I've noticed a trend . . .

[Kryos]

Of players criticizing or some times condemning certain styles of player they see or purportedly observe through posts made here in the GDB.  For instance, in the thread talking about the analyze skill, some mock others for caring about the skill's level on their list.  But, that's the most current of many observations.

This trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI.  That is, our world, reality, is filled with diverse personalities and driving purposes in people.  So, why is it bad to have this represented in the player base for Armageddon?

I suspect that styles which do not match are antagonizing to their roughly opposing player types, and that's the source of the 'sniping' observed (it goes many ways:  tavern sitters are bad, skill interested players are bad, players just out to cause others trouble are bad, etc).

So, how close am I?  Do certain styles of player annoy you? Do you think they are more 'right' or 'wrong' in the context of an RPI?  Or, do you think that perhaps it is the melting pot that's necessary to bring the world to life?

For me its:  Yes, some styles annoy me.   No: I've come to recognize/believe that they have value in the model and application of a game, especially RPI's.  Though it took a lot of first hand experience as a player and staff member on games, research, and discussion to come to see just how much so.

[MeTekillot]

Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.

[Kryos]

Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.

Devil's in the details.  I tried to keep what encompasses a style of play rather abstract, as both a vote of confidence to anyone who wanted to reply understading there are probably variances in them, and to avoid a rabbit hole, if you're familiar with the term.  

Codifying the details of style is something PHD's are made of, literally, and worthy of its own topic.  I'm making the assumption varying styles exist, though, based on the fact a wide number of people with said credentialing believe they do, and my own observations over time.  Going to stand on the shoulders of giants here, and leave it at that, if its reasonable to do so.

The detail that matters, though, is we are talking about player styles, not character styles.  How the people behind the PC behave/are motivated.

[MeTekillot]

I guess I don't like people who don't focus on their spelling, punctuation, have a lack of emotes, and use a lot of the canned socials?

Hyper-successful indies with no connections too.

[Narf]

Like, what are the different styles even? Someone likes warriors? Someone likes merchants? Combat-centric or social-centric or isolated or what? I need what we're talking about to be specified.

Devil's in the details.  I tried to keep what encompasses a style of play rather abstract, as both a vote of confidence to anyone who wanted to reply understading there are probably variances in them, and to avoid a rabbit hole, if you're familiar with the term.  

I don't think specifying "types" of players for this would be constructive anyways. The designations for player types exists in the criticizer's mind and uses their value set and perceptive model, not some external objective one. If you want a genuine and accurate description of what categories annoy people, letting them define those categories themselves will give you better raw data.

[MeTekillot]

when people play bad i get sad

[Kryos]

I don't think specifying "types" of players for this would be constructive anyways. The designations for player types exists in the criticizer's mind and uses their value set and perceptive model, not some external objective one. If you want a genuine and accurate description of what categories annoy people, letting them define those categories themselves will give you better raw data.

Not really usable data, just more a discussion that is of interest to me.  Perspectivism is another of those dangerous rabbit holes though, so I'll hop right the heck over that one.  Probably true though.

[Kryos]

when people play bad i get sad

Amusing as it may be, its pointing to a worthy note:  there are players who don't fit well into an RPI out there.  RPI is about immersion and character (development/death), and thus probably highly linked to immersion factor.  Things that break immersion might then be said to be detrimental to an RPI.  My take from that, anyway, in the context.

[slvrmoontiger]

Of players criticizing or some times condemning certain styles of player they see or purportedly observe through posts made here in the GDB.  For instance, in the thread talking about the analyze skill, some mock others for caring about the skill's level on their list.  But, that's the most current of many observations.

This trend relates back a bit to the post I made regarding the state of Armageddon, in that, there's a diverse number of player styles out there, most of which are fairly complicated but not inherently against the concept of an RPI.  That is, our world, reality, is filled with diverse personalities and driving purposes in people.  So, why is it bad to have this represented in the player base for Armageddon?

I suspect that styles which do not match are antagonizing to their roughly opposing player types, and that's the source of the 'sniping' observed (it goes many ways:  tavern sitters are bad, skill interested players are bad, players just out to cause others trouble are bad, etc).

