere, but I've never assumed anything about that particular system other than what the code allows and disallows.  And I would encourage others to do the same.  We shouldn't be deciding what IC information is OK to disseminate OOCly based on what coded features we assume are buggy, weak, or lacking.

And a character trying to potentially fool some other character is completely different from someone attempting to walk off a cliff when they know they have the climb skill and the person following them does not, purposefully using the follow command and speed walking to achieve their purpose.  One involves IC attempts at manipulation, persuasion, and RP -- the other one involves only spamming commands and coded skill results.

As for the "walking off cliffs" thing -- I would like to see a flag such as no_jump that will stop a character from following another into any room that has a visible and apparent drop (i.e. cliffs, pit, tower).  It wouldn't, however, protect them against falling rooms marked with some kind of hidden danger or trap.

-LoD

[Gimfalisette]

I think brytta's point was that there are times when there's a code issue that's -entirely- OOC and it should be explained via the OOC command.

Possibly better examples:

Your boss tells you to bring Amos' body in from the sparring yard, where he was just murdered for betraying the clan, and lay it out on the floor in the barracks so the boss can strip the good stuff off of the body before burying it somewhere. You get the body, go to the barracks...and the room is codedly "full" so you can't drop anything. Your boss begins to get ICly pissed at you because of something that's a totally OOC code issue, and won't listen (i.e., doesn't OOCly clue in) to your suggestion that maybe Amos should just be tossed on the street. You need to OOC so things can be worked out.

Or, you have a wagon and you want to take some people somewhere on it. Only certain rooms in the wagon are quit rooms, however. Not everyone you're taking with you has access to those quit rooms because they're not in the clan, and some of those people won't be available right at the start time of the trip due to RL constrictions, so they would need to quit out ahead of time and log back in while the wagon is under way. You go to speak to Mister Important, who's one of the people you're supposed to be taking along, and when you try telling him "Well I'll need you on the wagon a week ahead of time, just...in case," he becomes very irritated that you'd think he has the kind of time necessary to cool his heels on a wagon and wait for YOU, boyo. If you OOC at this point and let the player know there is actually a coded issue, undoubtedly something could be worked out before the situation descends into -unnecessary- conflict.

[Morrolan]

I use my judgement and common sense, however arbitrary that may sound.

QFT

I find that leadership roles are one of the places that OOC tends to be necessary.  And in responding to leadership roles.

Example (In the middle of unplanned RP with LORD HIGH Muckitymuck and his band of merry cutthroats, who are not at the moment trying to kill you):
OOC Sorry, need to log.  RL intrudes.

I find this much less jarring than the character simply leaving for a quit-room or quitting out on the spot.  IMO this is a reasonable use of OOC.

Morrolan

[brytta.leofa]

I think brytta's point was that there are times when there's a code issue that's -entirely- OOC and it should be explained via the OOC command.  . . .  If you OOC at this point and let the player know there is actually a coded issue, undoubtedly something could be worked out before the situation descends into -unnecessary- conflict.

Absolutely.  Sorry, my example was poor.

[slipshod]

It bothers me when people use "ooc tags" instead of the ooc channel.  For example, I'm RPing in a room with a few people and one of them:

... whispers to you:  (ooc- I need to go log out)

Or someone nearby contacts you and:
... sends you the telepathic message: (ooc- I need to log out soon)

The only exception to this is if the PCs are far removed from one another, like opposite sides of the world, and there's no other way to get the message across.  If we're in the same room, please just use the OOC channel.  I know the thought is that they don't want to interrupt the scene or disrupt the other players who are around, but that is what the OOC channel is for.

[FuSoYa]

It bothers me when people use "ooc tags" instead of the ooc channel.  For example, I'm RPing in a room with a few people and one of them:

... whispers to you:  (ooc- I need to go log out)

Or someone nearby contacts you and:
... sends you the telepathic message: (ooc- I need to log out soon)

The only exception to this is if the PCs are far removed from one another, like opposite sides of the world, and there's no other way to get the message across.  If we're in the same room, please just use the OOC channel.  I know the thought is that they don't want to interrupt the scene or disrupt the other players who are around, but that is what the OOC channel is for.

Dude if I'm in a room with like 30-40 PCs I'm going to whisper or tell the OOC rather then just blurt out a message aimed at possible only one person.

Brandon