rpanons | Make that anon suffer

Make that anon suffer

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme. Your unfunny, forced memes also fall under this rule.
Do not treat this comm like your personal therapist. Threads about nonfictional suicide, self injury, rape, and abuse will be deleted. There are better resources out there for you.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
Shut up about Tumblr. If it's not a discussion about Tumblr RP it will be deleted.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wondering about characters who are noted to be genius strategists in their canon. If an event or plot requires them to devise a plan and use their skills, how do I not fuck up?

"be a good strategist."

like, there's no way around it. much like being a canon flirt, you can't just handwave brilliance.

that being said some canons laud their strategists as geniuses when they're really... really... not. (i'm lookin at u, aot.) so you can also look at the way they actually plan in canon and be ic in the way they dispense their resources. do they look for weaknesses in the opponent first and base their plans on those? do they play to the strengths of the people who actually look to them? are they prone to pushing the advantage while they have it or do they delay until they have the maximum amount of information? are they good at rolling with the punches? strategize icly and don't take it personally if or when they fail.

and if they're inclined to consider their failures and try to learn from them, HAVE THEM DO SO. it's a huge CR-building opportunity, especially if they're the type to take failure a little personally (but aren't a tantruming tittybaby about it, because lbr no one likes those)

- lots of ooc plotting!

- do a little background reading on strategy, and maybe also specifically on military tactics that'd fit your character's time period and canon (if you're playing someone from the Tale of Three Kingdoms, their approach to strategy isn't going to be the same as a spaceship captain's.) This will help you with your confidence levels and with your ooc brainstorming of plans.

- If you're really uncomfortable explicitly writing out plans, do the plan-making in an OOC plotting post and then make your IC post a handwave. "[genius strategist explans the plan, click for details!]" is completely serviceable and you won't have to sweat about not having a level of expertise that matches your character's.

Do not underestimate the power of OOC plotting. Even people that OOCLY cringe at the Genius tropes will be more willing to help and give two cents if you're upfront about the fact you want help with showing that you aren't some stuck up ass.

Basically have some decent OOC communication skills.

Also don't be afraid to Mavis Vermilion (from Fairy Tail) it up. Characters that are good strategists are going to forget details at points because they are human. What makes and breaks these characters is how well they can recover on the fly/let people on the field fix the strategy.

You'll need to consider what the scope of their abilities and knowledge are. Zhuge Liang is legendary but even he would probably struggle a bit if he was suddenly leading a spaceship armada in a pitched battle and didn't have time to learn what a tachyon drive is and the limitations of the lasers and so on. Not only that, but even if someone is a peerless tactician with no equal in their canon, there might be 15 guys who're also peerless tacticians with no equal who they might be up against so failure is an option.

More importantly, though, unlike real life strategy the success or failure of a given gambit isn't actually dependent on how smart the tactician is, how well devised the plan is, and how foolproof the thinking is. It's dependent on what people/the mods want to do.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you need to just shoot for a reasonably plausible level of tactical bullshit and concentrate on what people what to do. It's like two parts plausible bullshit, one part what's fun. Lots of OOC planning is important if you want your character to come up with plans which work, and they need to be fun for people, because otherwise you could end up with seemingly foolproof plans which don't actually work because no one wants to participate in them.

it doesn't matter how brilliant a strategist someone is, if the outcome is "villain must escape" or "limited collateral damage to the setting" - even a flawless strategy is subject to the game mechanics and characters.

excellent use of Zhuge Liang as an example, anon. I play a couple of RotTK-era strategists and that is exactly right.

Mostly agreed, but I'd say failure isn't just an option, it's inevitable. Sooner or later, either the plot will mandate that your character's plan not work, or it will be someone else's turn to win.

If that's not something you're willing to deal with, and willing to work through your character's reaction to rather than just OOCly pulling out in a huff or pretending it didn't happen, playing a strategist character is not for you.

Oh, no, agreed. I put it like how I did in case they were thinking someone more like David Xanatos, whose plans have contingencies within contingencies so he could definitely lose a battle but still advance his grand scheme in a war, or someone like the Demon Queen from Maoyu who's also a genius strategist in her own way but would be less 'march her army' and more 'let's talk about crop rotation' in how she goes about things. In those cases they'd still be capable of losing in one of their plans, but what that loss entails (in regards to scope, IC and/or OOC interactions, and long term implications) is different from a Silverberg marching to war and losing a battle.

