Roleplay Standards

[Andeey]

It has occurred to me via multiple Players & Staff that the current roleplay rules are unclear, to be precise, The area below. So let's have a cool and calm discussion about it and see if something needs to change in the communities eyes.(Anyone that decides to be negative and unhelpful will be muted)

Personally i think that people have overthinked this too much and made the rule unclear to even themselves, Common sense is a big factor in this rule, Remember we're human not superhuman

• All players should attempt to roleplay at all times and are expected to roleplay within the boundaries of these rules. This means player's cannot refuse to roleplay or behave in a manner that is clearly an attempt to ruin the situation that is currently on-going.  Failing to respond to /me and /em actions will be taken as refusal to roleplay.
• If you wish to get out of the roleplay situation you are in then you must do so within roleplay boundaries, you cannot quit the game or simply run off or even have a staff member teleport you.  Those that do will simply be punished.
• Excessive language within roleplay is fine unless someone in your group gets upset at what is being said then you should stop if told to do so by a Staff member.  Have common courtesy to respect others and not everyone may be fine with what is going on so do take the time to ask if this type of roleplay is okay for them.
• Players must be somewhat realistic with their roleplay, give others a chance to respond to your role-play actions, giving them no chance to respond or forcing them into a situation is not allowed.

[Kostas]

Well I will talk a bit about the fourth blip... Some of you may already know. The Detective Bureau sent a snitch after AoD ... which had live feed glasses on him.
We striped the guy, he had no wires. No we did not bother with the glasses, were we meant to? I have a beard... maybe I have a mic hidden in it, would you search it? And say glasses are okay... what's next? Buttplugs with live feed?
 I think we all should keep it realistic. And fair for everyone.

[Bas]

Well I will talk a bit about the fourth blip... Some of you may already know. The Detective Bureau sent a snitch after AoD ... which had live feed glasses on him.
We striped the guy, he had no wires. No we did not bother with the glasses, were we meant to? I have a beard... maybe I have a mic hidden in it, would you search it? And say glasses are okay... what's next? Buttplugs with live feed?
 I think we all should keep it realistic. And fair for everyone.

Don't worry about it anymore, we've closed the investigation and will see what the future holds for us.

[Kostas]

Don't worry about it anymore, we've closed the investigation and will see what the future holds for us.

Well the point wasn't for you to drop the investigation though. And I didn't write here to blame anyone, I wish we clear things out. For a better future for both.

[Stivi]

Can you be more clear on what forcing RP is and what isn't? I mean, to me it's just a way of saying powergaming without using the term and staff members are not on the same page on this one.

Also can we please be clear on how to present a reason to kill someone in a RP manner? Say I see one of my groupmembers get killed, I go back, get a team, RP it all the way, using descriptions, gun used, car, names if I have them and everything, so now I go to kill this guy, but even though after RPing even pressing the gas too hard, or sometimes I even RP /area as getting intel from a police officer ( actual RP not just making it up ), and now I can't shoot this guy, I have to chase him while he drives an Infernus all across San Andreas, and then he can just claim "DM" if we shoot him, even though he knows exactly what we are after him for, but people usually claim they don't know, so they can get others punished or get off the hook without dying.

Can we be clear that shooting your way out of 4 people with armed guns shooting at you, telling you to stop, is not proper RP ( although maybe for Argonath it is ) and neither it is realistic?

Can we get a clarification on the "gang-wars" rule? Basically, you can retaliate within 2 or 3 hours, but a lot of people think that after 3 hours you can start a new RP. You see the mentality to "start a new RP" is wrong, the way I see it and brings out the bad side of a light RP server. The rule says, correct me if I'm wrong, if you are attacked, you can retaliate within three hours, not after. After that, the RP scene is over and can't be used as an excuse. Now what a lot of people get from this is that the losing party can attack again AFTER 3 hours. And the RP reason is proper bullshit.

[Chase]

• This means player's cannot refuse to roleplay or behave in a manner that is clearly an attempt to ruin the situation that is currently on-going.  Failing to respond to /me and /em actions will be taken as refusal to roleplay.

Okay cool.

• If you wish to get out of the roleplay situation you are in then you must do so within roleplay boundaries, you cannot quit the game or simply run off or even have a staff member teleport you.  Those that do will simply be punished.

Nice...

• Players must be somewhat realistic with their roleplay, give others a chance to respond to your role-play actions, giving them no chance to respond or forcing them into a situation is not allowed.

