English


[DISCUSSION] The difference between RP and griefing

As a person who is coordinating sandbox RP based events in one faction...I can see how, like the "Bloody Protest" at the Prince's Wedding, events which are pro-one faction can ruffle feathers for the other faction. Because I intend to hold more of these sandbox RP events, I think a healthy discussion at the meta-level (meaning in general, without specifics...although specifics might be used to illustrate) might help us all understand where each other is coming from. As illustrated by previous threads, I highly doubt we at opposite ends of belief will convince each other, but at least here we can give it a try. A second purpose for this thread is to allow people to understand how, why, and when others will perceive them as greifing, and maybe even (for the positive) neglect to act due to this understanding.

To me, there is a huge difference between RP and griefing, but the difference is often entirely subjective and cannot be known to anyone but the person doing the action. Therefore it requires personal policing. But, there are clear definitions of RP for a community (the lore) and any RP pushed upon the community that is not in line, could indefensibly be viewed as griefing.

So, the difference between griefing and RP is in ones purpose. With any action one takes, there is justification...the RP, it is what my character would have done...the fun, it is what I as the player find fun...etc.

When one interacts in another's RP, possibly wrecking their intended story arc, without RP justification. That is obviously griefing.

When one interacts in another's RP, possibly wrecking their intended story arc, with RP justification. You have to ask...which would interloper have done without:

If they would have acted identically for fun, but without RP justification, then it is griefing.

If they would have acted identically for RP, but without the fun justication, then it is clearly RP (as long as the previous statement about the necessity of matching lore is met). The fact that they had fun acting as they did is irrelevant to the discussion. It is a game and hopefully always fun; in other words, this is an inclusive "or", one might have acted in a way both due to fun and RP...but as long as the RP condition is met (and the previous lore condition is met) it is RP.

So, to understand how this criterion might work in an extreme case. Imagine the Kami faction intends to send an expedition to explore PR (something I do intent to do in a lore seeking archeological way). Now imagine the Karavan, as long as their stance on exploring PR has not officially changed), send a group to stop them. The Kami have a whole story arc planned, but the Karavan show up an repeatedly kill them time after time. You must ask, is this griefing or is it RP? Both parties are acting within the grounds of the lore, so it becomes a question of whether the would act the same without fun and without RP. As long as they could say they would do as they did without the fun justification (which does not mean they did not have fun, that is irrelevant), we must conclude they were within their RP grounds to act as they did...and the fault lies with the Kami for not being prepared for their own story in a manner required by the world we play in.

Of course, this is all based upon the idea that all RP is equal. It could be argued that Event Team RP and player based RP are two completely separate entities and they should not interact...or at the least Event Team RP trumps player based RP. If you make this argument, then we are playing two different games and we just have to agree to disagree...but, by all means give your argument, maybe you will convince some.

Well, this ended up longer than I intended it, but the purpose remains the same...I would like to start a constructive dialog.
Show topic
Last visit Saturday, 23 November 14:33:04 UTC
P_:G_:PLAYER

powered by ryzom-api