We must stop being shitheads to each other

[Cleveland]

On 8/3/2022 at 11:53 AM, mj2002 said:

 

In a practical sense, what's the difference between these two though?

 

@Fancy Toothpaste and @knppel have already explained the contrast in theoretical terms and both gave accurate descriptions for both sides of the coin. Assuming you refer to what the difference would be in a practical sense when it comes to the game and the server in general, it's somewhat more complicated, because neither are truly applicable without the game universe devolving in the mess that's GTA:W in this day and age.

 

"Realism" implies that the server should seek to become as close as possible to reality, or rather the perception of reality that's gained from whatever sources are available, hence why the proponents that bring this to the extreme are often referred to a "scale model enthusiasts" by their detractors. Factions should be modeled after real-life organizations as accurately as possible, characters are expected to act in certain ways only with minimum to no deviation from the sources allowed, lore should closely follow the real history of the place where the roleplay is set, and so on. In short, L.S. = L.A.

 

"Authenticity" is pretty much the opposite. There are few if any limits to what can be done in-game, server rules permitting of course, and since there's no sources to follow, most adherents to it are considered "unrealistic" by their critics. Factions are not expected to be as accurate and can even be entirely fictional, characters can be portrayed like players want, the lore pays more attention to in-game happenings than it does to history books. "Authenticity" is the kind of school of thought in which San Andreas can be an island governed as an U.S. territory off the coast of California and make sense.

 

Both arguments have their pros and their cons, and both have merits in their own right. "Realism" leads to the creation of organizations, lore and characters that are more easily recognizable because they're patterned after real-life elements and therefore look more familiar, making it easier to get involved, but severely limits the choices in terms of what can be portrayed (this is particularly detrimental on GTA:W because the concepts that fit the SoCal background have been squeezed dry by now) along with not allowing enough flexibility when it comes to things that just can't work in-game (i.e. a 40-people Senate). "Authenticity", on the other hand, ensures that players can make full use of their creativity and create something original and unique, but it always runs the risk of going overboard with the liberties taken for the sake of roleplay, to the point that not all gaps can be filled effectively (i.e. some aspects of the game must be roleplayed despite them not existing IG, such as SADOC in GTA:W's case), for better immersion) and that most players would feel alienated from the final result (i.e. State Government having control over local agencies).

 

The synthesis between these two extremes is "immersion". Creating an immersive environment implies taking the best features of both sides while dropping as many flaws as possible. Therefore you can have a law enforcement faction that is based off a real-life equivalent, but lets its members portray their characters with complete freedom, investigate a completely fictional motorcycle club faction that is native to the area and whose members have created their own lore. Or, vice versa, you can have a fictional police agency that's obviously still based on U.S. law enforcement standards interact with a street gang that takes an existing Sureño set as inspiration. Of course, these are mere examples that can be applied to every aspect of the server: police, gangs, OCGs, government, etc.

 

And it's not like the server doesn't already have excellent examples of immersive factions that can blend "realism" and "authenticity". On the illegal side there's Martorano which mixes an "unrealistic" organization (an LCN outfit on the West Coast) with convincing lore and believable characters who have genuine reactions to the world around them. And on the legal side there's the San Andreas Port Authority which, while inspired by the Port of Los Angeles, isn't over-obsessed with recreating it down to the minute details or asking its members to say they're "employees of the Port of L.A.", preferring to create something original with its own customs and culture and whose leadership is one of the few that portrays actual executives by being present in-game and leading from the front instead of hiding behind alts.

 

In short, a compromise between "realism" and "authenticity" can and should be found. GTA:W's management just lacks the will to enact it. 

[mj2002]

33 minutes ago, Cleveland said:

 

@Fancy Toothpaste and @knppel have already explained the contrast in theoretical terms and both gave accurate descriptions for both sides of the coin. Assuming you refer to what the difference would be in a practical sense when it comes to the game and the server in general, it's somewhat more complicated, because neither are truly applicable without the game universe devolving in the mess that's GTA:W in this day and age.

