ISRP Rules and Rulings Reference (OOC)The place to check for rulings, setting and area updates, seminars, new information, and where to participate in discussions for ISRP rooms changes and improvements.
At this point in time I feel very assured we all know what constitutes out of character room disruption; activities such as scrolling, extended out of character conversation, and so forth. I feel it is time to address head on the situation of in character room disruption. Disruption has been popping up a lot more frequently as of late and I don't see the issue as going away. What I'd like to do is discuss in character room disruption, and try and establish a line for conduct that is acceptable and unacceptable. I don't want to address setting disruption at this time, that will be for another discussion and another time.
As part of this, I'd like to know what level of enforcement is desired, and what examples of disruptive and non disruptive can be presented.
Here are some basic ideas to consider:
Room disruption is not doing something that makes other characters look your way. This would mean that singing, dancing, screaming with joy, proposing, or even a loud conversation would be disruptive. Room disruption should be along the lines of something that makes it near impossible to play in the room at all. Room disruption should be an activity that makes it near impossible to continue with standard role-playing, or forces others in the room to reasonably respond (like daggers being flown at everyone, or a fireball spell in the tavern). I think people should have the right to role-play as they like without being forced into someone else's storyline, or having theirs interrupted beyond reason.
I think the other problem is making sure that you divid in-character disruption from out of character disruption.
The start of a battle (before it moves to the clearing/ arena) could be disruptive to the room but as long as it is handled in-character (and quickly moved out) shouldn't be penalised
While someone who acts out of character or in a way that completely defies the physics or metaphysics of the realms and acts in a disruptive way sould be punished
I think the line should be a simple, defined one, so people new to isrp chat don't get blurry responses about this kind of thing.
If it forces a character to be effected by it unless he takes an action, it's room disruption.
I think this is on the same wavelength as Freedom of Destiny over your character.
For example:
Throwing sneezing powder all around the tavern would be room disruption, because it makes a character have to react to negate it. The same goes for a guy running into the bar, and in turn attempting to stab everyone. A character shouldn't have to interact with another unless both parties feel like it. Character B can't just force character A to interact with him, because that violates F.o.D.
The same goes for the mass stabbing/sneezy dust/throwing daggers/fireball case. The spell would not only be violation of Freedom of Destiny, but also room disruption.
And it's also obvious what doesn't violate this:
Saber rattling in the tavern as one is about to move into the clearing is fine, because no one is forced to look that way.
Cleaning the bar would of course also be fine, because the characters can still continue their business without being effected by it.
BUT, if you say that you clean the table that two people are at, forcing their view to be blocked, that's mild room disruption. Because you're trying to force the people there to react or be effected somehow.
That's basically my take on how it should be worded:
If an action forces multiple characters to be effected by it unless they also take action when they hadn't wanted to, it's room disruption.
That's as cleaned up as I could make it while still having it apply to what I mean.
Adele you said- Room disruption should be along the lines of something that makes it near impossible to play in the room at all. Room disruption should be an activity that makes it near impossible to continue with standard role-playing.
I agree with this. However, I do not think it is room disruption to put forth an act, that could, or might affect everyone.
You used the example, of the fireball. I would not see this as a room disruption, because we are free to ignore it happening. So long as it was short and brief.
Now, someone who posted lines and lines of text, describing the fireball, thus taking up the screen.. or kept sending private messages to people to attempt to get them to react, would be a room disruption.
The difference, is that one can ignore a fireball.. if they so choose. Or they can react, if they also choose.
They can not ignore the massive text or PM's.
A room disruption, in my mind, is something that can only be dealt with, by blocking the other player. We can ignore a few lines, and actions ( not the iggy command, but simply not pay attention ), but when it becomes a room disruption, we are no longer able to dismiss it, as it has become all consuming to the screen.
Depends on how they describe the fireball, I suppose.
"Sends a fireball at X" is okay because you can always claim your char is nowhere near X.
"Sends a giant exploding fireball that immolates everyone at the bar" is not so okay, unless you're prepared to either say your char is fireproof or as some choose to say: "watches the illusion of a fireball cover the area"... cute sometimes but can look silly when others do react as if burnt.
I've seen someone try to fill the tavern with a rain of blood and had it treated as an illusion or totally ignored. I didn't think of it as room disruption because they "dropped the spell after having shown their power" or something to that effect, i.e., they didn't push it.