Wait...

forcing them into a situation is not allowed.

^ This is the exact sentence that needs clarification or removal. From what was said you must roleplay back if roleplay is initiated, but then at the end you said "forcing them into a situation is not allowed." is not allowed. Define "forcing someone into a situation". This clause contradicts most everything said above it. Are you talking about kidnapping someone? That's roleplay but also "forcing someone into a situation".  Same with interrogations/warrants or even jailing someone. What if a court judge orders someone to serve time in Mordor for a roleplay crime. That would be forcing someone into a situation under that sentence's logic.

[Stivi]

^ This is the exact sentence that needs clarification or removal. From what was said you must roleplay back if roleplay is initiated, but then at the end you said "forcing them into a situation is not allowed." is not allowed. Define "forcing someone into a situation". This clause contradicts most everything said above it. Are you talking about kidnapping someone? That's roleplay but also "forcing someone into a situation".  Same with interrogations/warrants or even jailing someone. What if a court judge orders someone to serve time in Mordor for a roleplay crime. That would be forcing someone into a situation under that sentence's logic.

Devin/Rusty/Teddy spoke on this I think, and it was "introduced" or "re-introduced" into the server along with the "failing to respond to /me and /em" rule. I think Gandalf has spoken on it as well, when referring to a robbery, on the ask developers questions topic, if anyone has a link on it. It means one must not play to win, for example:

"/me rushes Chase, hits him in the back, causing him to fall on the ground."
"/em Chase would now be on the ground"
"/me holds his knee on Chase's spine, stopping him from all movement."

In this scenario, I'm forcing you to be immobile. While a "proper" RP scenario would be something along the lines of:

"/me rushes Chase, attempts to hit him in the back."
"/em would Stivi be successful in hitting Chase in the back?"

Then yes or no, things can go their way. Sometimes Chase says no, then I argue that I was silent you wouldn't see me coming, but you have spider senses, but I also am invisible and so on... And because we have a play2win mentality, we also introduced the "/attempt" command. Which fixes the "did I hit Chase or not" problem.

I mean, to me it's just a way of saying powergaming without using the term and staff members are not on the same page on this one.

Now that is most likely what "forcing RP" refers to. But then I have this other question I thought of, though I think it was disallowed back when we removed the character system. If a certain group walks up to me and wants to kidnap me, but I RP as a different guy, am I allowed to RP someone else? Say, they are looking for Stiven_Gvardia and I fit the description that they pulled out of using /crime (I can't kill anyone but pls go on with it ), and when I am confronted I say I am in fact Derek Obana and not Stiven_Gvardia. Would I be forcing RP if I say: "/em you find a wallet with my ID: "Derek Obana 24years old blabla" my driving license same name, 176$ and some cards"? That's kinda fucked up.

Is it allowed to RP someone else? For example, I RP as a mobster but I also created another persona with another "legal" name and I would RP both separately, with different skins as well.  Am I allowed to do that?

[Spike.]

"/me rushes Chase, attempts to hit him in the back."
"/em would Stivi be successful in hitting Chase in the back?"

I agree with the first line of this. However regarding the second. I would much rather see a more fluid roleplay experience. As in you do not have to ask if you're successful or not. Instead by limiting to one action per /me. As well as the use of words such as "attempt" instead of just straight up forcing role-play on the individual. They can either choose to roleplay as if they are affected or not.

For example:

"/me attempts to pin down Stivi."
"Stivi starts resisting by attempting to kick Spike."

As such, I just believe that carrying out roleplay like this will make it more enjoyable and fluid. Without having to be forced to stop and ask in /do the outcome of every single action.

^ This is the exact sentence that needs clarification or removal. From what was said you must roleplay back if roleplay is initiated, but then at the end you said "forcing them into a situation is not allowed." is not allowed. Define "forcing someone into a situation". This clause contradicts most everything said above it. Are you talking about kidnapping someone? That's roleplay but also "forcing someone into a situation".  Same with interrogations/warrants or even jailing someone. What if a court judge orders someone to serve time in Mordor for a roleplay crime. That would be forcing someone into a situation under that sentence's logic.

