Roleplaying

Contains all the suggestions that are posted in the game. Can't make new suggestions here, use the Suggestion Box forum for that!
Forum rules
- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.
Post Reply
Postmaster
Wizard
Posts: 972
Joined: 03 Mar 2010 22:37

Roleplaying

Post by Postmaster » 08 Jul 2008 22:25

Originally posted by Armitace

Greetings to everyone, from Armitace's player.

I would like to ramble on a bit about role-playing, and how it
relates to the issues discussed here, and how I think it should be
placed within context.

What is 'role-playing'? Well, it is taking upon ourselves a 'role'
or 'position' which we are not normally living within, and attempting
to act in the manner which we think might best suit the 'role' or the
'position' in our minds.

Of course, like anything else in this world, there are people who
consider themselves to be 'better' or 'worse' at this. And following
one of our more unfortunate aspects of human nature, for many of
those who consider themselves to be 'better' than someone else, we
then jump right into criticism.


For the record, I think that everyone (including myself) has done
this somewhere, somehow, with respect to something.

This discussion about allowing members to have free entry into
guilds is a wonderful thread, but it keeps dwelling more and more
onto the 'role-playing' aspect. And while I agree that a major
concern of making certain guilds 'free to join' is role-playing
related, I sometimes worry about the extremes that some people
might go to in that.

Several years ago, the Rangers had (in my opinion) a serious
problem with 'extreme role-playing demands'. The notion of
creating a guild filled with only the best role-players might
seem interesting, but it eventually leads towards a focus on
only accepting people who role-play the way the guild leaders
do. Which means that people are forced to learn to role-play
in a certain manner or to find a home elsewhere. But, if
every guild did that, we would close off the world to a new
playing population.

I think that a minimum standard or role-playing is required, but
not because there is something holy about role-playing. But because
Genesis is set up to be dependant on guilds serving a specific
purpose. There is a guild which represents the Knights of
Solamnia, from the Dragonlance worlds which have their own
history. And there is a guild representing their mortal enemies,
the Dragonarmies. According to the books in the Dragonlance world,
the Knights are an old order of lost honour and glory, desperately
hanging on to try and protect smaller and smaller pieces of land
ever since Istar sank into the ocean. The Dragonarmies are a new
force, large in numbers, who seek to conquer all the lands of
Ansalon, to which the Knights, trying to reclaim their lost honour
and glory, are dedicating themselves to struggle against. Then
you have the various other players, with guilds represented in the
Neidar dwarves and Elven archers out of Qualensti. They are more
'neutral', in that they have their own concerns and would typically
like to pretend these conflicts dont exist, or if they have to exist,
that they should just leave them alone in their own little corner of
the world.

Now, does this mean that each of these guilds should require every
player who wants to join them to go into the extreme depth and detail
of the stereotypes described in the various books published by many
different authors? I dont think so. But, I do think that a small
concession should be made to honour where these guilds came from.

Why? because the world of Genesis is trying to bring the world of
Dragonlance, or Middle-Earth, or wherever, to life. It is a part of
what entices people to play here, and it is one of the things which
makes us unique.

But should it mean that we should obsess over role-playing? Absolutely
not, because if we did, the Knights would not be going to any other
domains, they would be desperately fighting the dragonarmies moving
out of Neraka to conquer their world. They would have no times for
quests, or meeting people from some place named 'Calia' which does
not even exist for them.

If guilds want to enforce hardcore role-playing, then the whole MUD
should be the world of Krynn, or Middle-Earth or wherever. But, its not.
So, we make concessions. We just take the concept of the donut, and
twist it to suit our individual needs.

So, where does the balance end up at? Well. Hopefully, it will
find ways to keep the guilds representing important parts of
someone else's imagination (krynn, middle-earth etc...) on a basic
level, true to the nature intended by the original creators.

This means, Nazgul should be heartless wraiths with little
interest in helping anyone, unless it means helping to entice
them into corruption. But, not absolutely every moment of every
day. Just in a general sense, enough to build and maintain
their well-deserved reputation. That is what I think is the
acceptable 'minimum' level of role-playing required.

Why? because everyone will have their own idea of what a knight,
a dragonarmy soldier, a nazgul or a ranger is. And while they
might have to throw a nod towards the original creation, they
also need the freedom to 'role-play'. Which means lending THEIR
interpretation of what that character means.

The reason we have this debate at all, is because guilds can be
too hard to join. Which might be true in some cases. But, while
we might want to 'preserve the role-playing ideals', it is very
important to remember that people role-play in their own way as
well. Even if it doesnt always measure up to your personal standard,
that does not absolutely make it invalid. And I think that is
the crucial point a lot of this discussion hangs on.

I would much rather say 'okay, some guilds need to ensure a minimum
of role-play to keep the world and its domains in proper perspective.
and some dont. So, lets see how we can convince the guild leaders of
the guilds which need to ensure that minimum, not to go overboard on
demanding the extreme'

Easier said than done. But, thats how I see things here. We want to
give hope to all players, new and old alike. But, the guilds should
be more about the people within them, than some obscure ideal of what
role-playing a Ranger should be and refusing anyone who cannot meet
up to that standard. I would rather judge the individual than the
ability to role-play, and I think that in the end, most people who
are trying to get into guilds would appreciate the same notion.

That being said, I can also see why some guilds might want to
prevent certain individuals from joining them. I just think it should
be based on the individual, and not the role-play beyond that minimum
level.

Armitace's player

Post Reply
http://tworzymyatmosfere.pl/przescieradla-jedwabne-z-gumka/