|
Post by Narkili on Sept 9, 2009 15:47:31 GMT -5
Disagree with a rule? You have the power to change it! Oh arent you grand!? Fill out this form and if you offer a legit reason then I will probably change it!
Rejection Form:
1. Write out the rule you disagree with: 2. What number is it and what section is it in(forum rules, rp, etc): 3. What do you not like about this rule? 4. What rule should be put in its place?
Addition Form: You have a rule that we dont have and you think we should...
1. Category (Forum rules, den rules, rp, etc) 2. What is the rule? 3. Why should this rule be established? 4. Anything else you want to add?
|
|
|
Post by Morrow on Dec 19, 2009 0:27:26 GMT -5
1. Write out the rule you disagree with: No consent roleplay.
2. What number is it and what section is it in(forum rules, rp, etc): Roleplay Rules, Section 1
3. What do you not like about this rule? There could be a group of just two people doing an emotional roleplay, then a third wheel comes and adds in some humor. After the third wheel, roleplayers four and five come along and start to fight in the background, pushing their way as the stars of the roleplay. The two that were origianally having an in-depth conversation are now taking sides with the two fighters. It can potentially kill the mood for a roleplay that could've been planned out for weeks!
4. What rule should be put in its place?: Don't reject a roleplay without a good reason, it can't just be that you don't want to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Aiya on Dec 20, 2009 1:35:34 GMT -5
The first rule in the RP rules section talks about no private rps basically. It's meant to help encourage roleplay within the dream. There are some groups (both past and present) that would ban all outsiders if they could and this does nothing to help the plot within the dream. The open rp rule helps newcomers to be able to join in and find their place within the dream. Now, I hear what you're saying about certain 'interruptions'. However the situation you posted seems sort of unrealistic...the ones to interrupt like that sound like noobs and they aren't tolerated within the dream. When we say that anyone can join in an rp, it has to be realistic of course. If two players are engaged in an emotional roleplay in the open areas, it's likely that anyone can stumble upon you two and engaged in conversation or something. That's realistic. If the players are in their pack's den or something, it's unlikely that a stranger will walk into the den and start to joke around. That's not realistic. The only reason someone would come into the den would be to (1) join the pack or (2) take over the den. Now, Narkili is the one who has the power to overturn the rule...however I see no reason for changing it. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Nythaerus on Dec 23, 2009 12:52:21 GMT -5
I just wanted to add my 2 cents to this since this is still a recent post.
There are a lot of problems when it comes to 'out of group' role play but one that I've noticed a lot of is a lack of desire to do so. We all love to role play with our friends; we make packs, get mates, and do whatever it is we do. Out of group role play, unless done with friends also which sort of defeats the point, is like forming alliances; you don't know these people on an ooc friend basis, and yet you role play with them. I do understand the concern of having a private role play interrupted and personally, I see two courses of action for this.
a) if you are somewhere private, such as a den, and depending on the rp, you can politely and in whisper, inform the newcomer that you're in the middle of a private role play, and ask them to pop back in a little later and you'd be happy to role play with them;
b) be more selective about where you role play. if you really don't want to be interrupted, then do your best to pick a spot where there isn't a lot of traffic. i've done this a few times and it's worked out fine for me.
I do agree with the no consent role play rule because it discourages people from rejecting all sorts of role play, which is not good for players or the dream. What fun would it be for me to approach 10 people for role play and they all say no, for whatever reason? Like Aiya said, role play is being encouraged. I also agree with her 100% about realistic interruptions; if you're in a den claimed by you or the person you're with, and some saber walks in talking about being tired and wanting to nap ... well I mean come on, really?
Also, and I hope this helps, I think too many people look at role play as a pleasant or nothing experience. Personally, I love all types of role play because I am storyline role player. Just recently my character engaged someone and he ended up dominating her and putting her in her place. Now, that isn't a lovey-dovey oh you're so smexy we're gonna be mates let's go pick a den now hunny role play, but it was realistic and intelligent, mature role play, and already I'm going through with developing a long-term role play with this person and we're both having fun. That's the point of role play. So if your character gets into a fight with someone and gets injured, so what? You have a great experience playing that out and you can use it for your future role play experience. Role play is not a WONDERFUL or GTFO kind of thing. It's all great. I hope people can remember that. ^-^
End of my 2 cents ... or 10 ... since that was a bit. lol.
Hope I helped some, too!
|
|
|
Post by Antidox on Dec 24, 2009 3:36:42 GMT -5
1. Category (Forum rules, den rules, rp, etc) Rp, I suppose.
2. What is the rule? No 'non-realistic' living through heavy damage in fights.
3. Why should this rule be established? Think about it. I offer yew a scenario -- Two clans are fighting over territory. Clan 1 are good rpers, and know the 3 dodge rule, take normal hits, die on occasion. Clan 2 are good rpers too, but they exploit the consent required rule, sustaining heavy damage and living through the battle.
It is unfair and it happens here!
I think it is ridiculous for someone to break their hip IC, as a canine, or any other 4 legged animal and expect to live. l: ... SILLY YAS?
4. Anything else you want to add? I can understand running from fights mid-battle as long as it's posted out and such. But exploiting a rule is just rude and can make dream goers angry. ): which leads to lame rp and vicious cycles.
|
|
|
Post by Narkili on Dec 24, 2009 10:58:44 GMT -5
In reply to Antidox's post, how about I change the consent rule so that during battles it is autodeath consent but at other times it is not?
|
|
|
Post by Aphorism on Dec 24, 2009 12:44:43 GMT -5
First rule, I agree people should allow to join Roleplays it's what keep people going and informed. Plus there's no other way unless you plan to wait, then ask them and then be declined when then they could have been doing something more productive then sitting around and waiting.
