Referring to your character as yourself, usage of /would/.

[Alexandra_Forge]

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

I think you misunderstood the meaning of imagination in this context. First of all, you're role-playing a character, that for all intents and purposes is someone living and breathing in San Andreas. In this context, imagination refers to an hypothetical situation. Like in the example I gave. Here's another.

 

"I would lose my wife if she found out I cheated on her."

What I said above is saying, I cheated on my wife and she doesn't know. But, if she were to find out I would lose her.

 

Read any English book and look out for the usage of would. You'll see that I'm right.

 

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

I think you misunderstood the meaning of imagination in this context. First of all, you're role-playing a character, that for all intents and purposes is someone living and breathing in San Andreas. In this context, imagination refers to an hypothetical situation. Like in the example I gave. Here's another.

 

"I would lose my wife if she found out I cheated on her."

What I said above is saying, I cheated on my wife and she doesn't know. But, if she were to find out I would lose her.

 

Read any English book and look out for the usage of would. You'll see that I'm right.

I get your point.. and you are right.. but your also excluding its usage within a third person. Rp setting...

 

"used to talk about a possible situation that has not happened or that you are imagining. "

^^^ is that defilement not simple as can be?

 

Do we imagine events? 

 

I am no English scholar... but I think its silly to try and decipher it any further than marriam Webster

. 

[Alexandra_Forge]

20 minutes ago, Ryoichi said:

That is true, and if you were writing a story for a book the word "Would" would be a great choice. But the proper role-play etiquette is that emotes are suppose be your actions that are visible to the other person because 99% of our actions are imagined. 

 

An action starting with would is not actually an performed action and should there for not be noticeable for the other person involved. 

 

/me wonders why this asshole is charging him to much for this baggy. 

This would be an example that falls under the same etiquette, it would be great in a book when you read about what characters are actually thinking. 

But for role play etiquette we shouldn't be able to see what you are thinking as this is MG if we act up on it.  

I think good RP replicates that of a great writer... It almost the exact same thing, only we get to do it from behind a character and the story is told on the fly..

[Tank]

3 minutes ago, Alexandra_Forge said:

 

I get your point.. and you are right.. but your also excluding its usage within a third person. Rp setting...

 

"used to talk about a possible situation that has not happened or that you are imagining. "

^^^ is that defilement not simple as can be?

 

Do we imagine events? 

 

I am no English scholar... but I think its silly to try and decipher it any further than marriam Webster

. 

I get you. You must be approaching role-play as an imaginary setting or as something that already happened? To me, it's very real. It exists, we can see and live it through our characters. It's a platform for us to bounce off one another and create interactive stories. I gave that suggestion about reading a book because if you read any piece of literature like Harry Potter, the authors never describe a character's action with would. Even if it's "imagined".

 

And please don't take it the wrong way, I'm not trying to be a prick when I suggest people to read a book or two. I'm not a native speaker myself and reading helped me a lot with piecing together some English concepts. I make mistakes all the time, it's a life-long learning process.

 

You can use would in many contexts, that's a good resource to learn some of them if you're interested.

[Ryoichi]

That is also true, but there is a etiquette to text based role-play, and emoting thoughts or actions you didn't really do, can be seen as pet peeves. 

 

I personally really hate it when people emote an action, and in the same emote, explain what result it has my character. In my eyes the result of an action on another character should fall upon the character on which the action was performed, to give that person the ability to respond.

 

this is something i see a lot in robberies on this server or brawls. 

[Alexandra_Forge]

16 minutes ago, Ryoichi said:

That is also true, but there is a etiquette to text based role-play, and emoting thoughts or actions you didn't really do, can be seen as pet peeves. 

 

I personally really hate it when people emote an action, and in the same emote, explain what result it has my character. In my eyes the result of an action on another character should fall upon the character on which the action was performed, to give that person the ability to respond.

 

this is something i see a lot in robberies on this server or brawls. 

So if I Rp fanning you with paper, I can't say you'd possibly feel the air from the action?

 

Etiquette and being just... petty are two different things.. if its a passive rp experience then it only heightens the level of immersion, and is always open for interpretation within the situation.

 

If you did not use common sense you'd end up with a never ending loop of players just agreeing with obvious outcomes. 

[Sal]

It doesn't really bother me but obviously agree that folks do need to remember that it's their character performing the actions, not themselves. Live and let live though - I doubt I'd pull someone up on it because sometimes it's just an understanding of vocab rather than something more deliberate, imo. 

[negs]

You can still use the term 'would' in a /me and have it completely separate from your character. You make a good point about involving the word 'you'. It definitely blurs the lines whether people consciously realise it or not.

[SaintBatemanofWallStreet]

To me it's pretty simple.

Would your character do it? Or did they do it?

It's almost this notion of the writer being unsure of what the character is doing, and sometimes these actions come off as more of a question than anything else. I'm not saying there is no place for would in a /me or a /do. But some people got me wondering if the character is thinking about doing something, or is actually.

 

[shrike.]

49 minutes ago, SaintBatemanofWallStreet said:

Would your character do it? Or did they do it?

The prescribed tense is present/present continuous, so you mean to ask: 'are they doing it?' 

 

Would is often used as a means to gain permission in the event you're leaving the other party open for some kind of action that acts as a rebuttal. But then you can apply some force by omitting. It's a preference, or sometimes just a symbol of some respect from writer to writer. Take it as you please. I'm not sure it's a very big deal nor am I convinced it implies you are incapable of separation. That is more of a core issue with the writer, not the writing. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by shrike.

[Alexandra_Forge]

Just now, shrike. said:

The prescribed tense is present/present continuous, so you mean to ask: 'are they doing it?' 

 

Would is often used as a means to gain permission in the event you're leaving the other party open for some kind of action that acts as a rebuttal. But then you can apply some force by omitting. It's a preference, or sometimes just a symbol of some respect from writer to writer. Take it as you please. I'm not sure it's a very big deal nor am I convinced it implies you are incapable of separation. That is more of a core issue with the writer, not the writing. 

You are spot fucking on.