What is the motivation to play a (non-sexual) submissive/supporting role?

Wow, I'm going to have to do another bulk reply..





This is easily said, but I didn't see any sign of group consensus negotiation in those sequences. Now it could be that it was all happening in IM, but that seems unlikely. How is it possible to "show I'm not a bumbling goof" when I'm just sitting on a poseball and the judgment that I'm making a mistake is plucked purely from the ether? And why should I (or anyone else) want to just "play along" when the teacher is no different or better than anyone else in the room?



That, unfortunately, falls into the old trap of "you can't demonstrate your ability without having the position but you can't have the position until you've demonstrated your ability". Again, the existing "teacher" didn't have to do this.



But they are not really learning anything - if they were, I'd understand it much more. They have no input to the process, there was nothing to practice, and in the case of the dance/magic classes there was no "levelling up" element programmed into the scripts. Since they had no input, no feedback could be meaningful.



I didn't say that the teacher wasn't any good, I said that since all of the skills in the scene were completely abstracted there was no reason why any one person should be teacher over anyone else. It's like that bit in Galaxy Quest - "Why are we all taking orders from him? He isn't really the Captain! We're all just actors!"



Because I've avoided setting up RP scenarios in similar ways on the basis that doing so would be an ass thing to do because it puts people into the situations I've described here. If it isn't, I'd like to know why not (and how to avoid it being so). Now, we then get into the question of why nobody told me it wasn't earlier, but that's separate..



But that adds a HUGE dimension, because now the skills are real, the teacher is no longer just some random person who happened to be in the right place at the right time. There is value to feedback, it is possible to reprove yourself, and all those kinds of things are possible.

I do not know her personally but had the same feeling- good to read someone who I havent seen around in awhile.

Personally I would say that the scene with the teacher dominant is to teach the importance of learning one's place.

When you enter an RP environment, it is dangerous for the established community to allow 'just anything' from anyone new. Pretty much all successful RP environments involve set contexts, and if the new member is not able to accept the context, they probably should not be there.

Also, many RP situations involve existing class or rank structures, and if newbies were able to come in at any rank they wished it would render the whole concept pointless.

Given that it makes sense for RP classes to include exposure to such settings.

Newbies to such structures are also generally expected to be less than fully competent until they prove otherwise. This is important for the same reason people cannot come in at whatever rank they wish. In RP, anyone can say they have the bigger gun, the more powerful attack, or even the more charming smile. Unless and until they are considered to have earned the right to say so, they are not really role playing with the community.

So again, they have to be able to RP being a novice until/unless they meet whatever communities standards for them to be considered otherwise.

In other words, accepting some abuse is a neccessary evil to make a lot of these situations work. Unless you are willing to be less than perfect when the situation demands it, unless you are willing to lose sometimes, it is unlikely you will find many willing to RP with you.

At least that is my take on it....

Some of these communities had only just begun. Your response is fair enough, but doesn't answer the question of why, when the RP environment first began, one person was accepted as authority.

Yumi, you're missing the point. It's a COLLABORATIVE story. Your teacher calls you a bumbling goof. OK, you now have a choice as to how to respond. Here are a couple...

/me hangs her head dejectedly. "I'm sorry, sensei. I'll try harder."

OR

/me bristles angrily. "The only problem here is YOU. You can't teach worth a damn, and I bet you can't fight worth a damn either. I challenge you."

Either response helps move the story in one direction or another, and builds character and interest. And that's the point. Not "really" learning and teaching, but bouncing your character off others, interacting, telling a collaborative story.

I am sure I would never want to role play a school environment since I loathed school when I was actually at school. Schools appear to create submissiveness for some players. Maybe I should just to be a thorn in the side of "teachers". I suspect that whether we wish it or not, we become as submissive, supporting or dominant as we are in real. I am dominant in my career and tend to say exactly what I like. I liek to take control in real situations. To offset that, I am far more submissive in the bedroom and cling to my bedpartner or acquiesce to his needs but this is NOT a thread about that.

Why do we accept anyone in their role of authority? Because they bear the title. Because they exert an air of authority. Because we are told we should.

As example, it's always amused me how people will take the word of a doctor unwaveringly at face value, even though if you really think about it, they are just another person, with a title. Sure they have training, but they are neither infallible nor all-knowing. In fact much of medicine is guesswork, if anything should be questioned in life, it's the diagnosis of a doctor.


Look at it this way: You come to a RP area, there is the master, and there are all the students with him. What will you do, become a student, or declare yourself the new master and try to overthrow the existing one?

