Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
What, exactly, would I be doing?
General rules for All IOT Games
- Thread starter CivOasis
- Start date
As I see it now, you would be my source for information about IOT things I do not understand. for instance, I might need you to tell me if an in game exchange is just IC or if it is out of place OOC that looks like IC. In addition if you were to see an exchange that is getting out of hand or is in some way inappropriate, you could let me know so it can be resolved before it gets painful. And if there are community concerns the come up, you can let me know so they can be discussed. Mostly, I see you as a resource for me about IOT. I cannot imagine it will take much of your time.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Oh, so I'm basically your interpreter?
I think I can do that.
I think I can do that.
Thank you very much. I'll try not to over work you.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
It's simple, if you are referring to another player as a player then it's OCC. If you are reffering to their country it's IC.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Herp Derp
mayor
Heart & Mind
NC, wrong thread?
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Yes. Quite defeinately.
Since when did we start distinguishing between players and countries?
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Always. I've always held that criteria.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Yeppers.
If it's not RP, then I can't really think of a situation that's IC.
That being said, it can sometimes be hard to tell what is RP, if players are holding a conversation.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
RP doesn't have to be blobs of text. If you are good, you can role play Laconicly. RP can also be short "blogs" or "tweets" about your country.
The difference between IC and RP. IC simply means you are talking, through your nation/character, concerning the world of the game. RP simply means you are playing and expanding the role of your nation/character.
Further example. Saying "Sparta Declares War" is an IC action. Saying "Our king kicks your messenger down a well for insulting the great city of Sparta. WAR!" is RP, because it expands on the nation.
IC conversations can be RP or not, depending on how it is done. If you simply follow precedents of your nation, it is IC. If you expand, expound and develop your nation's voice, it is RP.
Needless to say, unlike the OOC/IC divide the IC/RP divide is heavily subjective. The OOC/IC divide is objective because it is very clear: Refer to players, GM, metagame, ect it is OOC. Refer to Nations, fate, policies, decisions it is IC.
The difference between IC and RP. IC simply means you are talking, through your nation/character, concerning the world of the game. RP simply means you are playing and expanding the role of your nation/character.
Further example. Saying "Sparta Declares War" is an IC action. Saying "Our king kicks your messenger down a well for insulting the great city of Sparta. WAR!" is RP, because it expands on the nation.
IC conversations can be RP or not, depending on how it is done. If you simply follow precedents of your nation, it is IC. If you expand, expound and develop your nation's voice, it is RP.
Needless to say, unlike the OOC/IC divide the IC/RP divide is heavily subjective. The OOC/IC divide is objective because it is very clear: Refer to players, GM, metagame, ect it is OOC. Refer to Nations, fate, policies, decisions it is IC.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
I have come to a realisation.
Should we set RP to only be based in forum conditions such as threads, social groups and PMs, as oppose to outside areas like a chatango or wiki? Just consideration to ensure no attempts of monopory and power abuse on the GM's part.
Should we set RP to only be based in forum conditions such as threads, social groups and PMs, as oppose to outside areas like a chatango or wiki? Just consideration to ensure no attempts of monopory and power abuse on the GM's part.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
That should be up to the GM to decide.
Every rule we impose on the games squeezes more and more life out of it. This is supposed to be a forum game, not a bureaucratic nightmare.
Every rule we impose on the games squeezes more and more life out of it. This is supposed to be a forum game, not a bureaucratic nightmare.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
Bureaucracy is what limits power of political figures. That is a good thing as power abuse is damaging. I suggest we set the General Will on the matter. A forum game should be set in the same itself, not by advertised labour.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
For God's sake. This is a set of forum games, not some undeveloped nation where a single person carries the fasces around. In this case, more bureaucracy is certainly bad. It's more of a headache for the GM, for the player, and for the moderators.
If a GM wants to reward people for adding to a wiki, how does that hurt?
May as well eliminate RP bonuses in general, then, given that they can be just as lopsided. Just as a player can take time to write themselves a series of essays for RP, they could also write an article.
The "General Will" has already been shown by the fact no one has EVER complained about wiki-related bonuses, anymore than they have RP bonuses. This issue is irrelevant.
If a GM wants to reward people for adding to a wiki, how does that hurt?
May as well eliminate RP bonuses in general, then, given that they can be just as lopsided. Just as a player can take time to write themselves a series of essays for RP, they could also write an article.
The "General Will" has already been shown by the fact no one has EVER complained about wiki-related bonuses, anymore than they have RP bonuses. This issue is irrelevant.