 

"Realism" implies that the server should seek to become as close as possible to reality, or rather the perception of reality that's gained from whatever sources are available, hence why the proponents that bring this to the extreme are often referred to a "scale model enthusiasts" by their detractors. Factions should be modeled after real-life organizations as accurately as possible, characters are expected to act in certain ways only with minimum to no deviation from the sources allowed, lore should closely follow the real history of the place where the roleplay is set, and so on. In short, L.S. = L.A.

 

"Authenticity" is pretty much the opposite. There are few if any limits to what can be done in-game, server rules permitting of course, and since there's no sources to follow, most adherents to it are considered "unrealistic" by their critics. Factions are not expected to be as accurate and can even be entirely fictional, characters can be portrayed like players want, the lore pays more attention to in-game happenings than it does to history books. "Authenticity" is the kind of school of thought in which San Andreas can be an island governed as an U.S. territory off the coast of California and make sense.

 

Both arguments have their pros and their cons, and both have merits in their own right. "Realism" leads to the creation of organizations, lore and characters that are more easily recognizable because they're patterned after real-life elements and therefore look more familiar, making it easier to get involved, but severely limits the choices in terms of what can be portrayed (this is particularly detrimental on GTA:W because the concepts that fit the SoCal background have been squeezed dry by now) along with not allowing enough flexibility when it comes to things that just can't work in-game (i.e. a 40-people Senate). "Authenticity", on the other hand, ensures that players can make full use of their creativity and create something original and unique, but it always runs the risk of going overboard with the liberties taken for the sake of roleplay, to the point that not all gaps can be filled effectively (i.e. some aspects of the game must be roleplayed despite them not existing IG, such as SADOC in GTA:W's case), for better immersion) and that most players would feel alienated from the final result (i.e. State Government having control over local agencies).

 

The synthesis between these two extremes is "immersion". Creating an immersive environment implies taking the best features of both sides while dropping as many flaws as possible. Therefore you can have a law enforcement faction that is based off a real-life equivalent, but lets its members portray their characters with complete freedom, investigate a completely fictional motorcycle club faction that is native to the area and whose members have created their own lore. Or, vice versa, you can have a fictional police agency that's obviously still based on U.S. law enforcement standards interact with a street gang that takes an existing Sureño set as inspiration. Of course, these are mere examples that can be applied to every aspect of the server: police, gangs, OCGs, government, etc.

 

And it's not like the server doesn't already have excellent examples of immersive factions that can blend "realism" and "authenticity". On the illegal side there's Martorano which mixes an "unrealistic" organization (an LCN outfit on the West Coast) with convincing lore and believable characters who have genuine reactions to the world around them. And on the legal side there's the San Andreas Port Authority which, while inspired by the Port of Los Angeles, isn't over-obsessed with recreating it down to the minute details or asking its members to say they're "employees of the Port of L.A.", preferring to create something original with its own customs and culture and whose leadership is one of the few that portrays actual executives by being present in-game and leading from the front instead of hiding behind alts.

 

In short, a compromise between "realism" and "authenticity" can and should be found. GTA:W's management just lacks the will to enact it. 

 

I get the difference, though it mostly seems to be a semantic one. You can accept fictional organizations and groups and allow them to thrive if their portrayal doesn't compromise the most basic agreement on what is the minimal required amount of realism accepted by the community at large. You sacrifice realism, but that's alright. It is roleplaying after all, not photocopying or trying to mirror Los Angeles 1:1. However, this mostly just evades the realism concerns, because you're still going to review each concept on how far it moves from reality, right? Marotorano is allowed, but Nortenos and Yakuza concepts are not. They're restricted before someone is given a chance to portray them. I'm not making a value judgement on those either way, though. When does something reach the status of authentic? What criteria are there? Are we going purely by the quality of portrayal/roleplay in general, or are we also judging these concepts in how far they stray from... dare I say, reality?

 

As for GTAW management 'enacting' authenticity, what is there to enact? Players are expected to come up with concepts and try to portray them. Perhaps I'm understanding you incorrectly though. Is it the methods of concept review that you disagree with, decisions made in rejecting or accepting concepts in the last few years, or are you expecting some sort of proactive push by management that leads to more authentic concepts and roleplay?