One will gain you entry to the group, the other will likely get you tossed out on your ear. Choose wisely!

I can see this working with a scripted system in place for resolving a fight. But in other cases, like the dance and magic examples, I can't see this working. If the idea that "you made a mistake because the teacher said you did, even though you were just on a poseball and had no control, they can say it with no reference to anything else" holds within the social group, then the teacher can trivially win the challenge and laugh at you on the same basis. Or, moreover, they can throw you out of the school ("why study here if I can't teach?" which is tantamount to banning you from the entire RP, if the school is where it takes place. That's why I say, a collaborative story can't have that kind of authority in it, surely.

Right, but that still fails to answer the question of why they were the master was the master in the first place - ie, why the students chose them at a time when there was no precedent. (Technically, it's also OOC crossover, of course! )

I don't mind submitting to an RP authority, but I do mind if a) there is no mechanism for overriding them if they are not entertaining or similar, and b) there is no reason why they are in authority other than that they met the group at the correct time. Both of these CAN be provided by scripted RP systems or by other means, but I'm wondering what happens when they aren't. Without that, it just seems to be the "local maximum power grab" I talked about earlier.

So "FOAD Furry" doesn't really cut it then?

Pep (has to change his attitude before something bites him. )

You have obviously never rp'd in any of the schools in sl, Jig.

Pep (I found the female teachers to be more submissive than the students. )

So this was ALL roleplay going on? They were pretending to be teacher and students - like kids do?

I'm sorry but the answers could just boil down to "because it was fun" and "because they agreed to."

You've ignored the part in my post where I mentioned responsibility vs. entertainment. Some are happy to let others take the lead as they find it more entertaining. Since there was nothing to be won there was also nothing to be lost, so again, why worry?



Well, I'd never suggest someone do an ass thing.

I already answered that - I'm worried because of what I might have lost out on. And again, with the "boil down" angle, the question still comes to - why was it fun?



Right, but it seems you're arguing that it isn't one (which is good, it's what I wanted to hear).

Well the logical answer might be that if you don't think it seems fun it probably wouldn't be, for you. So you probably did not miss out on anything.

I've given more than one answer but if those don't satisfy the only other one I can offer is: It can be fun to pretend, because you can let go of reality. It can be fun NOT to have a goal or purpose, because then there is less pressure, and it is more abstract in nature.

Seems you do not find abstract endeavors fun but rather they make you more tense. So, refer back to paragraph #1 here.

Well, no. I might like to have organised something in the way the teacher did, but I would want it to be fun for the other people involved. And obviously I can't ensure that it is fun for them, if I have no idea what makes it fun for people.

I am agreeing with you.

So your OP was not a complaint but more a wistful longing?

Yes. Um, like pretty much every complaint I've ever posted, actually. Except for the ones about LL.

Well...there might BE a scripted system in place for fighting. There most certainly is, in many of the samurai rp sims.

But even if there isn't, you can still tell that collaborative story. Let's say the sensei throws you out. So...your character sets up his/her own rival academy and becomes the sworn foe of your former sensei. Huzzah, instant Kung Fu dojo feud! Even if there are no actual fights, this provides a rich opportunity for interaction. You and your followers hanging around your enemy's dojo looking menacing and taunting them. Snubbing each other as you pass in the street. Reconciliation in the face of a common foe.

You're way too focused on your continual themes of "winning" and "validation". That isn't the point of roleplay, or certainly not the primary point. The point is the story, and the character interactions, and how consistently you can play the character you've created.

It doesn't MATTER who the teacher is, or how he got to be the teacher. What matters is that there IS a teacher, and students, and how they interact.

.. and gets ignored, because all the RP people are at the original school.



.. and getting ARed for disrupting the RP of the other group.

Ohh, okay. That makes a difference in trying to address your post. So perhaps add, "I really wish I could..." at the end. Understanding YOUR goal is an important clue in trying to help you.

The simplest answer might be to ask the participants why or what they enjoyed about the experience.

How to help others have fun in roleplay? Roleplay your own part in a true way, and try to pay attention to their character and behavior in the session and react accordingly. Roleplay is a lot like acting. Perhaps read more about the basic tenets of acting.

Well, what people assume about my goal tells me a lot about the real situation.



That's what I have been doing, but the problem with that is, they have found their experience now, and trying to just organize the same thing to compete just seems like creating unnecessary drama. What I would want to know is how the original teacher knew about it before they had met the people.

What real situation? Just trying to assess your concern and offer some feedback or helpful suggestions. The only 'real situation' is the one you have framed yourself, since you are the OP.

