ti-legacy.com

To me, Bingo's posts speak of experience with a different type of RP game where the staff are very hands on and involved with the story. I'm sorry, on TI we don't work that way.

vNPCs and whatnot only come into play when players request assistance, etc. Staff simply don't regularly storytell and are committed to hands-off RP barring specifically declared quests where player participation is optional. That's just not how things are done here. On TI, staff are strictly OOC beings that capture requests for players and execute them - at the direction of players.

As for the PC Monarch, I think those expectations would be high and wrong minded as well. The PC Monarch is not a staff member, but an iconic character just as mentioned above. The Monarch Policy doesn't request that they "Play Thematically", and it definitely doesn't suggest that they are responsible for the thematic quality of the game as a whole. Rather, its intent is to remind them to talk to staff and get approval before doing things that causes us a lot of work, like rewriting a bunch of help files, merging domains, etc. There is nothing in there that says "RP like a theme boss".

Just thought I'd add a thought that came out of chatting with Ariel and Ailyn's players but...

I think conflict is good, and that's why I think so element of racism is good. That being said, I don't think that conflict should be allowed to pre-determine the outcome of RP and the extent to which a character can advance. To do so robs the game of politics and interest.

But I don't want King Dagerian, Geras. =(

I think you nailed it, Geras. So long as racism doesn't effect advancement, power, or v/npc reaction to PCs, it's awesome.

But sadly I just got slammed by RL, so I'm not going to able to play Bernart (or Elon), so expect the in-game racism to simmer down a bit in any case. (I tried to post a goodbye note on a game board, but I've had trouble with note-posting, so I'll repeat here: apologizes for disappearing, and thanks to everyone for all the fun!)

:( Bingo. I hope you're able to be on more soon :)

And Naer... there are plenty of IC ways to stop that lol.

I think conflict is good, and that's why I think so element of racism is good. That being said, I don't think that conflict should be allowed to pre-determine the outcome of RP and the extent to which a character can advance. To do so robs the game of politics and interest.

That's a bit like saying "I want theme, but I don't want theme to be the framework in which I play". It makes no sense. Either the theme is that racism exists and has an impact on the outcome, or it doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have impact. Exists and doesn't have impact is just... poppycock.

I can say that I'm okay with racism not being the ONLY factor that determines outcome, but certainly, if it's theme, it should have teeth and affect the world. And in that vein, I have told players that they cannot have a Charali or Hillman GL (for certain upclass guilds) and as a staff member, I generally enforce that. Certainly, however, there is some laxity in the fact that we don't force all GL characters to be Lithmorrans, for example, and if the race was the only issue and more pressing RP things made it appropriate, I'd allow a barbaric race to GL. However, for that to happen, I'd need to be satisfied that it wasn't "just because", but rather that the person really had overcome that issue ICly.

Anyway. Veto toning down race wars, veto racism as a theme not having any effect.