 

 

[Xaleya]

1 hour ago, Cleveland said:

 

In short, a compromise between "realism" and "authenticity" can and should be found. GTA:W's management just lacks the will to enact it. 

You have to remember.

Realism doesn't mean "Realistic"

While one is pointing to mimic the real life, the second means to use real life counterparts as inspiration while keeping certain degree of fantasy/fiction  because that's how it works... To be "believable even with all the fiction"

It's like writing a movie script. Realism doesn't sell. For having realism I can go out and make disaster IRL. Realistic means closer but not 1:1 to reality. There's space for other stuff.

I've seen many people not aware of such concepts but any writer who even barely touched properly the baselines of script knows this. Which at the end of the day it's what evolved into roleplay. 

Our server pushes a non-existent Realism for certain factions, the criminality still goes rampant, the LEO doesn't have the same tools used by real life counterparts. That ain't realism, that's bullshit. They should be pushing towards "Realistic"... If we wanted Realism things like Marotorano or SA ports shouldn't even exist.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Xaleya

[peasoup]

 

1 hour ago, Cleveland said:

Both arguments have their pros and their cons, and both have merits in their own right. "Realism" leads to the creation of organizations, lore and characters that are more easily recognizable because they're patterned after real-life elements and therefore look more familiar, making it easier to get involved, but severely limits the choices in terms of what can be portrayed (this is particularly detrimental on GTA:W because the concepts that fit the SoCal background have been squeezed dry by now) along with not allowing enough flexibility when it comes to things that just can't work in-game (i.e. a 40-people Senate). "Authenticity", on the other hand, ensures that players can make full use of their creativity and create something original and unique, but it always runs the risk of going overboard with the liberties taken for the sake of roleplay, to the point that not all gaps can be filled effectively (i.e. some aspects of the game must be roleplayed despite them not existing IG, such as SADOC in GTA:W's case), for better immersion) and that most players would feel alienated from the final result (i.e. State Government having control over local agencies).

 

It's a good take on those two aspects of the approach, but it's very focused on factions and on faction lore and continuity. And the thing is, looking at RL, whether or not there's Yakuza in Los Angeles or not would affect almost nothing about life in LA. LA with Yakuza and LA without Yakuza would be exactly the same.

 

Then you have the yawning chasm between actual LA and the reality of roleplayed life on the streets of LS. And that's not a matter of continuity or whatever someone writes down in their faction management application. It's a matter of what sorts of roleplay people do, how they interact, and what the dynamics between people end up being. And we're so far from realism and authenticity there, for a whole variety of reasons, some good, some silly, that worrying about the presence of the Yakuza feels like changing the curtains on a house on fire.

 

[Cleveland]

1 hour ago, mj2002 said:

I get the difference, though it mostly seems to be a semantic one.

 

It's far from being a merely semantic difference, because it very much affects the server in almost every aspect. Working factions were sacrificed on the altar of realism in favor of "realistic" concepts that failed even worse than their predecessors to achieve their goals, going as far as stopping to provide not just "quality" roleplay, but any kind of tangible roleplay altogether.

 

1 hour ago, mj2002 said:

However, this mostly just evades the realism concerns, because you're still going to review each concept on how far it moves from reality, right?

 

If by "reality" you mean something that fits the server, then yes. If the server is set in the United States, it can't have a concept based on the Iraqi Republican Guard enforce the laws of the land nor you can have a faction of Somali pirates raid the Marina canals, because those concepts are outside of the setting, can hardly be justified in-character and therefore while they could be portrayed authentically, they're not immersive for the server.

 

On the other hand, if portrayed correctly, Norteños and Yakuza can still provide an immersive environment despite not being present in Southern California in real-life, just as LCN organizations haven't been for the last twenty years or so. But instead of recognizing the success of factions such as Martorano and using it as an example to justify the liberalization of more concepts, FM seems to be on the path of clamping down even on LCN organizations because they "don't fit".

