Sigil: City of Doors

Howdy fellow players,

As of late I've noticed resurfacing of some of the issues of old, and issues that perhaps I should've addressed much better back in the past. However despite the hindsight of having been tightly involved back then in at least one such case, this time it's a matter of observation from someone not directly involved at the matters at hand, I won't name any specific cases since I'm sure all of you will be able to make out the ones soon enough with more neutral description too.

What I am talking is about taking liberties in roleplaying; groups, reputation, perspectives, capabilities, knowledge, etc.

Having read through IC forums, viewed some screenies and seen in game a number of cases where people take it to themselves to tell/represent/take a liberty that another faction/group ^{(one that opposes them)} is doing something nasty, but there hasn't been any indication of such having or actually happening or a friendly group having an outstanding capability to appear out of thin air to perform a single thing with no implication of an ability to failure, and even with investigation nothing is found out of them.

These two are matters of, or borderlining the rules of autoing and god-moding. That said, I understand that there are exceptions since it is In Character representation where making claims true or false technically is not a matter of rules, but rather since it belongs to roleplaying it is everyones right... still everyone should make a distinction between giving sufficient information to characters compared to players. Characters learns one thing, having players know the reality is another thing. This can be easily solved by giving tangible actual evidences to point out during claims, that way they don't confuse players which shouldn't be anyones goal or they've failed to understand the purpose of roleplaying game.

The other part is that NPC ^{(Non-Player Character)} allies, I've mentioned of them before already a couple of times, and they appear to still be troublesomely represented... I've been borderlining of just disallowing them entirely for a long time, and things as of late haven't really given me much more reason to support them either. So let me expand the proper use of NPCs in a story, perhaps flaw is not in allowing them, but informing of correct use ^{(until proven otherwise)}:

[b]Purpose of Use:[/b] not to grow your e-reputation. What this means is that if your primary use for NPCs in your posts is to get more people rallied behind your character, you're doing it wrong and just spoiling your own fun. There's no fun to be gained by patting your own back and generally people will just roll their eyes at such behavior. The purpose behind NPCs is to represent the world and further the character development; perhaps by granting wisdom or dilemma to cause the character think, perhaps something was stolen from them to give a goal to achieve, etc. Because they're expendable sources of absolutely no value compared to PCs, whom existed before those just made up NPCs did, yet conveniently had all the traits necessary to defeat the PCs. Your NPCs likely are equally even if not more squishy than the opposing side and you should be ready to resemble that. [b]Agendas of NPCs:[/b] Often NPCs appear to be represented as one dimensional automatons that have huge desire to die for the cause given by whomever. What happened to cowards, idealists, people that work because of debt, grudged minimal wage workers that don't get paid enough to be killed... now I'm not saying that good ol' confrontation is bad, but if you're hellbound on using NPCs, give them a bit more depth than nameless meatwall with unspecified goal, that makes them interesting and who knows, maybe you want to someday whip that NPC up into fullfledged PC too. In-fact, if you can get an NPC to turn against your own PC in a convincing and well rationalized way, then you're managing the NPC well... it means they're an individual, not an extension of your own character. [b]NPCs Traces of Existence:[/b] If they conveniently popped up now, they bloody well better have existed the way they got there and out of there and left clues. If they didn't, then they don't exist at all and a lot of words were wasted posting those paragraphs. That is if investigated - no need to mention whole life stories for no reason. [b]In Short:[/b] If your representation is orientated toward winning with NPCs you just made up -> stop using NPCs all together. [/li]

I understand that there are matters of mystery or wish to get people to investigate and I wholeheartedly agree, but in such cases represent the case as a mystery not as a sole indisputable fact or it will be taken as such indeed. Don't be afraid to use words "It's not yet known..." that gives clear implication to come up with measures to explore their options. That option should satisfy also the people whom wish to not be given the information right off the bat even OOC.

For bold IC claims in forums it'd help to refer to perspective of an individual so that players can a make distinction of it being a fact or an observation to make a note of. If the claim is complete and utter lie, then I'm not entirely sure how to best play it, other than leave a friendly OOC note to at least opposition or make up some evidences that could be investigated to find out the lie or a lack of thereoff.

Finally and lastly for the players whom are trying to solve these matters IC, make little to no assumptions of the situation; explore and investigate signs and evidences. Remember that winning is not your aim, but to represent your character and their development in the whole is, the character may have an agenda to succeed or fail at - both progress the character development. If your aim in a roleplaying game is victory (no matter which side) then you will surely find yourself disappointed over the course of it.