So, how close am I?  Do certain styles of player annoy you? Do you think they are more 'right' or 'wrong' in the context of an RPI?  Or, do you think that perhaps it is the melting pot that's necessary to bring the world to life?

For me its:  Yes, some styles annoy me.   No: I've come to recognize/believe that they have value in the model and application of a game, especially RPI's.  Though it took a lot of first hand experience as a player and staff member on games, research, and discussion to come to see just how much so.

I'm sorry... I thought Armageddon frowned on people who focused on their skills more than their role playing. I must have been mistaken all these years. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I want to apologize for criticizing those that care about a novice skill that can't be improved upon on your skill list. It was wrong of me to do that. Armageddon should be open and friendly to all people even those who care more about skills than role playing.

[Cutthroat]

It is completely illogical to be against a valid style of play (valid being acceptable for an RPI: adherence to documentation and so on) because the focus of the game is on good roleplay, not good roleplay of a certain type. People target "styles" because it is against the rules to complain specifically about other PCs on the GDB, so they elect instead to passive-aggressively target all players who do X when really, they only have something against one player playing one character doing X.

That phenomenon encapsulates the entirety of the "Hate Cycle" in all its patheticness (patheticalness? whatever).

[Kryos]

I'm sorry... I thought Armageddon frowned on people who focused on their skills more than their role playing. I must have been mistaken all these years. Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I want to apologize for criticizing those that care about a novice skill that can't be improved upon on your skill list. It was wrong of me to do that. Armageddon should be open and friendly to all people even those who care more about skills than role playing.

Believe it or not, this isn't anything to do with your post in the thread referenced more than it was the latest thing I read regarding this type of behavior.  Part of a trend.  I happened to read that thread this morning and was chewing on it a bit for writing the thread.  My apologies if it was found to be an offensive use of an example.

However, its a common behavior, and that's why I spooled up the line of questioning for volunteers to participate in if they desired.

As for the meat of what your saying after that, to play devil's advocate, don't skills have a tremendous link to role playing, especially in Armageddon?  They literally define what your character is capable of in a coded sense.  If you never have the Track skill, for instance, you'll never be able to codedly follow someone through terrain to stalk them from a distance using the game's engine for that behavior.  So to play a character who is good at stalking and behaves as such, you need not only the skill but some measure of it.  

As a unskilled tracker, you get to play out the frustrations of your failures and lose your target, etc, passing over disturbed rocks or broken plant stems.  As a master you can shadow someone across the Known and play to the fact you pick up every minutia from the environment with your keen focus.  

More than, probably not.  Quite valuable, probably.  But that's my point of view and mentioned.

You're saying then, that those focused on skills do agitate you and aren't a useful contribution?

[Kryos]

It is completely illogical to be against a valid style of play (valid being acceptable for an RPI: adherence to documentation and so on) because the focus of the game is on good roleplay, not good roleplay of a certain type. People target "styles" because it is against the rules to complain specifically about other PCs on the GDB, so they elect instead to passive-aggressively target all players who do X when really, they only have something against one player playing one character doing X.

That phenomenon encapsulates the entirety of the "Hate Cycle" in all its patheticness (patheticalness? whatever).

We agree a lot on this topic from what I'm taking from this.  However, its more a notion of perhaps some people don't consider some styles/motivations to be valid or contributing, is what I'm digging at and thinking on.

[Lizzie]

I guess I don't like people who don't try to focus on their spelling, punctuation, have a lack of emotes, and use a lot of the canned socials?

Hyper-successful indies with no connections too.

bold, underlined italics added to express my opinion on the subject.

[Barzalene]

I never really think about other players in terms of rp v skill. I like people who's characters are fleshed out and interesting. Some of them do this with a real efficiency of style, nothing flashy or verbose. Some are poets. Some of them can't sit in a tavern for a moment. Some spend all their playtimes on the social game. But in the end, there's something alive and compelling about their characters. There's something there worth experiencing. I'm trying to evaluate this preference through the prism of gamer typology, but for me, and of course I'm not the arbiter of what is valid, it doesn't seem to apply.

[EldritchOrigins]

Someone has to be the RP police and nothing works better than sarcasm and passive aggressive comments on the GDB.  Maybe I should apply...