 

1 hour ago, mj2002 said:

As for GTAW management 'enacting' authenticity, what is there to enact? Players are expected to come up with concepts and try to portray them. Perhaps I'm understanding you incorrectly though. Is it the methods of concept review that you disagree with, decisions made in rejecting or accepting concepts in the last few years, or are you expecting some sort of proactive push by management that leads to more authentic concepts and roleplay?

 

GTA:W management should, at the very least,  favor some sort of compromise between "realism" and "authenticity" in an attempt to create an immersive universe, or just allow players to take more risks and get out of the business of regulating a market that has always been very capable of regulating itself entirely. Immersive factions that can wisely mix realism with authenticity thrive, out-of-place factions that lean too much on one side or the other fall. Has there been exceptions? Yes, but it doesn't mean that there's a need for hundreds of restrictions that only force players to recreate the same concepts over and over again without ever having a spark of originality. As explained in this topic already, allowing a set of Norteños in Grapeseed or the presence of the Yakuza in Los Santos, among other concepts such as the SAHP or what-have-you, is not going to lead the server to disaster.

 

Instead all management is doing now is riding a wave that has ended its propulsive power long ago. People are getting more and more tired of roleplaying the same concepts that have been brought forward for about a decade, especially when concepts that would fit the environment just as well with minimal adjustments are rejected with no other reason than "it's unrealistic". Southern California fatigue is real, but it's easier to just face the reality of things and pretend that this is a "heavy-roleplay" server.

 

Maybe some of these new (or old) concepts will be bad, maybe they'll be exceptional: the only way to know is to let people try them.

 

1 hour ago, Xaleya said:

You have to remember. Realism doesn't mean "Realistic" While one is pointing to mimic the real life, the second means to use real life counterparts as inspiration while keeping certain degree of fantasy/fiction  because that's how it works... To be "believable even with all the fiction" It's like writing a movie script. Realism doesn't sell. For having realism I can go out and make disaster IRL. Realistic means closer but not 1:1 to reality. There's space for other stuff. I've seen many people not aware of such concepts but any writer who even barely touched properly the baselines of script knows this. Which at the end of the day it's what evolved into roleplay. 

 

Norteños are forbidden because "realistically" there would be no such sets in L.S. county. Yakuza is forbidden because "realistically" there would be no such organization in L.S. county. Cartels are banned because "realistically" there wouldn't be their presence in L.S. county. Militias are heavily restricted because "realistically" Los Santos isn't a hotbed for militias. And the prohibition index doesn't even include those legal concepts that, while nominally allowed, are practically impossible to run without the staff stepping in and shutting them down because they threaten legacy factions or something along those lines, such as private ambulance services, ancillary police services, fire safety consultants, etc.

 

If there's space for other stuff other than what's considered "realistic", it's very well hidden.

 

 

1 hour ago, peasoup said:

Then you have the yawning chasm between actual LA and the reality of roleplayed life on the streets of LS. And that's not a matter of continuity or whatever someone writes down in their faction management application. It's a matter of what sorts of roleplay people do, how they interact, and what the dynamics between people end up being. And we're so far from realism and authenticity there, for a whole variety of reasons, some good, some silly, that worrying about the presence of the Yakuza feels like changing the curtains on a house on fire.

 

 

That's a matter of enforcing the already existing rules in regards to poor portrayal, namely rule 0, and teaching those who are willing to learn. Regrettably even in this case the pendulum seems to swing between completely arbitrary and undeserved punishments for minor infractions that could be solved with a handshake and people who are let off the hook for fifty times in a row while proving they have learned nothing from their past mistakes.

 

Factions still play a fundamental role in teaching new players, or even old players who still have something to learn, which is why the focus on factions, their lore and continuity is important and should be pursued. You can't teach every player singularly, but you can appoint faction leaders that care about immersive portrayals and have them help the players by showing them what works and what doesn't. In this case, again, SAPA is a good example of a new-players-magnet that legal factions should aspire to. 

 

1 hour ago, peasoup said:

It's a good take on those two aspects of the approach, but it's very focused on factions and on faction lore and continuity. And the thing is, looking at RL, whether or not there's Yakuza in Los Angeles or not would affect almost nothing about life in LA. LA with Yakuza and LA without Yakuza would be exactly the same.

