Membership Which is worse?

[Shieb 47]

Inspired by this thread.

 

What kind of player is more annoying to you? Type 1, who uses open rules to crash threads and insert their character as the biggest, baddest, most unbeatable fighter who will start a fight for no reason and win always because they say so? Or Type 2, who uses consent rules in order to let their character be snarky, aggressive, and even do things that are wrong, but will never ever give permission for their character to get so much as a scratch unless it follows their narrative?

 

I feel like, for staff, type 1 is easier to deal with. You tell them to quit it or leave. Type 2 is weirder because the allowance for this kind of behaviour is built into the site. As a player, I can just stop playing with either type, but I definitely find playing with the Type 2 to be more annoying because GOSH, you can't just ask for a punch and then call me rude for following through.

[Dragon 673]

In terms of attitude I find both to be equally annoying because they're essentially the same thing just with a different M.O. 

 

In regard to dealing with them IC,  the general guideline for forum RP is that an "open" thread is considered closed once player 2 has joined, unless otherwise explicitly specified; so regardless of how irritating this type is, they're - as said - negligible. The members involved can just tell them to piss off or ask a staff member to do so. 

 

As for type 2, I guess how troublesome they are is dependent on how you as a staff member are willing to approach the player. My staff team doesn't put up with that kind of crap. Our site isn't one where players are free of consequence unless they agree to them - they're bound by the physical laws of the world the characters exist in. We have species with vastly different physical capabilities, and as a general rule players are expected to respect that. So if they don't want their characters injured or killed, then they abide by reasonable guidelines. 

 

For example, if my alpha werewolf were to piss off the local dragon patriarch then I wouldn't have a choice in the matter - that dragon is going to fuck him up because there is just no strength comparison there. The only chance my werewolf would ever have of beating that character would be to ambush the dragon while in their vulnerable human form and injure his spine, and even then the dragon might still well be able to shift and fuck my werewolf up.

 

The only exception to escaping harm from an initiated attack would be some kind of chance environmental protection. So my werewolf could piss the dragon off up near the old mines, then skedaddle into an old mine shaft to save himself; but that isn't going to stop said dragon from heaving a fire blast down the shaft, or collapsing the entrance and trapping him inside. 

 

We briefly had a player join up with a hunter that was a complete type 2. The player expected their hunter-character to just magically know who all the illicit supernaturals  were. They wanted their character to be able to set up all these absurd traps in the national park area where all kinds of characters frequented, but somehow the traps would only ever snare  "illegal" supernaturals despite the fact that the general population and pets would be running all through these areas. The player wasn't willing to accept the consequences if, say, someone's child or pet triggered one of the traps. 

They were also all for suggesting plots for abducting and torturing other player's characters, but wouldn't agree to anything but superficial damage done to their hunter during the escape/rescue when current members tried to plot. 

 

Ultimately they lasted about three weeks before they gave up and left because we refused to humor their crap.

 

tldr; Type 2 is more annoying but only if the staff team isn't willing to set concrete boundaries and confront those players. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Dragon

[Icewolf 258]

Players who do this (espeaically on a forum) are trolls who are doing it to wind people up. In a chat style or on twitter, there might be some confusion over how to get involved in things because there isn't anywhere you can put a set of rules over joining a thread, espeaically when someone's new to it, but on a forum? There shouldn't really be any excuse for it because all the rules are there for the reading and if they don't follow them, then the staff have grounds to ban them. It's more of a problem on twitter and chat style rps because typically, there are no rules to follow so it's harder to stop it and be fair on the player behaving like that.

[Val 28]

I really feel like it's on the staff to control both.

 

1 is objectively breaking the rules, sure, but 2 is causing a disruption to the community, and that at least warrants verbal communication by the staff about acceptable behavior, with stricter consequences to follow if the warnings are ignored.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Val

[Kajes 40]

I would say Type 2 is more annoying.

 

Both players are taking characters that don't play nice with others and bending the rules to troll. Both are muscling into threads, hogging the lime light, and are abusing the invincibility provided by the rules to be major pricks. But Type 1 is playing rough and allowing others to play rough back, in terms of combat with other characters. Regardless of the outcome of the fights, you might be able to knock around the problem character pretty good if you're clever enough in your writing an' manage to slip by the troll player's radar. They'll never allow their character to lose the fight, and that's childish and lame, but you may be able to win the small victory of getting in a few good strikes on the character. -shrug- If you're starved for a fight, even a terrible fight can be nice.

 

Type 2 is not allowing others to play rough back, which I find to be so much more irritating. They want to do and be everything that Type 1 does an' is, but they don't want to play with those there're tormenting like Type 1 does. They'd rather the other players be spectators that really want to play, really want to beat the problem character bloody, but are stuck on the side lines. Doesn't seem like they just want to hog the spotlight - a less outright dickish character can monopolize a thread just as easily. But they purposely provoke others, then hide behind the rules. As if...they're more interested in watching you squirm than actually rping with you.

