Welcome to Gaia! ::

You're defining competition by it's negative aspects but that isn't it's definition.

Competitive role-play is the way it is because people are trying to meta-game the role-play in way that is not realistic.

Most of these tournaments strive for a character kit based on fiction or rather an adaption to realism.

Unfortunately a lot of people can't tell the difference between fiction and fantasy and thus we have OOC arguments.

which occur in story role-play as well just for different reasons but it all boils down to conflict of interest and misunderstandings.

Another thing, your wheat bread example is a moot point. You are using an improbable extreme to prove your point.

Except.. you are. Again, there's no difference between the two: they're functionally identical. It's just a question of whether or not the person is any good at it.

I'll tell you you're roleplaying a piece of wheat bread, because you are. In your metaphor, a person who is playing a character whose sole purpose is to fight with no other meaningful attributes (personality, history, etc) is still roleplaying.

They're just bad at it. Again: you cannot have a text fight without playing a character. You're still roleplaying, it's just a question of whether or not you're a good roleplayer or not. It's impossible to separate the two.

Also I didn't strawman you, I'm just not defining collaboration as "working together towards a predetermined outcome" which seems to be how you're defining it. I'm using it to mean "working together," because that's the definition of the word. It's just another word for cooperate.

And any time you have a fight, you're going to have to work together with your opponent at SOME point. One of you is going to accept that this hit makes sense and have your character take it, if there's a difference of opinion you have to reconcile it, if there's confusion or a miscommunication you have to sort it out. This is all, per the actual definition of the word, collaboration or cooperation. It's not like in boxing where if I punch you in the face you have to take it, you can't go "WAIT WAIT WAIT THAT PUNCH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE" or "NO YOU CAN'T HIT ME RIGHT NOW." If I wanna punch you in the face, I will.

Roleplaying, and by extension fighting, is dependent on cooperation with your opponent to get things done because of how roleplaying works. Again, look at boxing, there's no discussion or having the person do this or that. You either get hit or you don't. That's not how it is in roleplay, I don't care how realistic someone tries to be. There is a fundamental disconnect, and it is that disconnect that requires us to work together to some degree or another. Why do you think it is that when two people have a fight and spend more of their time bickering OOC than beating each others' head in IC, that the fight never gets anywhere? Whereas when two people work together well OOC, the IC moves along just fine?

That's collaboration/cooperation.

No strawman involved. Just defining the word differently, because working towards a predetermined outcome has nothing to do with what we're discussing so that definition is not what I'm using. Inasmuch as I can tell that's how you're defining it, so it's not a strawman, it's just a difference in definition.

Everything you've described isn't something other than roleplaying.. it's just examples of BAD roleplaying. Fair notice, in what I'm describing in a moment isn't meant to be a strawman or intentional misrepresentation of your descriptions of competitive fighting; I'm pulling them right from your posts as they're written so if I'm misrepresenting them, then my apologies.

Playing a character with no pretense towards personality, history, or the like? That just sounds like poor roleplaying, whether they're doing it for a fight or not.

Trying to win at any cost, even if it means breaking character (which I assume would fall under "everything within your power")? Again, just bad roleplaying.

Trying to win at the cost of playing your character or writing an interesting post or story? Just someone who's not good enough at roleplaying to accurately play within the boundaries of who their character is while trying to win their fight. Bad roleplaying, as far as I'm concerned.

Refusing to go with a scene or situation because of your ego? Shitty roleplaying. Also, poor people skills.

Everything you're outlining as being part of the competitive mindset for "textual fighting" just sounds like.. well, bad roleplaying. I've competed in multiple tournaments, and I've won and/or been in the finals in most of the ones I've been in, so it's safe to say that I'm "competitive", but I don't have any of these things you're ascribing to "textfighting." See where I'm going with this? It's not a difference in what you're doing, it's a difference in attitude and approach.

Which, like I said, kinda falls in line with what I've seen over the years. All these people I've bumped into across various communities who tout themselves as being "expert textual fighters" tend to just be shitty roleplayers with trumped up egos who sacrifice playing their character to try and feel special about playing pretend over the internet.

Which, again, still isn't a dig at you because you're not that kind of player as far as I know but it points to what I'm saying: There's no difference in WHAT you're doing, it boils down to HOW you do it. These people who run around running their mouth about being "textual combatants" tend to just be shitty roleplayers who happen to focus on combat.

Textual combat and roleplaying are the same thing.

It's not what you're doing.. it's how you do it, and having a different attitude is not the same as doing something different.

All tournaments rp is competitive roleplaying.

Why are you typing that much? No one wants to read that. sweatdrop

You can write a fight without roleplaying.


A writer isn't necessarily a roleplayer. You can write different characters without being a roleplayer. Roleplaying means you inherit a role and go through playing the role from the character's perspective and whatnot. When you're just describing the situation or summarizing the events from an objective perspective you aren't roleplaying.

An emotionless, mute soldier will still have s**t going in his mind, especially if his sole intent is to sell his opponent a coffin apartment.

s**t even the average NPC Mook has enough going on with him that you could RP as one and at least give the character some thoughts as they go about beating someone's skull in. Just because you type it does not mean that other characters see or hear it.

ninja

And I explained, using the same metaphor, how this isn't something different than roleplaying but, rather, is just an example of bad roleplaying.

Yes, it is a character who is bland and boring, but can still be in a fight and win. That's just shitty roleplaying, not something different from roleplaying. Just because someone does a shitty job of it doesn't mean they're doing something different. They're not "text fighting." They're roleplaying a fight. And they're doing a poor job of it. None of the things you described make it "not roleplaying." It just makes it bad roleplaying.

Again, the fact that it's competitive doesn't preclude the fact that you're roleplaying or that you should still be following the same basic tenets of roleplaying regarding character portrayal. You don't cheat, you don't bullshit, you play your character accurately.

I never said anything about not trying to win, I merely pointed out that trying to win to the extent that you're willing to compromise your roleplaying makes you a bad player. Just like trying to cheat makes you a bad player. There's nothing in my post about "not trying to win." You're still trying to win in any given competition, but you still have to be a good sport, you don't cut corners, you don't cheat, you play fair.

Again, all the bad things you're highlighting have nothing to do with "competitive fighting." It has to do with being a shitty roleplayer. Someone who does those things - who sacrifices the basic fundamentals of the hobby to win - is a shitty player. They're still roleplaying, they're just doing a terrible job. The fact that it happens to be in a competitive setting doesn't change that.

"Textual fighting" is still roleplaying. Just because you're trying to win doesn't mean you're not roleplaying. It just means you're trying to win. These aren't mutually exclusive. They never have been. Every time I enter a tournament, I don't magically play my character any different, and last I checked, I won two out of the three GTBs I've entered, so this clearly isn't an issue with "not trying to win."

The bottom line is, the only difference between a "text fighter" and a "roleplayer" is that the "text fighter" happens to be a shitty roleplayer, and also thinks that because they're writing combat, that gives them an excuse to be shitty as long as they can sate their ego. At the end of the day they're still roleplaying.. they're just roleplaying badly.

Treating a competitive fight differently than any other roleplaying situation is, to me, just the sign of a poor player. There's no difference between one and the other, so why treat it differently? You're still playing your character, the fact that you have the added goal of winning a fight doesn't change that in any way shape or form.

If someone can't roleplay their character while trying to be competitive, then they're just bad at it.