No offense but your posts can be a tad inscrutable. They do leave room for interpretation. That doesn't make them Rorshachs.



I didn't say compete, I said simply do your own role well.

Do you realise that you are being very vague and wishing others to help you with this situation? Ironically you are being very - abstract about the situation. Then, criticise the replies you get.

How about telling us exactly what happened, in what type of roleplay context, etc. For instance I don't know why it matters whether there was a 'goal' or combat points and things like that. Why does it matter which type of roleplay it is?

Are you saying that you do not see the value in non goal oriented roleplay? Then the answer, again, seems simple - don't play that kind. Do you envy the fun you imagine people are having? Why? Go find your own sort of fun.

They do, and as I said, seeing how people interpret them is notable. For example, when I posted complaints about building, seeing that people jumped immediately to "well, perhaps you just can't do it" suggests that for some reason they have no interest in things I might build (since, by posting such, they cast their vote in favor of me giving up). I don't know why not, but they do have the right to think that.



They matter because they would mean the teacher wasn't an absolute and arbitrary authority. If we're using a combat system, then you can be the teacher because you're higher level and that makes sense; and if a student does decide to get stroppy and challenge you, we'll roll dice to settle the challenge, and although the teacher will still probably win, there's always a chance. If there's no system then it's just arbitrary assigned authority for no apparent reason, and has a tendancy to be constantly on the verge of collapsing into OOC social drama.



No, I'm saying I want to do it. But, again, the fact that your first vote is that I should give up is noted.

You seem to stack assumption on top of assumption - first of all by assuming what others are thinking or what they 'actually' mean. You read things into posts that in my opinion simply are not there.

I remember that thread and I did not interpret their response as having no interest in your work. I interpreted some of those, at least, as a bit facetious, and also, a bit exasperated at the question. Didn't necessarily have a thing to do with your work/builds.

In fact I recall people saying, repeatedly, that you seemed to want to ask the same thing often but were not satisfied with any of the answers. That was mainly when, if I recall correctly, people began just sloughing off the entire dilemma.

I see you doing a bit of the same in this thread as well and it can begin to feel exasperating and a bit draining on this side of things - as if you are obsessing/wheel spinning on a notion but not really listening to what people are giving you by way of their replies.

Sometimes people become a bit sarcastic at that point and I think that's what happened in the thread you mentioned above.



Okay, there might be some type of expertise in a combat system, but there might not be the same type of expertise that you are talking about. For instance mere leveling up isn't always due to combat skills. Some sim owners 'reward' certain players for all types of things including sim loyalty or special projects, things like that. They sometimes give points as prizes at OOC events. So that isn't necessarily the case, but again, you're presupposing that rolling dice or using a combat system is somehow 'better' or 'makes more sense' - when in fact those are ALSO agreed upon values and constructs.

It also is not true that "if there is no system...it's just arbitrary...for no apparent reason." There is still a system in place - it might be something like that person chosen has a better personality fit to that character. They might have more time to devote to that particular sim. They might be a friend of the sim owner or someone the sim owner trusts with a position of 'responsibility' for some other reason. It would rarely be given to someone who'd just wandered in unknown. But there is rarely "no apparent reason" - you just are not seeing it perhaps. (I'm sure there are exceptions, in which anyone who will agree to the role is given it. But again *I am given no details.* Lol.)

I can't reply to your bit about things always being on the verge of collapsing into OOC drama, since it sounds as if you are thinking of a specific incident but again, give no detail of it here. I'm not a mind reader.



Okay Mr. Drama, when did I say you should give up? I said if you don't ENJOY it, don't do it. Which seems logical to me, unless you're a masochist, in which case, I guess you'd enjoy not enjoying it.

Honestly, more details and less passive aggression would be dandy.

Yes, but becoming exasperated and facetious at me when they do not at others was simply something else that I was observing as a rejection. And it's true that I did reject several of the answers given, but I didn't force anyone to continue posting the same answers over and over again after that. And just because I don't agree with people doesn't mean I'm not listening to them.



Oh, sure, but once they are agreed upon they resolve individual small items automatically. In the case of the student challenging the teacher in a system that lacks this, it's highly unlikely that the two are going to have an IM conversation to discuss who will win - and if they did, the resulting slowdown and social conflict would damage the scene for everyone, meaning that ultimately the challenger loses socially.



In these cases, though, it seems it was given to someone who just organized the RP and claimed it for themselves.



You didn't say "if" though. You implied that "I was saying" that I wouldn't enjoy it. But why would you assume I was saying that, as opposed to assuming anything else?