Second Rule, I've been in several occasions where my opponent takes hard damage and still expects to be able to function regularly. In honesty it depends on the injury but I do see where your coming from in situations it becomes unfair to fight someone who doesn't know when to quit or when their character is near death. I agree with Narkili's decision if the player is unable to defend itself due to broken limbs or some sort of paralysis then regularly they wouldn't be able to defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Nythaerus on Dec 24, 2009 13:35:55 GMT -5
I think if you make battles automatic death consent then it may stifle role play due to the fact that not everyone wants their character to die, and unfortunately, people won't have the luxury of making that choice. Basically, it's unfair to players who don't have as much role play experience as others to be forced death just because they engage in a battle. If say, for example, Wolf Sally came up and stole food from Ny, Ny would certainly fight over it, and the choice of whether or not to kill her would be my choice since by engaging in that IC fight her choice of death consent is no longer valid. If I were some jerk, I'd kill her just because I could, which I know a lot of people may use as an excuse to thrill kill.
Death has always been a consensual thing to protect the less advanced role players of having their characters killed off constantly.
I do think something should be established, though, that says at what point a character must die - some level of damage. I do think it would be unfair to have a mandatory death consent on everyone, though, for battling.
|
|
|
Post by Aiya on Dec 24, 2009 14:01:50 GMT -5
I agree with Nyth. If you make it auto death during fights...there will be no fights in AWW! LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Nythaerus on Dec 26, 2009 16:20:41 GMT -5
13. Magic. I think there needs to be some /serious/ construction with this rule because some of the applications I have seen were outrageous with magic use. Earth control, element manipulation ... so many people are under the impression that magic equates a huge role play advantage and that isn't the case at all. Yeah, it can create interesting role play between you and your friend, but do you really think everyone is going to want to role play with you if you can manipulate the earth, breathe fire, freeze them with your claws, and shoot lightning out of your eye balls? Oh and let's not forget the 500 spikes you have all over your body. Pffbt.
16. Death consent. I agree with the death consent rule but I think there needs to be some establishment as to what can occur during a role play if death is not consensual. If I get into it with someone who tells me during our fight that they do not consent to death, well now that really limits what I can do to them from now on. It will also create a problem if this person hides behind their lack of consent and just keeps the fight going even after, in this example, I've won, because they know I can't kill them. I do have a proposal for this situation that's been used before.
Death consent is only applicable when the person expresses beforehand, oocly, that they do not consent to death. If someone begins a fight without FIRST stating "I do not consent to death" then death is automatically consented upon. This puts the responsibility on the role players and not so much the rules. This also keys in both to know that if death is not consented upon that certain things can not be done and makes it easier for staff to weed out the problem of "they didn't consent to death but they won't submit/escape/whatever." I think what may end up happening is so and so doesn't consent to death during the fight, but also won't back down. If consent is given PRIOR to fighting, then that's also consenting BEFOREHAND to either submission or escape of the losing party. It establishes what is what before the IC drama begins.
Did that make any sense at all? xD
|
|
|
Post by Aphorism on Dec 26, 2009 17:52:00 GMT -5
1.) Write out the rule you disagree with: Your pack can only consist of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omega, and I will let shaman/healer slide.
2.) What number is it and what section is it in(forum rules, rp, etc): Den/Pack Rules. Number 7.
3.) What do you not like about this rule?: I can understand like the basic looks on a pack but I've also noticed not many packs here take heed to this rule. I think it's kinda a killing of imagination and creativity. Some ranks may be the same, but of course there are add on like Head something or another and such.
4.) What rule should be put in its place?: Nothing, just take away this rule in general.
|
|
|
Post by Nythaerus on Dec 28, 2009 1:17:18 GMT -5
This isn't a rule rejection, per se.
I think the first rule of RP Rules needs to be a tweaked a little to specify what initiation to RP is. A lot of people consider it to be making an IC post but at the same time many people choose to inform someone OOCly that they're going to post.
I think it needs to be clarified that if someone makes it a point to initiate RP with you ICly or intending to do OOCly, as well, that the person should stick around and RP.
|
|
Dustun
Daring Hunter
Posts: 42
|
Post by Dustun on Dec 29, 2009 20:01:39 GMT -5
Addition Form: You have a rule that we dont have and you think we should...
1. Category (Forum rules, den rules, rp, etc) den/pack rules
2. What is the rule? No more then 3 alts
3. Why should this rule be established? Well because people are making 500 alts and using them to make secret back up attacks all at once.Theres prolly other reasons I could add later
4. Anything else you want to add? only 1 of those 3 alts should have there own pack, so Billy Fartzalot could be the Pooplog pack's creater and Perry Snowrash could be a omega in the pack Angry CowMonkeys and Gopher Pee could be beta in the clan Laugh-Alot-Diarrhea
|
|
|
Post by Narkili on Dec 30, 2009 13:37:48 GMT -5
On the den application it says that (in the spot to list pack memebers) that alts are not allowed. But they are allowed as the pack increases in size, sometimes you cant actually tell if people have alts or not
|
|
|
Post by Catbucky99 on Jan 26, 2010 13:24:40 GMT -5
1. Write out the rule you disagree with: Death consent rule 2. What number is it and what section is it in(forum rules, rp, etc): It's rule number sixteen, in the RP rules. 3. What do you not like about this rule? Do you honestly beleive that real wolves can say, "Okay, I'm going to fight you, but don't kill me because I don't want to die yet. But we will fight." It's kinda stupid really. No wolf is immortol. 4. What rule should be put in its place? No consent-This is a realistic role-play, real wolves can't ask another wolf to fight, but then ask them not to injer/kill them. (Sorry, I suck at spelling)
|
|