I've seen someone explode every glass in the tavern and had people, including the wizo on duty, react as if it happened. The second person did a mass PM first to say something like "I'd like this to happen, please play along if you're willing to" and of course if the wizo goes along with it then others are more likely to treat it as "real."
As for fighting, that's a wonderfully slippery slope. Especially when there isn't a wizo around, I've seen more room disruption from the people pointing out the "No Fighting" sign and telling people in rather OOC terms to move to the clearing because fighting isn't allowed in the tavern than from the actual fight itself. Hard call.
Really I think the part that makes it tricky is defining what we can and can't not react to. Yes, if a fireball is but a single line of text I suppose we can "overlook" it... but really is there any sane explanation why a character would just pretend that a giant ball of fire hadn't exploded next to them?
Basically it comes back to the first rule of freeform/isrp etiquette, and that is that you never try to play someone else's character for them. By playing in the room you are agreeing to respect their right to play their characters and that their characters are there because they want them to be.
If they are in the Crossroads Tavern, the best assumption is that they are in there to frequent a tavern... a place where you drink, talk, flirt, drink and perhaps have a brawl (a simple fist fight, tussle etc).
It is not safe to assume they came to be exposed to dramatic fencing battles, fireballs, conjured storms, summonings of ancient Gods, being attacked by rabid trolls, etc.
When in doubt, think about would you visit such a place? Sure you might visit a tavern where people challenge you to fights and you take it outside, where wizards, drow and orc-kin visit and where some folks are loud and have the occasional brawl.
You wouldn't visit a tavern where wizards held duels in the middle of the tap room, where people got murdered in cold blood or where they tended to summon ravenous monsters to attack people.
Basically you have to cater to the lowest common sensible denomenator. It's not sensible for people to expect to not be exposed to wizards or fantasy creatures in a tavern set on Oerth... it is sensible for them to expect not to become collateral damage.
Likewise it's not sensible for people to expect to see only the standard character types frequenting Juxta, the marketplace where all worlds meet. It is sensible to expect that if there's a flourishing market there they have some sort of means to prevent random fireballings, explosions, etc.
Does this make some plots and character concepts difficult to near impossible? Yes. However it does still leave you a lot of room to play with and makes achieving such plots and characters that much more rewarding and impressive.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kathryn_aka_Kat As for fighting, that's a wonderfully slippery slope. Especially when there isn't a wizo around, I've seen more room disruption from the people pointing out the "No Fighting" sign and telling people in rather OOC terms to move to the clearing because fighting isn't allowed in the tavern than from the actual fight itself. Hard call.
I don't see how that makes it a slipperly slope. It's the responsiblity of the battling figures to know that they should take it outside as common sense dictates, so they're ultimately responsible for the room disturbance caused by people telling them to take it outside.
Saying people cause room disruptions by asking them to take their disruption outside like they're expected to by the rules sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim to me.
Originally posted by Jardel_Karabella
I don't see how that makes it a slipperly slope. It's the responsiblity of the battling figures to know that they should take it outside as common sense dictates, so they're ultimately responsible for the room disturbance caused by people telling them to take it outside.
Saying people cause room disruptions by asking them to take their disruption outside like they're expected to by the rules sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim to me.
Which rules? the ones on the old ISRP pages that say there's a "No Fighting" sign in the tavern? Siani's setting update posts here that say some fighting in an adventurers' tavern is to be expected, that the tavern is more lawless than Juxta? People's memories of what this wizo or that wizo told them once upon a time? And whose degree of "common sense"? that of the fighters or that of the spectators? What happens when the spectators don't agree on whether or not it's disruptive?
If you say "no fighting" that's fairly clean. If you say "some fighting but not disruptive fighting" then it becomes a matter of who and what is being disruptive and how disruptive they're being.
My chars expect a fight in the tavern now and then. They don't expect OOC rules-mongering. If you call it "blaming the victim" when I find it more difficult to continue my roleplaying over X, Y, and Z's comments about the fighting than I do over A, B, and C's actual fight, then so be it. It just proves my point that allowing any fighting means people start arguing over how much. And I say this even though I prefer the "some fighting" ruling myself.
It does all depend on the situation. Personally, I don't think we should limit plot and actions just to fit some hidden set of sensibilities. This is fantasy, it's okay for crazy things to happen. I'm not using this as an excuse for doing completely stupid or irritating things, but rather that kooky magic and actions are generally acceptable if a player wants to do it.