 

Yes, L.A. would be the same with or without a Yakuza, and so would L.S. But a lot of the server culture is shaped by factions, faction lore and continuity, since factions serve as player hubs, and when the balance is broken its aftereffects are felt throughout the server. For years now, people have been bombarded with the idea that "realism" equals "quality roleplay", encouraging people to portray certain concepts only, behaving a certain way only and believe in certain standards only while crushing every trace of creativity and self-reliance.

 

What good has it done to server, aside from pitting people and factions against each other in an effort to prove who's the most realistic and therefore the best roleplayer? Isn't the focus on "realism" the reason why most discussions are filled with news reports about how the crime is skyrocketing in L.A. and therefore it's realistic to have a hundred murders a day in L.S. as well, or quotes from this or that selectively chosen newspaper article that supports one side or the other of the argument?

 

Because at the end of the day a lot of the issues highlighted by the original post (which has since long been derailed into a semi-coherent mess of a dozen discussions), including the bitter divisions the community goes through, are actually caused by this, by the idea that having a "good source" that proves how "realistic" you are in your roleplay allows you to force your ideals down everyone else's throat with no regards for their enjoyment and entertainment.

 

And when you consider that topics like this one pop up almost every week, it doesn't seem to be doing the server much good.

[damnbrah]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:51 PM, hennessy said:

i love this community.

fuck yea

[jcat]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:29 AM, Alyssa McCarthy said:

People RL adapt and learn and so do characters.

 

Non criminal characters are not NPC’s who exist solely to be victims of robbery and beatings from someone who’s decided to portray a 80’s gangster thug very poorly. They have the same rights to play here and develop their characters as everyone else.

 

Part of that development in a city where criminals run around picking random fights and behave with the IQ of a middle school bully (but with a gun), is they’ll learn to adapt to reduce the risk of harm to themselves or others.

 

Its perfectly reasonable they respond like they do and I’d suggest if criminal characters/players don’t like this, then they take a long hard look inwards as to why this status quo exists.

 

^This.

 

My game time is limited, and I'm not going to waste it being some trash tier rper's loot mystery box. 

 

If my characters see something suspicious, they call 911.  Why?  Because if people are going to shit on my rp, if they're going to waste my time, I'm going to call a bunch of bored cops down on them.  Since the server rules make it a pain in the ass for civilians to be armed, the cops will be my weapon.  Waste my time, I'll waste yours.

 

I'm always finding more ways to adapt, but it would be nice if the staff, who by and large do an excellent job, would treat cop, criminal, and civilian as equally valuable.

[Xaleya]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:19 PM, Cleveland said:

 

It's far from being a merely semantic difference, because it very much affects the server in almost every aspect. Working factions were sacrificed on the altar of realism in favor of "realistic" concepts that failed even worse than their predecessors to achieve their goals, going as far as stopping to provide not just "quality" roleplay, but any kind of tangible roleplay altogether.

 

 

If by "reality" you mean something that fits the server, then yes. If the server is set in the United States, it can't have a concept based on the Iraqi Republican Guard enforce the laws of the land nor you can have a faction of Somali pirates raid the Marina canals, because those concepts are outside of the setting, can hardly be justified in-character and therefore while they could be portrayed authentically, they're not immersive for the server.

 

On the other hand, if portrayed correctly, Norteños and Yakuza can still provide an immersive environment despite not being present in Southern California in real-life, just as LCN organizations haven't been for the last twenty years or so. But instead of recognizing the success of factions such as Martorano and using it as an example to justify the liberalization of more concepts, FM seems to be on the path of clamping down even on LCN organizations because they "don't fit".

 

 

GTA:W management should, at the very least,  favor some sort of compromise between "realism" and "authenticity" in an attempt to create an immersive universe, or just allow players to take more risks and get out of the business of regulating a market that has always been very capable of regulating itself entirely. Immersive factions that can wisely mix realism with authenticity thrive, out-of-place factions that lean too much on one side or the other fall. Has there been exceptions? Yes, but it doesn't mean that there's a need for hundreds of restrictions that only force players to recreate the same concepts over and over again without ever having a spark of originality. As explained in this topic already, allowing a set of Norteños in Grapeseed or the presence of the Yakuza in Los Santos, among other concepts such as the SAHP or what-have-you, is not going to lead the server to disaster.