 

To me, Type 1 is tormenting the characters more than the players and that seems less malicious. An inexperienced or insecure rper, especially if they have a competitive personality, could fall into the trap of accidentally overpowering their character or just refusing to lose a fight in a realistic way. I'm not saying all Type 1 problem players are this innocent, just saying that I can think of a situation in which the troll might be sorta innocent... Or less than purely malicious. Type 2 seems to be tormenting the players more than the characters, specifically targeting the players behind the characters. That...I cannot think of any benign scenario or benefit of the doubt to put reason to the trolling behavior... I have a lil' experience with both types, and Type 2 - to me - always seemed to be experienced at the rp game...so that excuse doesn't work. I donnu. Type 2 just raises my hackles more.

[Icewolf 258]

You do also get some players who will take a character that is very over-powered in comparison to 'normal' characters in a fandom and use their character's 'over-poweredness' to bully the player whose character is pretty much helpless against them. It's sort of like type 2, but instead of using the rules of the site/game, they are using canon lore to do it instead.

 

I've also known some players who use sensitive topics to make their character obnoxious and if your character reacts badly to their behaviour, they'll call a 'foul' OOClly, using politics, gender-issues, illnesses and anything else that writers have different opinions on, blurring the boundaries of IC and OCC feelings and reactions. That's like being Type 2, but in a different way instead. They're very good at putting a player into a corner where no matter what you do, you look bad to those observing it.

 

This thread just reminded me of those types of players.

[Shieb 47]

@Kajes

Eat your chocolate chip cookie. It'll make you feel better. It's okay, they can't hurt you here.

 

@Icewolf

Shall I add a Type 3? The "I don't know why you're upset, my character is a perfect angel" player? I feel like it's a slippery slope to all the kinds of players that frustrate the rest of the site, haha.

 

I agree with everyone else that these issues are both up to staff to fix. They're both abuses coming from different angles, and really the staff should be discouraging that kind of... almost anti-social behaviour.

[Lawman 88]

If you ask me, it's pretty much a comparision between cow dung and horse shit. Does it matter which one stinks worse? Because neither has a smell I find desirable. But otherwise yeah, @Kajes has a point - players who use IC to vent their OOC frustrations are the worst. Like, God I think there should also be a Type 4 added to this list. It basically goes as follows:

 

The player who gets annoyed OOC by your character simply being who they are (i.e. is pissed off at your character being mean to their character cause hey, your character is a jerk and how else are you supposed to play them?), but they're too chicken to have their character confront/call out yours (most likely because they know the confrontation would most likely lead to violence, and they can't stand the thought of their character getting hurt or drawn into a fight they may not win) ICly. So they resort to taking passive-aggressive OOC jabs at your character by constantly referring to them in their posts using insulting nicknames, or making snide commentaries about how stupid your character's actions were, etc.

 

What makes it especially grating is that it's all player narrative, so there isn't even any IC dialogues or actions for your character to respond to.

[Jabberwookie 22]

Type two is definitely worse for me. They're hard to address, and they also tend to be the same type that does weird, passive aggressive stuff in post like have their character reply with angry internal tangents over something your own character is thinking and theirs couldn't have possibly known about. 8/

 

It's no fun playing with someone like that, and it's hard to call them out on it sometimes. Type one is, like you mentioned, actively breaking rules or roleplayer etiquette enough that you can tell them to knock it off. It's harder to have a grey area there.

[Samantha 64]

This has all probably been said, but type two is more annoying by far for me just because they tend to be harder to deal with. 

 

It makes it even more difficult that we have rules on the site that no character can be harmed or killed without the player's consent and that also falls under gming as well.  We've had some issues with this that we were able to nip in the bud, the one I can remember most vividly is when we had a character who apparently had files and files on all the lycanthropes in the city, the leaders and ranks without any good explanation as to *how*. 

 

We also had another former member say that if a character attacked his then he would just ignore the post and continue on as if it didn't happen. Mind you, the post wouldn't have been gming, the other player wouldn't have posted that their attacks connected or anything like that, but they still were adament they would just ignore the post. That, along with a host of other issues led to the player being banned. 

[Kajes 40]

Was thinking about this topic off and on yesterday...

I have, sort of, played both the Type 1 and Type 2 roles before.