What I do think is that large, powerful actions should be handled more in character then out of character. Not to say that they can't, but if a character casts a fireball and everyone ignores it, it doesn't help the continuity. Same goes for if a player is told off because people don't come here to have fireballs thrown around. And that that's not the environment that people want. Because that provides the image that everything in CRT is only allowed because it pleases the players expectations of the environment, rather then actual roleplaying out a character.
An example on a way to help the continuity, would be for either the players to be affected, or a bartender to pick up a rod of negation, and give them a good dunk in the river for disturbing the patrons of the bar. I don't think a player tossing thunderstones around the tavern is something we can just ignore. If they can't play with courtesy to other players, that doesn't mean that we should get to also.
We go through the trouble of dealing with it, then we get the character to not do it again, because our characters don't want to be disturbed by it agiain. I do admit that if the player is particularly troublesome about this and won't get the message in character, it'd be okay for players to make it clearer to him through private message.
Generally though, I think room disruption is anything which tries to impose action on other characters against their desires. But its' relative, and what may be disruption for one character may not be for another. If it's fine with the players who are effected, sure, nothing needs to happen, it's fine. But if someone just runs into the bar and begins shooting acid arrows at everyone, it'll probably need to be dealt with. Players can deal with it as they like, if it would really disturb a story, sure go ahead, just ignore it, but I think it'd be best if the standard way to deal with someone who's being overly disruptive was in character.
It seems to me, while we all have good ideas about what room disruption is, we are having some trouble defining it.
I think, that we all agree it depends on the situation, and style in which it happens.
That, however, also tends to make the whole idea arbitrary. I think, what Adele is looking for, is something a bit more solid, to go off of...
Instead of arguing.. perhaps we could work together, to try and define clearly, what room disruption is, and where it begins.
1. Imposing Actions
2. Not trying to take over another's character, and their reactions.
3. Ignoring the Freedom of Destiny
However..
1. Asking persons, if they mind getting involved, is not.
2. A wide sweeping action, that still allows for FoD, is not. ( For example, saying the glass might explode, but only if you chose to let it.. )
3. Something that starts inside, that goes outside, is not.
4. Fighting, so long as it's not imposing on someone else, is not. If the Fight remains between Barbarian Bob and the Orc, then it is not room disruption, because it involves no one else. It's when the Orc, starts trying to use other patrons, that it becomes offensive.
Fighting, in itself, is not a room disruption.
Anyhow, I think this is a start, it is of course, to be modified and adjusted as needed. I hope we work with one another, instead of against.
Excessive out of character comments should be considered as room disruption. Everyone's seen it, the thought bubbles or actions being used over and over again for out of character comments. Some even go as far to do this and mask it poorly as what their character thinks when they are bashing players.
Quick fights between a small group I don't consider room disruption. Though I do believe that fights involving say five or more parties or ones that continue for long periods of time are disruptive. When you get half a room in a fight that is disruptive for the rest of the players because at that point it is EXTREMELY hard not to have your character react to what is going on. Sure you can simply ignore the actions but that does get a bit unbelievable when you basically have a bar brawl and your character sits there with his/her arm draped around whoever is sitting next to them discussing the rising price of grain in Greyhawk City.
The one thing that gets me at times are the spelling corrections. Some players will misspell a word then try to correct it two, three even four times. Most of us have gotten used to spelling mistakes and have learned to read through them and figure out what is meant, if not we ask in pm's for a clarification. Not saying it shouldn't be done at all. We all know sometimes if people didn't do it the whole room would be asking them what they meant in pm's.
Constant use of the caps lock key is one that irks alot of people. Several exclamation points at the end of a sentence or stating the character is raising his voice is more than enough to get the point across that they are shouting.
Spelling corrections can be cover ic by having your character correct themselves but yes they can get a little irritating especially if people have got to their third or fourth try and still getting it wrong (but thats the english student in me i suppose)
Lost in the change I'm afraid. You might notice that appart from Arcia's Riddling post on the isrp general board, there's pretty much no posts on here from between the 23rd of August and the time the boards got switched over.
In the upgrade announcement (top thread of all forums over the past week or so) WotC Mel warned that this would happen.
I was debating which threads might need parts recovered, if possible. Can't do them all, but this one should be one...
All the replies from that time period are gone, and cannot be recovered. I'm afraid everyone will just have to repost. Unfortunately I was also out of town at the time and lost internet connection halfway through my visit so I was not checking the boards. I never even saw the messages. I'm sorry everyone.
