Thread Closed
(02-02-2015, 12:36 AM)Kage Wrote:(02-02-2015, 12:23 AM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote:Your analogy is just like mine. In order to critique a meal you'd had to have actually experienced it in some way. You can't critique a whole meal based off its title. Just like you can't critique an RP event just on the title.(02-02-2015, 12:18 AM)Kage Wrote: My question is: Have you even seen what the RP is like in order to even criticize it? What happens? How it is sorted out? The Company of Heroes weren't Warriors of Light and they defeated Titan and Leviathan. They weren't even Echo-users. They were just lucky as hell people who saw the telegraphed hits or were just skilled enough to last long enough to take them down.Â
It's one thing to experience the actual roleplay is it happens, it's another to just see "Oh people want to go fight a primal? What the hell that goes against my perception of the lore!"
There's been many people in-game who like to detract from peoples' RP saying that they were lore-breaking (Non-adventurers' presence in Quicksand, the majority of peoples' Sultansworn RP) AND they have been dead-fucking wrong about their "lore facts."
To be fair, you don't need to be a chef in order to be able to criticise a meal. It's also possible to make an educated guess about someone's role-play based on their character concept. If someone is claiming to be powerful enough or lucky enough to fight a major named antagonist and survive then it's pretty clear that they're going to draw controversy.
I could claim that Graeham is the long lost son of Livia sas Junius (he's not) and I'd fully expect people to criticise me for it or assume the worst. Heck, even if I pulled it off flawlessly I'd still expect to be criticised because it'd be a very bold move and I'd be opening myself up for that sort of response as a result.
...and as has already been pointed out earlier, if people do Primal fights as a 'what if' scenario or in private then that's fine. It's their bubble, after all. As soon as that ends up in a public environment, though? It's open for feedback and critique.
If it is done well? Great! I can get on board with it, but the burden of proof is on the ones taking the bold leap and just as I don't get to tell anybody what they can and cannot role-play nobody really gets to tell anybody else what they can and cannot comment on. It works both ways, not just one.
The only public portion of the event is opening it up for people who are interested. You haven't experienced the event in public. You haven't seen what the RP was like. Instead of leaping to conclusions, why not do the smart, logical and reasonable thing and ask what it's like? There's a word for people who make uninformed assumptions. Might start with an "A".
It seems like we're arguing semantics at this point, complete with thinly veiled snipes to boot. Let's be honest - certain concepts are very rarely done well. If someone walks up to me in the street on a dark night and they stink of alcohol and are wearing tattered clothing them it's fair to assume that they're a drunk and potentially dangerous.
I don't need to get to know the person to make that judgement. Could I be wrong? Sure, but I'd be saving myself a great deal of trouble by not going through the song of dance of examining every last little possibility before settling on an opinion.
When it comes to role-play, it's nothing personal - if I catch wind of something bizarre or very bold then I'll roll my eyes and move on. I think some people are severely overestimating the amount of time invested in criticism.
Heck, I often poke fun at my own expense from time to time. It's fun and when I look back at some of my early character concepts from when I first started out I cringe. I learned from my mistakes though and move forward.
At any rate, I've said my piece and that's that. If people want additional insight into my reasoning then they're free to toss a PM my way.