Room Disruption

[WizO_Adele]

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.

 

[WizO_Adele]

Psst, I see lots and lots of views but no commentary! Is this really a decision you want entirely in the hands and hearts of the WizO team and Hasbro?

If you have an opinion, please share it! We'd love to consider your arguments and suggestions.

 

[Ricohard_Draconis]

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

 

[747]

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.

 

[Dontella]

Okay.. a thought, I'll try and keep it short.

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.

If I wasn't clear, let me know.

 

[Kathryn_aka_Kat]

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.

 

[Jardel_Karabella]

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.

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.

 

[Kathryn_aka_Kat]

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.

 

[747]

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.

Just my little cents (Sense).

 

[Dontella]

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.