[Malken]

I can be a great rper and still enjoy twinking up my coded skills. If doing both didn't give me great joy I'd either be playing a MUSH or one of the top 10 Iron Realms muds out there.

[FantasyWriter]

I can be a great rper and still enjoy twinking up my coded skills. If doing both didn't give me great joy I'd either be playing a MUSH or one of the top 10 Iron Realms muds out there.

Kiss me?

I feel a lot of the stuff like this on the board is an attempt to say "I care more about the roleplay then you do."  There are so many different types of players and play-styles that suit this game so well. I learn something new all the time, how to interpret an aspect of the world, or how to make an emote do a certain thing I haven't thought of before. More diversity equates to a more enjoyable world to me.

[armacc]

I wish more people would use hemotes and phemotes and watch. I also wish people would use () []. The one thing I love about arm is the detailed targeting emotes. In the other RPI's you have to basically keep using the sdesc, so it looks very stiff and awkward. Here's what I use for those weird emote symbols. Also, I found that mudsexin actually helped me to learn them better, for whatever that's worth.


Symbol   Reference       Target Sees
------          ---------              -----------
~             (sdesc)                    you
!              him/her                 you
%            (sdesc)'s                  your
^             his/her                   your
#             he/she                    you
&             himself/herself   yourself
=             (sdesc)'s                 yours
+             his/hers                yours



Also...just because...

[Harmless]

I have been a vocal critic of gdb criticism for a long while. Passive aggression in gdb posts begets self doubt and shame as vaguely worded comments feel applicable to far more players than the poster intends inevitably. These feelings don't encourage change at all only promote disinterest. The game should feel safe to rp in without it feeling personal.

Make change ICly. If someones rp isn't up to your standards you have four options in order from most to least preferred and helpful.

1. Stay IC and try to RP an appropriate reaction and also demonstrate the qualities you like, knowing it may not seem like you accomplished anything but maybe it will sink in someday for them.
2. File a player complaint if the offense is so bad it can't be corrected by #1 (appropriate but should be a very rare scenario)
3. Break the scenr with ooc (only if it is a real minor issue that can be fixed easily. For example, "ooc Please try to use appropriate punctuation." or "ooc The only language used in this mud for now is English, please refer to help blah"
4. Lastly, post on gdb. If you're going to do this be thorough, specific, polite, AND offer suggestions. Should be last resort.

Posted w a phone.

[Fujikoma]

If my post seemed snarky and sarcastic in that thread, I was making fun of myself, honestly. Something about having skill levels of an equal number of letters is oddly satisfying, a condition I quite quickly wreck as I begin playing, alas.

[ShaLeah]

I wish more people would use hemotes and phemotes and watch. I also wish people would use () []. The one thing I love about arm is the detailed targeting emotes. In the other RPI's you have to basically keep using the sdesc, so it looks very stiff and awkward. Here's what I use for those weird emote symbols. Also, I found that mudsexin actually helped me to learn them better, for whatever that's worth.


Symbol   Reference       Target Sees
------          ---------              -----------
~             (sdesc)                    you
!              him/her                 you
%            (sdesc)'s                  your
^             his/her                   your
#             he/she                    you
&             himself/herself   yourself
=             (sdesc)'s                 yours
+             his/hers                yours



Also...just because...

Nothing, NOTHING more mood killing (read: the scene is broken now ooc'ly for me) than a beautifully written emote.... that ends in hers, she instead of yours/you.

Use the damn symbols.


That and the capitalization are really the only things that I feel critical of when it comes to players styles.

[QuillDipper]

I'm slightly guilty in the symbols regard. Not that I don't use them, I use them any time I should. But I constantly forget the ones that appear as 'yours' rather than 'your' to the target, and I feel so awful.

[Zoan]

I don't even refer to myself in emotes. I just type 'his flaccid penis' instead of '+zoan flaccid penis'.

[Fujikoma]

I've been working at using the special characters more frequently. Sometimes I need to stop and think, ok, how can I word this so it makes sense to all parties involved. I should likely practice using the characters for things like ^me or #me or something, but I've got a bad habit of just typing his, him, etc. for my PCs.

[Patuk]

Why exactly is typing his rather than ^me or whatever bad? Surely the only person to notice is the one doing the typing?