Agreed. That terminology should be removed and re-worded instead. I would much rather see the integration of roleplay terms such as metagaming and power gaming. Let us take the situation that happened with AoD regarding the glasses. If they had instead carried out an action such as:

"/me glances at Luther examining him as he approaches"
Luther would have to immediately do a /me stating he's wearing glasses, etc..
"Luther would be wearing a large black shirt, cargo pants and bulky sunglasses"

Such that the AoD individuals at least know that the glasses are there. However, what this rule is trying to achieve is that it would have been:
"/me glances at Luther examining him as he approaches"
And with the new rule Luther would have been forced to say:
"Luther would be wearing a large black shirt, cargo pants and sunglasses which have a small camera recording what he's looking at."

Now, let us be honest. Even if there was a metagaming rule, there will be a winning mentality even if minor (it just happens no one is perfect) which will cause the person to carry out different actions than he would not be knowing the camera is there. I believe that up to an extent you should be able to conceal certain things. However, you should never flat out lie regarding them.

[TheGreasyChopper]

 @Stivi ^ I'm pretty sure there was an announcement a month or so back regarding the introduction of a new character system, where you could chose a char upon login(If I was dreaming or something, consider this a suggestion).

 The main issue with the current state of affairs is Argonath "not recognizing IC and OOC", when these are the two requirements to create any sort of roleplay. You have In Character and Out of Character in ALL sorts of roleplay. Tabletop RPG, LARP, hell even sexual roleplay(You do your kinky stuff in character, but the "safeword" is OOC, which halts the entire thing). We cannot enforce rules such as no powergaming or limit metagaming without actually implementing IC and OOC.

 Regarding the "forcing RP", Stivi pretty much summed it up. "Forcing Roleplay" is not "Forcing TO roleplay". Whenever you "force RP", you force the other party to roleplay certain actions in the way you personally state. It is still roleplaying. The closest thing you get in the common definition of Roleplay would be "Powergaming".

 However if you reach someone and they are not roleplaying at all, for example someone ignoring a barricade or crashing their car and driving off...That's simply "Not Roleplaying", being asked to RP is not being forced to do it. You're on a roleplay server, you should roleplay at all times.

 tl;dr If we're going to be setting actual RP standards or actually treat Argonath as a Roleplay server(Light, Heavy, Medium...It's RP in all cases) or as a Freeroam one(with some players RPing). If we are to become a RP server, I see no other option than to introduce IC and OOC in the picture.

[Spike.]

@Stivi ^ I'm pretty sure there was an announcement a month or so back regarding the introduction of a new character system, where you could chose a char upon login(If I was dreaming or something, consider this a suggestion).

 The main issue with the current state of affairs is Argonath "not recognizing IC and OOC", when these are the two requirements to create any sort of roleplay. You have In Character and Out of Character in ALL sorts of roleplay. Tabletop RPG, LARP, hell even sexual roleplay(You do your kinky stuff in character, but the "safeword" is OOC, which halts the entire thing). We cannot enforce rules such as no powergaming or limit metagaming without actually implementing IC and OOC.

 Regarding the "forcing RP", Stivi pretty much summed it up. "Forcing Roleplay" is not "Forcing TO roleplay". Whenever you "force RP", you force the other party to roleplay certain actions in the way you personally state. It is still roleplaying. The closest thing you get in the common definition of Roleplay would be "Powergaming".

 However if you reach someone and they are not roleplaying at all, for example someone ignoring a barricade or crashing their car and driving off...That's simply "Not Roleplaying", being asked to RP is not being forced to do it. You're on a roleplay server, you should roleplay at all times.

 tl;dr If we're going to be setting actual RP standards or actually treat Argonath as a Roleplay server(Light, Heavy, Medium...It's RP in all cases) or as a Freeroam one(with some players RPing). If we are to become a RP server, I see no other option than to introduce IC and OOC in the picture.

He summed everything up pretty much. Listen to the man.

[GormyGorm]

@Stivi ^ I'm pretty sure there was an announcement a month or so back regarding the introduction of a new character system, where you could chose a char upon login(If I was dreaming or something, consider this a suggestion).

 The main issue with the current state of affairs is Argonath "not recognizing IC and OOC", when these are the two requirements to create any sort of roleplay. You have In Character and Out of Character in ALL sorts of roleplay. Tabletop RPG, LARP, hell even sexual roleplay(You do your kinky stuff in character, but the "safeword" is OOC, which halts the entire thing). We cannot enforce rules such as no powergaming or limit metagaming without actually implementing IC and OOC.