I did want to say that Gabriel and Dontella's last posts were very well thought out. Dontella especially nailed exactly what I am looking for in answers, and Gabriel's post was very nicely written with clear logic. The only thing I have some concern over is the fighting issue. I do agree that an extended fight between two people that does not move outside in a reasonable time period can indeed be disruptive to the room, even if it does not involve others. But that's my opinion.
I really need to make a decision on this soon, after UnCon, so the more discussion we can squeeze in the better.
I don't know if it's already been covered yet, ( too many long posts, and little patients to read throughly) but one other kind of thing I think is a room disruption is when a newby enters the isrp based rooms and starts generally talking to those present. Some do ask for help, but even then that can be a bit of a disruption, and others just jump in to interacting without trying to ask for help. I know this and what I'll say next may sound rude, but is there any way to set up a program a newby has to go through before entering into the ISRP based rooms? Once again, sorry for sounding rude, just thought I'd ask.
The only thing I have some concern over is the fighting issue. I do agree that an extended fight between two people that does not move outside in a reasonable time period can indeed be disruptive to the room, even if it does not involve others. But that's my opinion.
I would also think that the severity of the fight would and should apply to this. A fight without weapons done only with fists and feet, for instance, would be less of a challenge setting-wise to justify than a full blown arms race of blades and magic. Unfortunately, this falls into that same subjective line as has been mentioned on other matters.
I'd agree that an extended fight should qualify, but the question then becomes how we define extended. Number of actions taken? Number of injuries? Length of real-time? A number of factors enter into any of these, and leaving them to be subjective only leads to more problems and more time used that would be better placed elsewhere.
If a character is unwilling to enter a fight (and their player is, naturally) and tries to evade leaving in an attempt to remain in a presumed 'safe zone', it makes matters more difficult on the player of the agressor in attempting to move the target out, adding to all three of the factors mentioned. I've seen a number of cases like this occur as an observer and while being among an agressor's allies in another, and this does add a bit of a strain when constraints are placed on what is excessive regarding time.
Combats/attacks have been subjective for as long as I've been around the chats. I remember the days when one character was on a killing spree and would day-to-day slit the throats of his victims in the non-combat rooms while a WizO was on, and I've seen others enforce non-combat rules far more strictly to the degree of issuing soft-warns for a brief altercation that was leaving the room already. Setting an arbitrary and absolute guideline would help with this as it could take some of the edge off of the players' shoulders knowing the exact parameters that they have.
It does, as Ricohard said, come down to whether it's handled reasonably and respectfully in character in many cases. I know my first instinct as a player is when combat begins, suggest in character a change of scene and move to the proper combat room, and vice versa once combat is over, but in both cases there are in character circumstances that can prevent this, and being a roleplaying site, penalizing players for maintaining in character integrity seems overly harsh in some cases. But again, this is unfortunately a subjective matter, making a ruling based upon it unwieldy at best.
I would suggest the following as basic tenets for what would and would not constitute room disruption for combat, from my point of view at least:
Not -
Pursuit of an unwilling character (of a willing player), when it does not directly interfere with others not involved in the situation who do not wish to become involved.
Brief, weaponless scuffles, as long as they are small in scope and not raging bar-room brawls reminiscent of pro-wrestling matches.
Single strike assassination attempts, as long as the blood and gore is kept below the normal for even the combat rooms and is done respectfully toward other characters present in a way so as not to draw massive attention (as true assassination attempts should avoid doing).
Should -
Sweeping bar-room brawls as mentioned above, the kind with tables and chairs being used as weapons and battle platforms, using other patrons as shields when they aren't involved in the altercation willingly.
Prolonged weapon battles lasting more than a handful of strikes without exiting the room, which is just needless and messes up the floor.
Flashy spell duels, especially when using area of effect spells that could easily end up including unwilling patrons.
Assassination attempts that go on, and on, and on in needlessly long detail simply to attempt to draw as much attention as possible.
I'm sure there are others, but I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I can't think of more right now. (Looks like the post of a tired person, eh?).
As for non-combat situations that could be considered room disruption, it does fall into the subjective realm. Cases where a scene between a small subgrouping of characters can polarize an entire room could fall into this category by some definitions, but other cases of the same thing would fall into good roleplaying. An old example from my own experience of this was an ocassion where Tharivious had gotten into an argument and drawn the interest of over half of the individuals of the tavern, who rallied around it. It got the room going, distracted some from what they had been doing, but it was from the feel of the incident rather than intrusiveness. It was a pure case of roleplaying and remains one of my favorite moments playing the character. At the same time, by some standards it could have fallen into the category of being disruptive.
