FYI on Q:6ers

[Magus]

Begin Part II.

In this section we examine several ideas; however, it must be clear in the mind of the reader that I am not a moderator and, not being privileged to all discussions while examining some specific cases, I have had to extrapolate on the information that was available or anecdotal.

Unilateral decisions. It is generally accepted that, within the boundaries established by the FAQ, and as interpreted by the moderators, each player has a high but not absolute level of control over their character.

Let's look at why that's characterized as "generally accepted" rather than simply "accepted". Firstly, there is ambiguity at some levels in what the FAQ states or implies hence the reason for moderators. I know of one case where the idea of not being able to affect a character without their permission was applied to a large city. Is this absurd? On the face of it perhaps so, I would like to think that at the very least someone was willing to ask that question, but my understanding of the situation is that it was eventually resolved to not expressly forbid the idea in the current incarnation of NPrime. Please keep in mind that there have been several incarnations of Nprime and will likely be others by the way.

Now the question is why it was not forbidden outright. Again I draw your attention to the fact that I was not privileged to know all that transpired but my understanding is that in the particular case in question it was argued that the fundamental concept of the character tied him to that location as firmly as Bruce Wayne is tied to Gotham City. Further, the role play had always been supportive of this concept to the point where the character left the city only once that I am aware of and in that instance I actually believe the "vacation" was an aberration on the part of the player rather than a good in-character role playing choice. Essentially the player was enamored of the idea of interacting with other players and didn't consider the matter from an IC view but this is a digression.

However, tying a character that closely to a city or major organization had never happened before, the FAQ had never been interpreted in that manner, and the moderators were required to make a decision that is very important to our discussion. It was necessary to determine whether this was a valid and objectively reasonable application of a rule. Ultimately it was decided that the purpose of the FAQ rule was intended to safeguard the players’ reasonable perception of the character they had created and that the role play had consistently supported that self image. Things beyond the personal space of the character could be construed to be protected under the FAQ rule varying from Totem's tribe, Tarot’s collection of El Gato Negro comic books, whatever craft Endeavor is currently calling the HM or Codex's personal grimoire.

Was it determined that the city was untouchable? Not absolutely so by my understanding but that’s not important in the larger scheme of the site, the underlying concepts of how it works and our discussion. What is important was the interpretation of the FAQ rule to be intended to safeguard the players’ perception of their characters. Is this freedom of image absolute? No, it is not. Unfortunately for some, designating statistics on a computer or tangible paper somewhere does not significantly alter the role play interaction. The perception of the character is accepted only until interaction begins and at that point opinions and views are modified by the quality and character of the interaction. There were usually many options if it were desired to pursue the concept but in each case the role play had to reflect the qualities desired by the player, or the opinions created by interaction would displace the intentions of the player in creating the character. In other words, the public perception of the character is NOT covered by the FAQ ruling preserving the image of the character.

An older example that was brought to forum consciousness often when I was an active poster was that of heightened intellect. If it was chosen to role play a character with mega-intelligence the player had to so convincingly enough to enable the suspension of disbelief or suffer from a public perception that was not in line with the intention of the character concept. Prodigy for instance cunningly took the path of disinterest in the affairs of his intellectual lesser thereby minimizing interaction that would lead to questioning his intelligence. Ashnod often put significant effort into her posts thereby lending a flavor of authenticity. Cody chose to accept that his intelligence was a subconscious matter and rather than cognitive function reflected aspects of memory and creativity. Endeavor took the path conveying genius in matter of technology that rarely transferred to social interactions. Atwight often spoke of “dorming” to interact with the population of the forums, which while a similar to Prodigy’s approach was significantly different enough in execution to be more than a mere variation.

Now extrapolate from that as has been done so long ago in the forum’s consciousness that most of the player from that time do not remember it being a conscious decision while newer players simply accept what is not realizing it’s a decision. If your character is intended to be perceived as a humanitarian then if is incumbent on the player to role the character as a humanitarian, not assume that they will be treated as such simply because it is the intention of the player that it be so. Whether the forums are “game” as you desire, or “cooperative fiction” as Ashnod prefers, perception is still a function of role playing. If a character misses opportunities to ask and interact on things ranging from family troubles to outright cries for help then who is to blame for the character being perceived as cold or detached?

Author’s opinion; Failure to have the character perceived accordingly to the player’s desire is most often rooted in a failure to role play the character and dialogue with other players. Prime is the stage, the other players are equally the audience and their characters are the other actors but we'll discuss that further in part III.

Extend the example further, a character while intended to be perceived as a humanitarian and concerned for the fellow man is in fact portrayed as unconcerned by humanitarian issues at least on a personal level. Now other characters interacting with the character in question offer comments ranging from; “You just don’t seem to care” to “You like it when other people make mistakes” and it’s perceived by the player as a personal attack. While unfortunate this isn’t entirely unexpected either. If the player involved couldn’t realistically assess their role play or take hints from the other players then for them it is an attack if only because they’re unable to perceive an objective view of their own roleplay and accept comment on the same.

Tarot is an interesting study in all of the preceding. Again, I will restate that I can empathize with a desire not to interact with an aggravating or problematic poster but there is a reason I pointedly bring this character up as an example in our discussion and it’s not necessarily a pleasant for some to examine. Especially in light of the fact that two players who state they found him to be acutely annoying did not address the issue to the player of Tarot but rather allowed IC interactiosn to become out of character interactions. Characters were allowed to decide how human beings would interact.

As we’ve touched on, a player’s control of their character is not absolute in the forums. They are restrained by the FAQ, by the moderators’ interpretation of the FAQ and by the results of interaction with other characters and players. However, the primary complaints I have seen are from posters over the last 5 years is that they are upset with the manner their characters are perceived. I understand this thread began with a discussion of Q6 rulings and who is allowed to play what characters but it is no different from previous discussions in that, despite what the topic is, the posters are talking about something very different. How their character are perceived versus how they should be perceived with both reflecting on the player of the character. This is part of the dynamic being referenced when it was stated that trust is not an inherent characteristic. What happened between James and Tarot’s player has happened before with other players and will happen again. Not because of towering egos but rather for the simple reason no one wants to come to this place and be told how they should play their character by people they do not know well enough to trust and that share their vision of the characters.

Is there a question of maturity involved? To some degree and in some cases that is probably correct but more often it seems to be a simple question of trust. Using the recent example of fictions that were written for Endeavor, this new system would appear to allow Prodigy’s player (Craig) to make a unilateral decision that the situation he described in his Endeavor fiction is canon. And at this point, Thomas (Endeavor’s player) is suppose to be happy that he’s injected the world of the sphinxes with all underlying assumptions into Endeavor’s personal existence and putting the character in the hospital?

Personally I can see the ‘unrealized drama’ you were speaking of in this case but do you honestly believe Thomas is going to put his heart and soul into telling this “dramatic story” solely for my pleasure when in many ways it completely subtracts all the pleasure he derives from running Endeavor in the forums? This is not a case of Endeavor failing to meet the requirements of suspending disbelief; it is simply a case of that not being how he wants to run Endeavor. As he rarely forces his beliefs on the forums beyond stating opinions that are easy to identify as opinions instead of facts, the character of Endeavor while being one of the less realistic is still capable of interacting realistically with the forums and adding something without being forced to accept a brutal assault as factual simply because I might think it’s a story of ‘unrealized drama’.

/End Part II