Who should judge to invalidate RolePlay? Is it Magistrate?

[Indirik]

Ketchum did not RP Fandor's actions in any way. He created a new NPC that tells an alternate version of the events that happened. Who is correct? Fandor? Gelderin? Neither?

[Velax]

Arguable, but my second point remains. RP should not be used in this tit-for-tat fashion to promote the agenda of the player writing it. It cheapens it.

[Indirik]

I tend to agree with you on that one.

[Tom]

To veer back towards the original topic, though: There is, indeed, an official Wiki page that talks about getting GMs to invalidate roleplays. This is ancient, horrifically out of date, and not remotely relevant to BattleMaster. That part of the document is intended for SpellMaster in its various forms.

Uh, no it is not. It was originally inspired by SpellMaster, but it is very much intended for BM.

And right now the only GM around is me. Because frankly, we haven't had to officially invalidate a roleplay in at least 5 years and probably longer. I really am not sure if we've ever done it.

[Tom]

Is it RolePlay will trump the game mechanic statistics at anytime?

No, quite the opposite. See here:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Roleplaying#The_.231_Rule

[Solari]

This tit-for-tat RP cheapens roleplaying, as does the fact that the RP is obviously being created just to suit the wishes of the player writing it, rather than being used to add interest and flavour to the game.

Which is why I ignore players who do it—literally, I just cease to interact with them in any capacity.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I agree with Velax on this one. People should not be able to RP more than what the game mechanics say regarding regions that belong to someone else without consent of that region's owner.

[Dishman]

Of all the things to be possessive of, imaginary peasants are probably a bit much. There are thousands of them in each region. I can understand not wanting your soldiers, background nobles, or administrators who are more integral to your character's life being played by other players...but a small band of throwaway peasants? If you aren't willing to let a player use .05% of your entirely expendable population without first signing 4 forms in triplicate...that seems against the 'friends playing with friends' rule.

From my experience, EC is in desperate need of MORE RP. All this "these are my peasants and no one can use them but me" talks just stifle RP further. If people are willing to try and add interest and flavour to the game then work with them.

[Geronus]

Honestly, it is a question of good taste and courtesy. 99% of the time people stay within acceptable bounds in their roleplaying. For the very small minority who do not, the best policy is generally to just ignore them. They already look extremely petty in most cases. No need to lower yourself to their level. In the event that the RP has some political effect, then you may need to counter with your side of the story, while respecting the rule that Tom just linked: Game mechanics always trump RP. If a lord is kicked out of his lordship via a peasant revolt resulting from game mechanics, then that is exactly what happened. You may choose to RP varying reasons as to why it happened, but you cannot RP that it did not happen.

[Vellos]

I agree with Velax on this one. People should not be able to RP more than what the game mechanics say regarding regions that belong to someone else without consent of that region's owner.

Tell that to Aurvandil.

It does make it hard to RP, though. How do you describe a region you're traveling through?

[Ketchum]

Honestly, it is a question of good taste and courtesy. 99% of the time people stay within acceptable bounds in their roleplaying. For the very small minority who do not, the best policy is generally to just ignore them. They already look extremely petty in most cases. No need to lower yourself to their level. In the event that the RP has some political effect, then you may need to counter with your side of the story, while respecting the rule that Tom just linked: Game mechanics always trump RP. If a lord is kicked out of his lordship via a peasant revolt resulting from game mechanics, then that is exactly what happened. You may choose to RP varying reasons as to why it happened, but you cannot RP that it did not happen.

Granted I would have ignore his RP. Because he sent to all the rulers and attempt to sway other realms(some political effect), I have to come out with something. Whether the rulers accept our version or their version is another story.

As Indirik states, I try to create an alternate version of the events. In fact, the lands Nivemus currently occupied are devastated by the earlier wars and still recovering. Most of the peasants have flee the lands or died due to the wars.

Now his latest letter say all the tribes relocated to Perdan, another realm. Wow. No problem, just roll with it. I will not do any counter RP anymore to him. It beginning to get clumsy 

[Gustav Kuriga]

Tell that to Aurvandil.

It does make it hard to RP, though. How do you describe a region you're traveling through?

Easy. You describe it however you want, but you have to ensure that it is shown to be your character's perspective, rather than an actual state of the region. For example, your character could see a mugging, fight it off, and assume that the region is lawless. This would fit what your character saw of it, but would not say definitively what the state of the region was beyond what your character thought of it as.

[Velax]

Now his latest letter say all the tribes relocated to Perdan, another realm. Wow. No problem, just roll with it. I will not do any counter RP anymore to him. It beginning to get clumsy 

Not that I particularly agree with the actions of either side here, but this statement is wrong. Atanamir said the Haradrim migrating to Perdan is one of the terms Nivemus would have to agree to to avoid war, not something that has already happened.

[Vellos]

Easy. You describe it however you want, but you have to ensure that it is shown to be your character's perspective, rather than an actual state of the region. For example, your character could see a mugging, fight it off, and assume that the region is lawless. This would fit what your character saw of it, but would not say definitively what the state of the region was beyond what your character thought of it as.

Harder when someone says, "The castle was made of dung...." or "The local Haradrim tribesmen..."

Which implies points of fact and not only personal experience.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Harder when someone says, "The castle was made of dung...." or "The local Haradrim tribesmen..."

Which implies points of fact and not only personal experience.

That would indeed be the wrong way to go about it.