Jardel and Dontella pretty much said what I would say on most of those matters, so as rarely as I get to say this, I agree with both of them on this one.
Personally I don't think it should matter if there are weapons used or not as a factor whether something is disruptive or not. If you say that fights without weapons aren't disruptive people will then start bar brawls where they are punching, kicking, biting and clawing. Even though half the room might get involved in the fight it isn't room disruption because they aren't using weapons. When you do that type of action you favor one type of character the unarmed specialists or wannabe specialists. Why should a monk that only uses their hands and feet be able to fight as much as he/she wishes where a shortsword weapon master can only use his/her weapon of choice in the combat rooms only. This would be very prejudicial to certain types of characters and not a very fair way to go about it. Besides regardless of how they are fighting a long fight, whether it be magical, physical or psionic can be disruptive when your screen constantly is filled up with the actions of a few involved in combat in a room that isn't supposed to be combat heavy.
As for penalizing characters for remaining true to character by participating in wanton destruction........what would happen if the town guard came in? They would be at the least tossed in jail. Anytime you play online it is very difficult to play your character true to form 100% of the time. You might have to ignore certain actions of a character to keep from breaking CoC by outright slaughtering them and their friends in a spray of blood and gore. You can't have both rules governing what characters can do and then want things more free so not to penalize them for being true to character. Alot of that boils down to common sense on the part of the player. Yes a barbarian might tend towards fits of rage but even the most dense of character is going to realize sooner or later if you keep blowing up in bars you might soon find yourself either not wanted or hunted because of your actions.
Maybe limiting the amount of actions of a combat nature in a non-combat room. Say five per character involved before it is to move to one of the designated combat rooms. That would give the player and character plenty of time to move to an area where they wouldn't have to worry about innocents(if they worry about such things) or others getting involved in such a manner they wouldn't be able to defend themself from countless attacks.
Personally I don't think it should matter if there are weapons used or not as a factor whether something is disruptive or not. If you say that fights without weapons aren't disruptive people will then start bar brawls where they are punching, kicking, biting and clawing. Even though half the room might get involved in the fight it isn't room disruption because they aren't using weapons. When you do that type of action you favor one type of character the unarmed specialists or wannabe specialists. Why should a monk that only uses their hands and feet be able to fight as much as he/she wishes where a shortsword weapon master can only use his/her weapon of choice in the combat rooms only. This would be very prejudicial to certain types of characters and not a very fair way to go about it. Besides regardless of how they are fighting a long fight, whether it be magical, physical or psionic can be disruptive when your screen constantly is filled up with the actions of a few involved in combat in a room that isn't supposed to be combat heavy.
That's exactly my point in saying brief scuffles, bar room brawls were included in what I think should fall under room disruption. Most public places would have set an advantage to the unarmed specialist, weapons in motion would raise more attention, logically speaking, than a swinging fist, and while no public establishment wants fights within its walls, less lethal methods would likely be deemed lesser offenses. Likewise with lengthy battles compared against short duration altercations.
Quote:
As for penalizing characters for remaining true to character by participating in wanton destruction........what would happen if the town guard came in? They would be at the least tossed in jail. Anytime you play online it is very difficult to play your character true to form 100% of the time. You might have to ignore certain actions of a character to keep from breaking CoC by outright slaughtering them and their friends in a spray of blood and gore. You can't have both rules governing what characters can do and then want things more free so not to penalize them for being true to character. Alot of that boils down to common sense on the part of the player. Yes a barbarian might tend towards fits of rage but even the most dense of character is going to realize sooner or later if you keep blowing up in bars you might soon find yourself either not wanted or hunted because of your actions.
Absolutely, that's a prime example of where OOC and IC backlash would be appropriate. Bounties, emnities, and the like would all grow from that sort of thing, as would OOC warnings where needed.
[/quote]Maybe limiting the amount of actions of a combat nature in a non-combat room. Say five per character involved before it is to move to one of the designated combat rooms. That would give the player and character plenty of time to move to an area where they wouldn't have to worry about innocents(if they worry about such things) or others getting involved in such a manner they wouldn't be able to defend themself from countless attacks.[/quote]
I think that's a fair number, as long as pursuit actions are either discounted or placed against the avoiding character (with a willing player of course) rather than an attacker. I've seen a few entertaining chase sequences over the last year or so, and many went beyond five actions due to a cleverly evasive target who didn't quite know when enough was enough.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
