The difference between OOC and IC:
There seems to be continuing evidence in board posts and discussions
that many in the player base don't really understand the differences
between in- character and out-of-character, between attacking a
character and attacking the player behind the character.
When a player comes to Legend and makes up a name, and chooses a
hometown and stats, they are creating a character, a 'role' to take on
while they are within the world. Role-playing is to pretend that this
person is real, that one only knows what the 'character' knows and one
exists in the world of the character. Any reference to the -game-
aspects of the world is out-of-character. Any acknowledgement that
this IS a game is OOC. Any reference to the life the person -playing-
the character leads, to the emotions, to the goals, to the world they
live in or to anything that the -character- wouldn't know is OOC. That
a character is 'strong' is part of that person's rp - however, any
reference to the way one -becomes- strong, by choosing that stat
first, is out-of-character.
The parts of the world of legend are accepted by the player
(suspension of disbelief), and to truly rp, the character responds to
them as if they are real. Magic works in the world our characters live
in. There really is a hell and we can visit it. Time travel is
something we are aware of and can use. There are a couple of things
that are difficult to rationalize for our characters and various rpers
choose various ways of doing so: mobs, and channels. Mobs - 'people'
that do not act as if they are completely aware and functional - could
be rationalized as shadows, while players are the 'real' people (ala
Amber). Channels could be rationalized as radios, telephones,
technological devices, magic etc. Or both can just be 'accepted as
working' and ignored. There are 'people' here who do not respond with
the same level of integration into the world that some of the others
do, and there are means of discussing things with all of the more
active people at once across long distances.
In this light, the things said on channels can be OOC or IC depending
on the content, but any reference to the real means of making them
happen - any breaking of character and admitting that the world is a
game - is OOC. Thus, the content of a trigger can be IC and an aid to
roleplay - the discussion of it AS a trigger is always OOC.
Whether something is IC or OOC is strictly dependant on responding to
the person within the role they choose to play or responding to them
as if they are a person playing a game: attacking the 'character' or
the 'person behind the character'. 'I don't like it that someone uses
triggers,' being an attack on the game method and therefore a breaking
of the 'reality' of the character is OOC. References to the persons
'other' characters (alts) is an obvious breaking of the 'reality' (all
of our characters are, of course, sole entities who don't 'play'
anything), but is certainly not the only means of attacking OOC.
References to our 'real' lives, what we do for jobs, whether we're
married or not and have children, what kind of personalities we
-really- have, the technology and politics and ethics of the world WE
live in are all OOC (which is not to say that these conversations
don't have their place).
Immorts, in their position as immortals do not role-play. (Tad being
the exception that proves the rule.) Any suggestions for reasoning of
immortal actions are -always- OOC... we do not have 'characters' to
attack, and if there is an attack, it is against the player. If you
say I am posting this because I am interested in defending my friend,
you are talking about ME, not about Sabella, who knows nothing about
out-of-character actions or means of posting to the boards, or warning
systems for disruptive -players- ;)
Sabella
From: Wuss
Saturday, April 17, 06:02PM
Just because things are OOC does not constitue that such are
attacks on that person. There are things a person does inside
the game, against another person, that are not necessarily
attacks or insults on that person -- rather, a display of disagreement
or agreement that lacks the color of an attack.
Simply because a topic is OOC does not mean we must cease upon
doing so, and of course such is not the case. Also, there is a
fine line between disputing somebody's judgement and attacking the
said person's persona -- I, for example, can and will dispute
Sandra's actions without assaulting Sandra, the person, if it is
necessary, or if I feel myself wronged.
Hence, it is not logical in my opinion, to simply put every such
dispute into the folder labelled "attacks on persons," when they
regard actions of a player. It's not as if such discussions are
questioning the target player's personality, or any other thing
they cannot change. Actions can be corrected, and as long as the
discussion stays with the player's actions, no matter how OOC it
is, the discussion should not be stopped under the banner of
harassment or personal attack.
Wuss
