Here's a little facts about a roleplayer... For one thing, most people think the professional roleplayers are all damn cool and such with the way they control uber-and imba-moves so no one complains. However, do you realise the fact every roleplayer has a weakness?

1. The Power: Some roleplayers fully concentrate on their offensive and striking power, therefore, when you go head to head with them, you are hit with an awesome wave of energy and strikes directed at all your vital points, which takes you down. But, to follow rules of roleplay, these great blows take up their potential in speed or defense, so you can outwit them by speed usualy.

2. The Absolute: Defense. Some roleplayers taunt you to strike at them with all your power, but after awhile, you grow weary and then begin to sway, thats when their defensive moves are shut off and they take you down with one sheer hit. These roleplayers seem unbeatable, but remember, although they possess average speed and ultimate defenses, their striking power is weak, so tricking these fighters into coming out is the right way.

3. Fast & Furious: Is it possible to be both fast and powerful? Awnser: Yes. Certain roleplayers excel in martial moves that result in powerful lenghty attacks and combos that are so skillfully used they take you down as quickly, it almost seems like a TB can become Speed. Therefore, they are invincible, so it seems. But, they are usually weak in magick or arcane combat, and sometimes they cannot use anything except close-ranged fighting, attacking from range or with magical effects destroys them.

4. The Magical: Many beginners prefer to excel in the realm of magick so they further enchance their rather weak hand-to-hand combat skills. However, magick, although balanced in terms of power and defense, and has a high potential of increasing itself with ease. Has a weak point, like everything else. Magick users tend to be weak in hand-to-hand or close range, they also aren't exactly helpless in speed, with their powerful magic means. But, by defensing oneself and luring spellcasters energy, yes energy. Spellcasters have limited energy, when that energy used for casting runs out, the target is defeated with ease.

5. The Dangerous: This is quite a simple term, so let me explain. These roleplayers use both magic and combat skills to a powerful extent, but you know their drawback? Yes, even such powerful roleplyers face their weak points. Though they are good at offense and are speedy, their defense is godlike, the weak point. Is rather stupid, in fact, they run out of stamina very quickly, and often have to stop and rest while tricking you into being afraid and hiding. Clever fighters, and considered the best for their balance of moves.


So which roleplayer are you?

None.

I'm a good roleplayer.

Seriously, though, none of that really applies here because most people eschew the concept of energy and stamina, and I get the distinct impression that there are some who are perfectly willing to ignore a blow completely if it'll disrupt their plan of attack. And that shit's not OK by Brock's rules.

I think it's the last one cause on my rps I usually do have my character with a certain magic skill and is able to at least do basic fighting.

Yeah, I guess it's sad not many people apply the realistic means of what happens in roleplay... Imagine, a powerful blade blow by means applied on your shoulder and you just shake it off and strike me...? Then afterwards nothing happens to you and you're unscathed. I wonder....

Eric Martindale wrote:Our weakness is that we limit our in character interactions to combat. I define this subculture as "fighters", and struggle on a daily basis to enlighten prospects. I do not knock those who are genuinely interested in text fighting, even speed fighting. There are often aspects of both in many players. One thing I humbly ask, though, is to not tarnish the "roleplayer" with the "fighter" mentality. Don't refer to text-fighting as roleplay, as it is as much roleplay as a tool upon my belt is Eric.

Thank you, Eric, and I completely agree. But to continue on this path, I would also like to pose the questions: what kind of roleplayers are we? What defines a roleplayer? Is it their ability to stay in character? Is it their ability to be flexible and bend to the flow of a story/chat while still maintaining that character to the best of their ability? Is it their diversity with genres? What makes a good roleplayer?

I agree with Eric one hundred percent in everything said above, but this discussion has brought up an interesting idea. Please, tell me, in your opinions: what defines a "good" or "seasoned" role player?

Good and seasoned are two very different things. A good roleplayer can build a setting, can build a character, can build any scenario he or she wants to. A SEASONED roleplayer has roleplayed for a long time - not necessarily with any degree of quality, but as long as the quantity's there, you become seasoned.

Hmm, as for a fighter, my characters prefer to fight with their tongues, and use weapons only when pressed. Well, Miyumi fights with programs (yay deflecting hackers and virii!)...

What defines a good rper? Not sure, though people have told me I'm pretty good, whatever that's supposed to mean.

I think it's the ability to play your character to be in-character, but also the ability to build the character in the first place. It's important that the character be well-balanced, with strengths and weaknesses (Miyumi's one heck of a programmer/mechanic, but she's go no magical defense whatsoever, and too much magical energy being used near her gives her a headache or even a blackout), and that the character fit in with the storyline and other characters. It does no good to come up with a character and then just try to fit them into any old plot, you've got to study the rp then craft a character that will work with the others towards whatever your goal is. How that works... it's on a by-feel basis, from what I can tell. You watch until you've got a feel for the general rp, come up with some basic ideas for your character (basic demeanor, starting abilities, and physical appearance) and watch your character grow. It's important that your character grow and to some extent change, because that's what happens irl, and what happens with all the best characters in good literature. My characters have surprised me, and the longer I play them, the more they change and surprise me.

Anyway, my point is that the ability to build a good character and then play that character well is what makes a good roleplayer. It's possible that being able to play a wide-range of character types makes a great roleplayer, but I'm not sure on that one.

I brought up this topic really, because several noobs, or certain seasoned and expierienced roleplayers fail to understand their fighters weak points. If they claim to be concentrated on all forms of combat, like option 5, then good. However, their energy would be a definition of being drained easily...