 Regarding the "forcing RP", Stivi pretty much summed it up. "Forcing Roleplay" is not "Forcing TO roleplay". Whenever you "force RP", you force the other party to roleplay certain actions in the way you personally state. It is still roleplaying. The closest thing you get in the common definition of Roleplay would be "Powergaming".

 However if you reach someone and they are not roleplaying at all, for example someone ignoring a barricade or crashing their car and driving off...That's simply "Not Roleplaying", being asked to RP is not being forced to do it. You're on a roleplay server, you should roleplay at all times.

 tl;dr If we're going to be setting actual RP standards or actually treat Argonath as a Roleplay server(Light, Heavy, Medium...It's RP in all cases) or as a Freeroam one(with some players RPing). If we are to become a RP server, I see no other option than to introduce IC and OOC in the picture.

I agree with literally everything you say here, but I am curious, how do you personally feel that we should treat Argonath? I personally feel like RP is the only way to go since it is Argonath RPG.

[Antonio.]

Define "forcing someone into a situation".

Let me give you a good example which I have noticed a lot:

Cops tasing you first and then roleplaying to detain you while you're already frozen on the ground.

[Andeey]

@Stivi ^ I'm pretty sure there was an announcement a month or so back regarding the introduction of a new character system, where you could chose a char upon login(If I was dreaming or something, consider this a suggestion).

 The main issue with the current state of affairs is Argonath "not recognizing IC and OOC", when these are the two requirements to create any sort of roleplay. You have In Character and Out of Character in ALL sorts of roleplay. Tabletop RPG, LARP, hell even sexual roleplay(You do your kinky stuff in character, but the "safeword" is OOC, which halts the entire thing). We cannot enforce rules such as no powergaming or limit metagaming without actually implementing IC and OOC.

 Regarding the "forcing RP", Stivi pretty much summed it up. "Forcing Roleplay" is not "Forcing TO roleplay". Whenever you "force RP", you force the other party to roleplay certain actions in the way you personally state. It is still roleplaying. The closest thing you get in the common definition of Roleplay would be "Powergaming".

 However if you reach someone and they are not roleplaying at all, for example someone ignoring a barricade or crashing their car and driving off...That's simply "Not Roleplaying", being asked to RP is not being forced to do it. You're on a roleplay server, you should roleplay at all times.

 tl;dr If we're going to be setting actual RP standards or actually treat Argonath as a Roleplay server(Light, Heavy, Medium...It's RP in all cases) or as a Freeroam one(with some players RPing). If we are to become a RP server, I see no other option than to introduce IC and OOC in the picture.

"OOC and IC are still not supported by Argonath but we do allow it long as it isn't forced onto those you are role-playing with."
It looks to me like in most cases people would like for there to be a recognized & supported IC/OOC chat system, Am i wrong to assume this?
As SA:MP grows as a server and as a community i feel we can make such a leap in rule changes, It is 2019 afterall.

To what stivi said about killing someone in RP for a legitimate reason, Sure if you do your homework and find out through roleplay who killed your friend and you track them down you can take measures into your own hands and handle them as you please whether that be torture, kidnapping, straight up hitman job(you have to let them know they have a target on their head) or whatever that is fine, As for chasing down someone in an infernus who has no intention in stopping for you to be able to talk to them because they know what is about to happen you may fire a shot or two into their tires to make them stop that is assuming you have solid RP proof they did the crime.

Firing a shot or two to a car tire to immobilize a target is not deathmatch it is simply a tactic in getting someones 100% attention and making them come to a halt, Although with this being said you have to atleast try to attempt to stop them verbally or give them a warning, if they don't want to stop and talk then that's their own fault and they should be expecting something extreme to happen.


Now, Forcing roleplay is a huge problem at the moment in the server, With both players and staff often forgetting what is considered forcing roleplay, I have seen a few instances recently where as Antonio has mentioned, The police taser a criminal before even expressing their intent in Local chat, Which does fall under the "playing unfair & not giving the other party a chance to respond to their roleplay actions"
Tasering a player places them on the ground unable to move for multiple seconds which realistically gives the police enough time to all jump on the one player making it "realistically" impossible for them to resist their actions. People have suggested removing tasers but i think they're still a crucial part of roleplay in the server and are a good addition for police.
With that being said i do have a simple fix for the taser issue, Police need to atleast verbalize their intentions and communicate with other parties before they jump to a conclusion and ruin any chance of roleplaying, I'm sure the Law side can all argue "but this is what happens IRL police taser people to stop a bad situation from happening" But this isn't real life, This is a roleplay server where everyone plays to have fun and enjoy their time online, Everyone deserves the chance to roleplay and put some production into their side of the RP instead of just getting instantly zapped to the ground and forced into cuffs(RPly)
^ I suggest the SAPD/whoever else has taser access puts this into their taser guidelines&Rules.

