I've wanted to discuss this on TMS for a while, and I guess I will start the topic now.

role-play (rlpl)
v. role-·played, role-·play·ing, role-·plays
v. tr.

To assume or represent in a drama; act out: “Participants are encouraged to pass on leads about jobs... and to role-play interview situations with each other” (Hatfield MA Valley Advocate).

v. intr.
To assume or act out a particular role:

Now, we can all agree that roleplaying is a lot like improvisation, and acting. So you have actors like Mel Gibson, Russel Crowe, Brad Pitt, Jack Nicholson, etc. Whom we all know to be wonderful actors. So of course they would be wonderful roleplayers. My main arguement is this though: Do you think it matters how any of those actors act off the set? Since that is completely out of character. Would the director care how they act? After all if they are doing their job and playing out the role the way he wants, what would the problem be? What does her OOC personality have to do with the way she plays her characters. I bring this up because at some roleplaying muds, the adminstration will not let you play certain roles unless you prove yourself to them that you can be trusted. Isn't the fact that you can roleplay enough? With the analogy I gave above I don't think trust should have anything to do with being able to take on a role in a mud and carry it out with fantastic roleplaying abilities. What say you all?

-Delerak

Actors still have to audition for roles, proving they’re right for the part. And if they’re a distraction to the production, harassing people and making asses of themselves, then, certainly, it’s within the purview of the director and producer to do something about them.

With movies, however, the production team has to answer to investors, who won’t look kindly on having to spend MORE money to search for an actor to replace their megastar if he gets fired for his off-set behavior. So, they may tolerate a lot more than the middle-class roleplaying enthusiast inviting a total stranger who may or may not be text-based gaming’s answer to Sir Laurence Olivier into his online game.

Short answer: Yes. It matters. And should matter. If the “actor” is an OOC detriment to the game, you have to do something to protect the game.

Well, of course. I am talking about your acting/roleplaying talent vs being new in the business/mud.

-Delerak

I thought we were talking about accepting roleplayers regardless of their OOC behavior versus them earning the trust of administrators - and thus whether OOC behavior should count in the equation at all.

I'm sorry, but no matter how confident I am of my abilities as a roleplayer, I would consider it the height of arrogance for me to wander onto a game where, holy ####!, they've never heard of me, and then tell them to trust me and put me in a "starring" role without making sure I fit in first.

I think maybe the problem with the topic is it gets tangled in an apples and oranges dilemma: If Jack Nicholson starred in interactive dramas that required the participation of audience members, then maybe it would fit more. MU*s aren't movies. They aren't static, changeless creations that pass across our screens. They're interactive environments where ALL the actors are in potential starring roles and whose behavior "off the set" can be distracting and detrimental to the production as a whole. So, yes, it is important for administrators to have some measure of trust in the people who fill those roles.

Think about this, if are looking for an actor to play a certain part in a movie you are directing, and he/she is really awfull in real life, would you think twice about hiring him/her? I would. I know OOC should never really interfere with IC but sometimes it does. So for certain roles you need to know that he/she can be trusted and normally the only way to be sure is really through OOC actions. Say for instance you need to appoint a leader and you have two nominations. One is a person that is always fooling around on OOC... and the other is really a nice person on OOC... both are excellent roleplayers. Which one would you choose? Logic says it shouldn't really matter ...if its IC its IC... but after all that.. it still matters.

Upon Shattered Kingdoms, the players pretty much decide who will be the leader of any IC cabal or tribunal. Role Play is enforced, so if a player takes the character well out of line of the alignment/class, they can expect to be corrected.

The question generally comes up though. How do I gage this player/character is worthy of joining this faith/cabal/tribunal? The IMM staff's advice reflects this fine line you are balancing yourself upon.

For faiths, we generally say decide ASAP if they are a priest class and if invested then train them in the correct ways to worship the god. If they get out of line, then the High Follower has the right to blemish them, which penalizes the character to the point they can't perform priest spells.

For cabals and tribunals, they have the options of doing what they want ICly to punish the individuals up to removing them from the cabal/tribunal, which marks them unavailable for entrance to any other organization.

For the OOC perspective, the misconception is that admission decisions should be solely based upon IC concerns, since that is where the players operate. In truth, you cannot make some decisions without considering the whole package. Would you bring someone into your secret organization and give them access to all the inner details when you know they have an OOC history of sharing secret information? Not unless you just want to cause yourself pain. While the players elect their own leadership for the Cabals/Tribunals and some IMMs allow players to select their High Followers, all such decisions can be vetoed by the IMMs if certain OOC considerations are not known or ignored by the players.


Trust is the key, of course. If the player shows they can handle the IC/OOC aspects of the game, they can basically play without interference. If the player shows they can't behave OOC in a way that is detrimental to the mud, then they are limited in what they can achieve, up to removing them from the game if need be.

Finding out if someone can be trusted is the adventure.

BugTussle
Retired from the IMM staff of Shattered Kingdoms.

The problem with everything you all are saying is, on the internet, you can never know if you REALLY trust someone or not. You can have someone on your mud for years and never know if they are using IC info OOCly, or if they are playing in a room with 5 other guys. I know people who have a a hugely positive reputation with admin on RPI muds and are horrible players because they will go over aim and tell me IC things. Which is fine by me because it is so ironic that turst is supposed to be a working system for any roleplaying mud, yet you never even know if it is working or not.

-Delerak