A good roleplayer and a seasoned one, I agree with miyumi's views. But there is the possibility of number 5 type of fighter being used the most often, and many "Sensei" of roleplay encourage their disciples to use number 5, so the remaining are rare.

But when you find them, they are actually some of the best, take Dragonsoldier for example, I don't know what he does, but the way he fights is awfully good.

mronimusha wrote:Good and seasoned are two very different things. A good roleplayer can build a setting, can build a character, can build any scenario he or she wants to. A SEASONED roleplayer has roleplayed for a long time - not necessarily with any degree of quality, but as long as the quantity's there, you become seasoned.

Okay, so “seasoned� holds no value excluding time. If the term “seasoned� isn’t connected to being a “good� role player, then where is the line drawn? Does role playing for five months mean you’re “seasoned�? Five years? Do people look at someone, regardless of quality, and say, they’re “seasoned� because they’ve been here for two years, posting one-liners and nothing of contextual value? I think I agree with “seasoned� vs “good� in being that they are very different. But I’m wondering, is that how everyone views it? If I were to look at someone who’s been role playing for two years, never improved, and has a blatant disrespect for others, I wouldn’t label them “seasoned�. But that’s just me.

miyumi wrote: I think it's the ability to play your character to be in-character, but also the ability to build the character in the first place. It's important that the character be well-balanced, with strengths and weaknesses and that the character fit in with the storyline and other characters. It does no good to come up with a character and then just try to fit them into any old plot, you've got to study the rp then craft a character that will work with the others towards whatever your goal is.

So, what I gather from this is:

*Flexability
*Balance
*Realism (we mean human qualities here. Strengths, weaknesses, etc)
*Relation (a character needs to belong in a story, not just be “placed� there.)
*Consistency
*Creation


Can anybody agree, disagree, and add more to this? What else makes for a “good� role player?

Seasoning isn't actually time-based, though, it's more about the amount of games a person's been in. But yes, technically a person who was terrible to started and still remains bad is "seasoned", hence why I said it's a very different thing from being good.

I would like to point out that this thread should probably have been put elsewhere? I thought "growth" was dedicated to writing skills.

I’m a cold war RPer, in the sense that My character has a Cold War mentally, in the sense of Good is good, and evil must be dealt with in superior force, ergo, he tends to be very dependant on his shop’s nuclear detract, or his ship’s weapons. He has almost no melle skill, and a decent skill with medium range weapons such as automatic machine guns, but he excels with longer range snipers

Miyumi, you are correct in saying this post is in the wrong thread.

Moonwolf, pigeonholing fighting styles seems silly to me. D&D-style character creation is not the objective--I couldn't care less about stats and skill sets. If a character is created solely for fighting and designed to win every fight it is in, that is not a role-play character; it is stupidity (and I wish a David upon that Goliath).

That said, a character's fighting ability should only be a sideeffect of character development via writing a story, and that is really what defines a good role-player: the ability to write stories. A seasoned role-player would be one such that their writing experience allows them to manipulate the plot toward a specific end.

Which is why I suspect JRR. Tolkien, J.K Rowling, Enid Blyton, and the rest of them are all ex-roleplayers...

Any idea how to shift this thread?

Depends on which character I am playing. I have played the magical character, the strong character... heck I have even played little annoying pixies. A RPGer is not limited to one type unless they choose to limit themselves. I chose to be open and with that I am able to become a better rper.

Well, in the list you provided of common character templates, I'd have to say that most of my fictional characters tended toward heavy magic, or heavily defensive.

I think this reflects my own tendancies toward avoiding conflict, or turning conflict upon itself

That, however, is a trap. One must not be afraid to leave the comfort zone. Experiment! Write about the hot-head that always goes for the jugular. Write about the coward that wins all his fights through bizarre luck. If the reader can predict what the characters are going to do (based on their template and not on their spirit) then I think that is a bit of a failure.

I'll just answer this in my own way because I'm not sure any of the choices fit me.

I am the kind of RPer that prefers to use the "standard" fantasy setting. One with magical creatures, elves, humans, dwarves, demons, ect to build a world with a lot of possible storylines. I've noticed that when my characters see battle scenes, they're usually short because the roleplay's I've done usually consist of enemies that are too great in number to defeat and thus result in said character having to run and use ingenuity to find an escape from death. I've noticed my roleplays tend to put an emphasis not so much on the storyline but more on the characters personalities and the choices they make in certain situations such as "There is a mad man giving you the choice of saving a loved one or a bunch of kids". It's made more memorable characters that I enjoy using.

In terms of combat though if the fight isn't short I tend to have my characters use a balance of magic and melee tactics. It's not grossly overpowered and my characters have been known to lose a number of a fights (until later on as their fighting skills improve for story climaxes and such) and take a lot of damage. It's pretty much randomized in my head if my character takes damage or not, I can't quite figure out how it works in my brain.

I guess you could say I'm more of a "cliche" rper. I love cliche worlds with cliche plots so long as they are played well. I've seen too many roleplays go under because someone was trying to be way too original.

Interesting discussion...Question about the original post: Do you think that it has any relation to how one would play, say, a fighting video game? I could never move my fingers fast enough for the combos for quick characters, so I always stuck to playing the big strong monsters. (Note: I've gotten better at both...)

As for the definition of 'seasoned.' It does not, in fact, refer to age or amount of time spent someplace. It refers to, as Hildegard implied, how much practical experience one has and the ability to use that experience well. Or, you know, putting spices on meat; that's another definition.

Side-note: I'm beginning to worry about my character...She's not much of a fighter yet...