An example of the above statement > (Yes this is a real situation that happened ingame)

*Player is /relax'ing on a rooftop around 200 metres from an active weedfield*
*SAPD lands on the roof, Rushing to the player*
*Player attempts to roleplay noticing movement on the roof while remaining seated*
*SAPD storm in and immediately taser the player without saying a word*
*SAPD proceeds to yell surrender*
*Player is frustrated and is forced into a roleplay scenario with upwards of 3 cops surrounding him on the ledge of a rooftop(no weapons visible)*
*Shot fired from down below*
*Player begins shooting and a shootout breaks out*
*everybody reports eachother for being bad roleplayers and deathmatching*

Now this situation could have gone alot smoother and more professional, But for whatever reason SAPD decides to Taser then ask questions later, this has completely ruined any chance of the other player roleplaying how he intended to on the rooftop and eventually guaranteed a shootout. The situation should have gone down like > SAPD lands on the roof > approaches the suspicious player and proceeds to ask him to place his hands in the air and go on from there.

this is not meant to throw blame to anybody or to cause any controversy but it's the main problem to alot of people and i have provided a simple fix and a way for no future punishments to be placed for such a situation by the staff team.


 

[TheGreasyChopper]

"OOC and IC are still not supported by Argonath but we do allow it long as it isn't forced onto those you are role-playing with."
It looks to me like in most cases people would like for there to be a recognized & supported IC/OOC chat system, Am i wrong to assume this?
As SA:MP grows as a server and as a community i feel we can make such a leap in rule changes, It is 2019 afterall.

Roleplay is Roleplay, if we are to continue on as a Roleplay server we should definitely start distinguishing the differences between IC and OOC. If you are willing to reconsider the implementation of these, I believe Argo is really going on the right track.

My main concern regarding the topic is, like expected - certain cases and examples. Those lead to the threads being derailed and the following discussion usually throws a generally good idea in the trash can.

If we are to take that one small step to recognize IC and OOC and place some basic limits and rules on what can be RPed and what not, we'll be on our way to
MAKING ARGONATH ROLEPLAY AGAIN!

[GormyGorm]

@Stivi ^ I'm pretty sure there was an announcement a month or so back regarding the introduction of a new character system, where you could chose a char upon login(If I was dreaming or something, consider this a suggestion).

 The main issue with the current state of affairs is Argonath "not recognizing IC and OOC", when these are the two requirements to create any sort of roleplay. You have In Character and Out of Character in ALL sorts of roleplay. Tabletop RPG, LARP, hell even sexual roleplay(You do your kinky stuff in character, but the "safeword" is OOC, which halts the entire thing). We cannot enforce rules such as no powergaming or limit metagaming without actually implementing IC and OOC.

 Regarding the "forcing RP", Stivi pretty much summed it up. "Forcing Roleplay" is not "Forcing TO roleplay". Whenever you "force RP", you force the other party to roleplay certain actions in the way you personally state. It is still roleplaying. The closest thing you get in the common definition of Roleplay would be "Powergaming".

 However if you reach someone and they are not roleplaying at all, for example someone ignoring a barricade or crashing their car and driving off...That's simply "Not Roleplaying", being asked to RP is not being forced to do it. You're on a roleplay server, you should roleplay at all times.

 tl;dr If we're going to be setting actual RP standards or actually treat Argonath as a Roleplay server(Light, Heavy, Medium...It's RP in all cases) or as a Freeroam one(with some players RPing). If we are to become a RP server, I see no other option than to introduce IC and OOC in the picture.

"OOC and IC are still not supported by Argonath but we do allow it long as it isn't forced onto those you are role-playing with."
It looks to me like in most cases people would like for there to be a recognized & supported IC/OOC chat system, Am i wrong to assume this?
As SA:MP grows as a server and as a community i feel we can make such a leap in rule changes, It is 2019 afterall.

I would 100% agree with an IC/OOC system being implemented.