an annoying problem

[dragonrazor]

okay, so for a few months now, i've been joining The Jeffinator's rps...this is at his insistence mind you. my style is TRUE role play...it is not based on ridiculous rules that have no basis in the real world or any other. it is reactionary. i expect all who rp with me to do so the same way. hits, blocks, counters, those are all dependant on the person on the receiving end of the post, not the person proposing the hit. if the person on the receiving end doesn't want to get hit, they dodge or block or something. that's REAL r p, not that bullshit you see in D&D or the yahoo chatrooms..

however, i repeatedly get accused of godmodding by idiots who have no clue what real godmodding is

therefore, i'm dropping out of all of Jeff's rps. best block, no be there, as Miyagi said. so those who accuse me of godmodding, feel free to join jeff's rp's now...you won't see me in them

 

[macmillian]

Question.........?????????


I have seen the word "GODMODDING" now in several posts. Please explain what it means?????

Thanks.....

Macmillian

 

[dragonrazor]

well, according to them, it's any attempt to advance the story...

real godmodding involves controlling other people's characters, doing anything that isn't specified in your character bio as an ability, being omniscient, and such...you run into a lot of it on Yahoo Chatrooms, and sometimes in D&D table games

 

[Steiner]

On here Godmodding could best be described in the following ways:

1. Controlling other writers characters without checking first.

2. Displaying knowledge that your character would not reasonable have - for example calling a character on something that they wrote about thinking rather than saying, or something that happened betweeen two other characters out of earshot of your own.

3. Inventing powers and abilities for your character. Say, for example your co-writer invents a tricky little problem for the two of you to get out of by teamwork - like three thugs holding guns on you. If your character was a regular Joe type and you solved that problem by beating up all three thugs in a single post - that would be Godmodding. You wouldn't necessarily have to shoot fire out of your ears whilst doing it for it to be god modding - it is clearly inappropriate for the three thugs to be afraid of you or beaten by you.

4. Constantly going around behind another writer and tidying up after them is also a form of godmodding. If they set up messy situations and your character constantly is there to save them or clean up the problems then unless that's the point of the thread, you might possibly be Godmodding.

 

[dragonrazor]

that's a much better definition than i was getting <<

 

[Steiner]

Hey, really it all comes down to common sense and common courtesy. It's one reason why I enjoy writing with a single other writer rather than a huge group. With a single writer you can get together and decide the rough plot arc beforehand - that way nobody gets ruffled feathers.

It's also good to have an idea of what the other writer wants from the story. Is it a tissue thin plot to rationalise reams of hot sex right from the get go? Is it a romantic development of a relationship with hot sex thrown in? Is it a plot driven story where any sex is related and secondary to telling the story?

A lot of people cry "God Modder!" at anyone who derails what they see as the smooth development of the thread. Given the number of cool threads that die for various reasons, it's easy to see why people get emotive about it - which is why I think consensus is the wayh to go for happy, carefree, SRP.

(And I agree with you about number based combat systems. You should establish a characters powers and strengths before any fighting occurs, and any fighting should be properly coreagraphed with the participating writers, so that any outcomes are clearly agreed on beforehand. Fighting shouldn't be for fighting's sake. It should solely exist for dynamic tension within the storyline. All outcomes should be consensual.)

 

[dragonrazor]

exactly...one reason i try to avoid combat rps

 

[macmillian]

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I thought that was what it was and I thank you againn for taking time to reply.

Have a good day.

Macmillian

 

[dragonrazor]

you're welcome

 

[dragonrazor]

okay, if anyone at all has a problem with me, they'd better tell me now so i can make a note not to join any RPs you are in, and drop out of any you try to join

 

[cats]

If I may contribute to other godmodding issues, I've seen. And two flaws in the combat system.

In one thread I was in a person was running a more politcal character. The rest were more combat related. The person started off controling a small company, that is fine, but after several posts and a two year time skip the PC controled an economic super power. Ability growth over time is fine, but don't go nuts.

The second example was not combat oriented. I was running a fairly modest character a sucubus on the run, the other player was running the third or forth most powerful demon in hell. My character became cornered, and I was left with out an escape option or path. The lesson here is to consider other players and there characters to avoid blocking them into a descion.

As for combat, the number on flaw is time and chopiness in posts. Proposing an attack and then having them react and prepose back takes a lot of time. The second flaw, is a person has the option of godmodding an saying no attacks ever hit. The simple solution to the second is payig atention and letting your character get hit. As for both issues I recamend a more comlex post. Say they make some attacks you make some atacks some hit some don't and always leave any major attack as open. Then let them do the same.

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

okay, so for a few months now, i've been joining The Jeffinator's rps...this is at his insistence mind you. my style is TRUE role play...it is not based on ridiculous rules that have no basis in the real world or any other. it is reactionary. i expect all who rp with me to do so the same way. hits, blocks, counters, those are all dependant on the person on the receiving end of the post, not the person proposing the hit. if the person on the receiving end doesn't want to get hit, they dodge or block or something. that's REAL r p, not that bullshit you see in D&D or the yahoo...

As a longtime gamer and Dungeon Master, my response is, "your mileage may vary." I'm not speaking to the issue of who, if anyone, is in fact godmodding in the RPs originally mentioned. But D&D is roleplaying...just with an emphasis on realism over artistic license. Chance and the environment and the denizens therein join the storyline as antagonists. The tale is important, yes, but D&D is for those who wish to test a character's mettle...and perhaps just a bit of their own. In D&D, it is up to the Dungeon Master to make sure the game is balanced.

Interactive stories are fine roleplaying too, for those who value artistry over realism. I have done games at many points along this spectrum. I think the important point is for the person starting he thread to set expectations as to the degree to which outcomes are choreographed versus random. That way no one's panties get in a bunch when a character is allowed--or gets denied--the ability to dodge bullets and cheat death.

As far as godmodding, I think the term is different in every game. As a rule, one should not post actions, thoughts, or feelings of characters controlled by others. This includes moving other characters out of the way, and taking advantage of frequent or prolonged Net access to post several moves and leave another character behind. That's nearly universal to RPGs and interactive stories alike.

As for players initiating action on the part of the "world" itself, I think that depends on the nature of the game/story. A player in a DM-driven D&D game who wrote in a knight in shining armor to save his character might get banned from the game, because that's quite contrary to the known principles by which Dungeons and Dragons is played. As part of a romantic interactive story, such a play might be fine and dandy, even applauded for its innovation (well, maybe not innovation in the strict sense of the word since it's cliché, but you understand my point).