Oh, and also that even if you come up with a strategically sound plan which makes brilliant use of the characters and their resources and you don't make it sound fun even if it's a smart way to destroy a dragon, and someone's counter plan to pelt the dragon with apples and blast heavy metal at it until it dies does sound fun, the plan to pelt the dragon with apples will probably work and your elaborate plan definitely won't. Period.

nobody is going to volunteer for your plans if their only motivator is to make your genius character look ic. give characters cool roles and maximize their discretion. oocly micromanaging a strategy will get you 1001 complaints.

it really depends on the game. i've had the most success with strategist/genius/detective/etc. characters in games that have a high degree of ooc planning and player involvement, at least for major plots, but that are small enough that mods can keep a good check on godmoding. it's a whole lot harder to play a strategist type in games with a more reactive style of gameplay. some people love planning plots and some people want everything to be spontaneous and unplanned, so it can be a good idea to test out the atmosphere of a game with an easier character before you try a strategist.

Echoing the above anons for the most part; most of my characters are the genius/strategist/whatever type, and OOC communication is a huge thing. Set up plotting posts, talk to the mods about what is possible, handwave IC explanations or details if necessary. Also, if you can at all swing it, try to get other characters involved in helping your character (or, if you character is not actually THE best, have them help another skilled character) because rp is a lot more fun when several characters can shine together. You'll get a lot more people interested in helping your character demonstrate their skills if it JUST isn't going to be all about your character.

Also the anons mentioning to consider your character's skills in terms of setting are definitely right. Almost any game environment, even if the overall setting matches the character's canon (say someone in modern day earth in their canon goes into a jamjar set in more or less modern day earth) is going to throw them off to some degree. Using these reasons and excuses for why they wouldn't be perfect, even if they are in their world, is an excellent way to go about playing one of these characters.

I'm going to emphasize research since the ooc thing has been heavily backed up as well as the character skills.

strategists specialize in something (air, terrain, sea, etc) usually to earn their reputation. The setting consideration is huge. Strategists that have only done strategy on flat plains are not going to be as good utilizing a mountain and valley opportunity no matter how genius they are because while they may conceive an ideal setup, nothing is ideal when executed. A land strategist can't get out on water and pull the same thing (I don't care what the canon suggests either, emphasize their betterment for one and people put off by these types of characters will be more willing to work with you)

also consider what the character knows in terms of what he's up against if there is an opponent. a lot of strategists are successful because they know what/who they are strategizing against. Knowing the enemy and how to prey on their weaknesses is something to consider.

Strategists also don't necessarily make good plans for everything else (such as sneaking into a place and out)

Don't assume genius strategist means "complicated". "Genius" strategist usually has nothing to do with being geniuses it has to do with "intellect". There are a lot of geniuses who are stupid when executing their knowledge efficiently (not limited to strategists). their reputation usually comes from particularly clever victories, overcoming the odds handed to them, or minimizing damage to a fuckup. Sometimes the winning solution is a really simple one. Strategists are opportunists first and foremost.

whatever you do don't make a plan without getting at least one second opinion. nothing is more aggravating (and embarrassing to you) than someone making a plan and presenting it as if it's a huge elaborate thing that's thought up and it actually has a really obvious and glaring flaw you forgot to consider. you probably aren't a genius strategist yourself which means you know you don't think like they would. Therefore even without ooc communication with other players in game any ooc assistance will go a long way.

genius strategists don't win every battle so it's ok to be willing for the plan to collapse if the circumstances call for it.

seconding everything that's been said here but if you're playing a non-warfare based strategist (i.e. if you play from a card game canon or pokemon), there's a lot of reliance on human psychology.

for example, akiyama shinichi from liar game relies on common human behaviours in specific situations in order to get him and nao kanzaki out of hot water. that sort of stuff is easily available on the internet in easily digestible forms too.

a general rule i've found is that keeping the strategy simple is often the best way forward, on an ic and ooc level. not only does it make it less of a pain for other players to get involved but it means there's a higher chance of everything going smoothly

I really appreciate everyone's detailed replies! Basically context matters, both ICly and OOCly. This actually has made me less hesitant about even testing some characters, so thank you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Make that anon suffer

strategists

Re: strategists

+1

Re: strategists

+1

no subject

+1

no subject

ayrt

sa

+1

Re: strategists

Re: strategists

Re: strategists

Re: strategists

op