 

In my very early rp days, I joined a small and short lived game that was half slice of life and half this...free-form arena type thing. It all was rather free-form, and I don't remember many rules at all beyond the usual "do not powerplay or godmod" type stuff. The point is, the game was combat oriented but didn't have any hard rules for combat, so any fight could turn into a pissing contest real quick if the combatants were inexperienced, or immature, or just refused to lose. My character was this shape-shifting abomination that, while not having the most amazing offensive tactics, could shrug off most forms of damage. I knew its weaknesses (electricity and any form of telepathy or mind control) but there were no character profiles or requirements to share that information, so I kept those weaknesses a secret. Seemed like a wise decision to not volunteer that a store-bought taser could put this morphing eldritch beast out of commission for a week. -shrug- Anyway, after a few fights in which my character just would not go down, the Admin or GM or whatever told me it was unfair to play a character that lacks any weaknesses, in this long winded tirade... At first, I tried to assure them that my monster did indeed have a couple hard weaknesses without spelling out what those where, but eventually had to just tell 'em - in private. ...A week, later, suddenly, every fightin' character is a telepath armed with tesla guns whenever I walk my shape-shifter into the game. Huh. Strange that. At the time, I was too butthurt and immature to deal with that and just abandoned the game entirely.... Anyway, that's my Type 1 story: playing a monster others thought was invincible, but was not. Hm.

 

This is really what got me thinking yesterday... I think, in recent years, I have been viewed as a Type 2 player by some. I have primarily played in consent based games in which the rules state that your character cannot harm or kill another player's character without permission, but the communities took this rule more like...your character may not engage in combat or any form of physical violence against another player's character without permission. The IC conflict of these couple o' forums was so shallow and petty, I believe because no one felt comfortable or free to cause real trouble. That's if there was any IC conflict present at all. Anyway, I like to play villains. I like to add a lil' pepper n' spice. Especially in games where everything is sunshine and rainbows and so very blaaaand. In these heavy consent based games, my characters have gotten more and more hostile, an' creepy, an' a little showy. My characters compete strongly for the spotlight of any thread they're in, and do their best to provoke the other characters...because my goal is to have you confront my dude or allow 'em (through inaction) to ruin your day. Either way, I win me some real IC conflict and the game is less happy n' fluffy for a while.

 

Looking back on my misadventures, I believe some people saw my villains as a Type 2 situation for a long while. Some players grew a bit awkward about threading with me in general, but...after other characters confronted my dude and I did't come out on top, they were suddenly cool with threading with me again. As if seeing that I was cool with allowing my character to bleed made them realize that I was not playing at some OOC game, I just had a hostile character...because that's how I make my fun. Heheh. Weird times....

 

I'm glad I've never been one of Lawman's Type 4. I've played across from them a handful of times, and jeez...they can be insufferable. I think I'd still put Type 2 as more irritating, but Type 4 is a close second. Type 4 is easier to ignore, or...as I have done...combat them with a similar type of quiet insult, but IC and not OOC. That is, the snark isn't in the OOC player narrative, but in the IC thoughts of the character. Unless the other character is a mindreader, the insults are just as untouchable as the OOC narrative.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Kajes

[Shieb 47]

I can understand everybody's reactions, @Kajes. I'm glad that after your character bled, they started playing with you. I guess the moral of the story is that as long as you commit to fair play, other people will do so as well. Well, not all of them. There are still people out there who ACTUALLY won't let their character get hurt.

 

@Samantha Side thought, do you think if the admin occasionally stepped in and moderated that response FOR the thread, such as just making a quick post like "Reflex check, 1/20, Critical fail. Newb is struck in the face with Player's punch, and feels their jaw pop out of place" or something of the like? Or are we dealing with a player who would ignore the admins, too?

[Samantha 64]

@Shieb after I told them that they couldn't just ignore someone's post and while they do have a say on what happens to their character they don't get a say in how other characters react to their's they still held firm that they would just ignore the post and the player had no right to write a post where their character attempted to strike their character. 

 

All in all, the person was extremely hard to deal with. Along with being aggressive and fighting with members, they challenged lore regularly, made other members feel stupid for not having read the books, and tried to make their character OP. 

 

It could have been possible for the admins to step in (if the post was actually done, this whole thing started when the other player made a passing remark in discord) and mitigate it, but by that point it became pretty clear the person wasn't the right fit for our site and had caused a lot of issues in the short time they were there. 

 

On the site the members are pretty good about handling IC fights well, allowing their characters to be hit or injured, but when it comes to a question of strength and who would win in a fight if the players can't come to a decision together then the admins will come in to lend advice and help them along. Though, outside of that one instance, we've never had it turn hostile, it's usually just that the players really aren't sure who would win and want help. 

[Shieb 47]

@Samantha Oh, wow, so that player was a host of other problems. Nevermind. I hope when they left, all was well again!

[Samantha 64]

@Shieb they were 😕 

 

but yeah - after they left everything went back to normal and was all good 🙂