Welcome to Gaia! ::

Putting that butter knife next to me? Have at thee!

Except the irony of all of this, what if I make a bad fighting choice as an assassin? What if I make an attack that doesn't make any sense that an assassin would know wouldn't work? Or what happens if I mis-characterize my character as I just did in my last post, in which a character so frigid she struggles to accept money from strangers because she can't trust them is implying something about a kiss, where she would more logically is play wounded kitten/woman and say 'Stop stop stop' or some such?

Do I get penalized for roleplaying then? I'm playing the character wrong. It's a genuine ******** up. And by extension it then shows a detriment to my score.

I'm telling you, just because I am using text to fight does not mean I am roleplaying. Whether I'm playing a character with a 200 page backstory and purple prose on their superfluous actions or a blank slate, text fighting =/= roleplaying.

These things can be used together. But the results vary wildly.

I strongly and firmly believe a competitive attitude will always result in a worse experience than a collaborative one.

See my previous posts: You're still playing your character. Playing your character does not make you less competitive, otherwise playing within the limits of your character's power level would make you less competitive. In both instances, all you're doing is playing as per what the character sheet says.

Are you playing yourself, in a realistic setting, in a completely realistic manner? No? Then you're roleplaying. That somebody chooses to call themself a "textual combatant" and have a shitty attitude wherein they're willing to compromise the fundamental tenets of roleplaying just to win doesn't mean they're not roleplaying.

It just means they're doing a bad job of roleplaying.

There's literally NO difference between what you're describing to me as "text fighting" and "roleplaying" other than attitude. Nothing you're describing is intrinsically different from what we call roleplaying except the what the player's outlook is. That's the only difference. You're still playing a character outlined in a character sheet. You're still describing their actions, their reactions, their decisions. You're still portraying them. The only difference is that in a "text fight" you're willing to break character to win. Which isn't more competitive, it's just being a poor sport.

A different approach doesn't make them two completely different things. That just means that one is a context where someone has the attitude of a shitheel.

And there's shitheels everywhere. Just because they can't juggle being competitive and playing properly doesn't mean that what they're doing is an entirely different concept.

They're just doing it wrong. The competitive attitude you're describing is a bad competitive attitude. That's all. It's not THE competitive attitude; it is neither definitive nor the only way to be competitive, it's just the wrong way because you're willing to put winning above playing properly.

That's called being a s**t sport. Cheaters have the same approach: they care more about winning than playing properly. Do we think of them as being "competitive" versus people who follow the rules? No, we think they're cheaters.

No difference here.

Like I said, I'm competitive any time I have a fight or enter a tournament. I try to win, but I'm still playing my character. I don't compromise one for the other in EITHER direction. I'm not magically not-competitive simply because I equally balance my attempt to win with portraying my character. I just have a better attitude than some dickbird "textual combatant."

He and I aren't doing anything different when we sit down to write our posts.. other than that his only concern is winning. We're still doing the same thing. We just have different attitudes, that doesn't mean we're playing different games.

See, this is just a difference of where we come from.

I don't think roleplaying should be competitive. I think it breeds negativity and will not function as well if you worked with your players in a more coordinated fashion.

Competitive to me is two people facing off and trying to overcome each other. And what happens when they do? Character death? The party splitting? Are feelings going to be hurt in the process? Are people going to want to continue the roleplay after the fight?

Could it have been avoided if you had just gone 'Hey guys, why not instead of duking it out for two pages to decide who's best, just work it out OOCly and make it interesting?'

Even worse. These fights breaking out around people who don't fight well. And they have to put up with it.

It's not the quality of roleplay that's good or bad, it's bad in the sense that someone is willing to break the basic tenets of roleplaying to win. That's bad roleplaying.

Patch: Understandable. All I'm saying is that "competitive fighting" and "roleplaying" are basically the same thing on paper. Both are roleplaying. It only changes when the person in question has a bad attitude and lets their desire to win overshadow their roleplaying.

You're correct, in that competitive settings or events often breed bad attitudes. However, I don't believe that this poor attitude is intrinsic to fighting, I think it's a by-product of some people having an ego over playing pretend. These people would, if they didn't roleplay, have an ego over playing video games or something else. It's not what they're doing, it's how they do it. It's not the game, it's the player.

Like I said, there should be no difference to someone between "competitive fighting" and "roleplaying." You ought to approach it with the mindset of: I'm playing my character. Just because you want to win, or your character wants to win shouldn't change that.

On your advice I will hold off and wait to see my score just so I can tell where to improve.

Vin you haven't read that fight at all, have you?

Which one?