 

Instead all management is doing now is riding a wave that has ended its propulsive power long ago. People are getting more and more tired of roleplaying the same concepts that have been brought forward for about a decade, especially when concepts that would fit the environment just as well with minimal adjustments are rejected with no other reason than "it's unrealistic". Southern California fatigue is real, but it's easier to just face the reality of things and pretend that this is a "heavy-roleplay" server.

 

Maybe some of these new (or old) concepts will be bad, maybe they'll be exceptional: the only way to know is to let people try them.

 

 

Norteños are forbidden because "realistically" there would be no such sets in L.S. county. Yakuza is forbidden because "realistically" there would be no such organization in L.S. county. Cartels are banned because "realistically" there wouldn't be their presence in L.S. county. Militias are heavily restricted because "realistically" Los Santos isn't a hotbed for militias. And the prohibition index doesn't even include those legal concepts that, while nominally allowed, are practically impossible to run without the staff stepping in and shutting them down because they threaten legacy factions or something along those lines, such as private ambulance services, ancillary police services, fire safety consultants, etc.

 

If there's space for other stuff other than what's considered "realistic", it's very well hidden.

 

 

 

 

That's a matter of enforcing the already existing rules in regards to poor portrayal, namely rule 0, and teaching those who are willing to learn. Regrettably even in this case the pendulum seems to swing between completely arbitrary and undeserved punishments for minor infractions that could be solved with a handshake and people who are let off the hook for fifty times in a row while proving they have learned nothing from their past mistakes.

 

Factions still play a fundamental role in teaching new players, or even old players who still have something to learn, which is why the focus on factions, their lore and continuity is important and should be pursued. You can't teach every player singularly, but you can appoint faction leaders that care about immersive portrayals and have them help the players by showing them what works and what doesn't. In this case, again, SAPA is a good example of a new-players-magnet that legal factions should aspire to. 

 

 

Yes, L.A. would be the same with or without a Yakuza, and so would L.S. But a lot of the server culture is shaped by factions, faction lore and continuity, since factions serve as player hubs, and when the balance is broken its aftereffects are felt throughout the server. For years now, people have been bombarded with the idea that "realism" equals "quality roleplay", encouraging people to portray certain concepts only, behaving a certain way only and believe in certain standards only while crushing every trace of creativity and self-reliance.

 

What good has it done to server, aside from pitting people and factions against each other in an effort to prove who's the most realistic and therefore the best roleplayer? Isn't the focus on "realism" the reason why most discussions are filled with news reports about how the crime is skyrocketing in L.A. and therefore it's realistic to have a hundred murders a day in L.S. as well, or quotes from this or that selectively chosen newspaper article that supports one side or the other of the argument?

 

Because at the end of the day a lot of the issues highlighted by the original post (which has since long been derailed into a semi-coherent mess of a dozen discussions), including the bitter divisions the community goes through, are actually caused by this, by the idea that having a "good source" that proves how "realistic" you are in your roleplay allows you to force your ideals down everyone else's throat with no regards for their enjoyment and entertainment.

 

And when you consider that topics like this one pop up almost every week, it doesn't seem to be doing the server much good.

I agree with you. What I meant was to find the proper term, we should find a middle ground between both terminologies.

[Toker]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:18 AM, Decker said:

This is a heavy roleplay server after all, I'd imagine reality should be a pretty big part of things.

Spot on.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Toker

[damnbrah]

15 hours ago, jcat said:

My game time is limited, and I'm not going to waste it being some trash tier rper's loot mystery box. 

 

If my characters see something suspicious, they call 911.  Why?  Because if people are going to shit on my rp, if they're going to waste my time, I'm going to call a bunch of bored cops down on them.  Since the server rules make it a pain in the ass for civilians to be armed, the cops will be my weapon.  Waste my time, I'll waste yours.

so you're handling ICly based off OOC emotions? nice