Is this considered godmodding/controlling my character?
- Thread starter Zuzu
- Start date
Sunshine and Whiskey
❝Don't fret, precious. I'm here.❞
Could you provide a better example? I can possibly let you know with a little bit more information.
Zuzu
Tired
Quick example is me saying my character heals another character but the other person says, "No that doesn't happen."
Jannistory19
The Eager Rper
Yes, from what I've seen and heard, that is Godmodding. I don't like that idea very much - where someone completely controls someone else's character. It's rude and it's like you aren't doing things with someone else, more like yourself..... But the character isn't yours.
Zuzu
Tired
Thank you for answering cause I was really questioning whether it was godmodding or not. Now I know for sure that this ex rp partner was indeed doing just that.
CorralDust
By hook or by crook
I think it ... depends. If the character being healed belongs to the player in question, I would not consider it godmodding if he does not wish his character to be healed.
In which case, it would be acceptable to say the healing attempt failed.
In which case, it would be acceptable to say the healing attempt failed.
ProdigalSon89
Member
healing is a power that should base in your character ability, For me, my characters Dont really heal OTHERS but they can heal themselves pretty quickly, healing is a power based on white magic, or some kind of medicine, you can even go so far to go the RWBY route, and use another's "aura" to heal, but yeah if someone is telling you how to rp challenge that, 'but this is fantasy why not?" "what rules am I breaking" unless they give a rule those people may just be trying to make you feel bad and thats not ok for me always challenge authority based on your creativity
- Pronouns
- They/them
I would agree with CorralDust, if you're trying to heal another players' character and the player doesn't agree then it wouldn't be godmodding at all. Regardless of your characters' abilities you can't force them on someone, with positive or negative result.
Zat
Member
RP noob here, but this is pretty interesting to me. Let me put forward a test scenario:
RPer1:
Abba rushes over to Bently, eyes wide with panic as she sees the blood pooling underneath him. She presses her hands against the knife wound, and they start to glow with white light, her healing energies spilling into her injured companion.
Slowly, the wound knits closed, Abba sighing in relief as he stabilizes.
Assuming Bently is RPer2's character, I imagine there are a few distinct points at which they could change the action, and possibilities about how that would effect how god-moddy it is.
This is how I'd consider the breakdown:
If Rper2 was to say OOC that Abba never rushed over to them or tried to heal them, and picked up as if that hadn't happened, that would seem like godmodding to me.
Now, if they were to say that when Abba tried to heal them, it did nothing, that seems like more of a grey area without a little explanation. It seems odd to declare that someone elses powers, that ought to work, do not, for no discernable reason. I think this is pretty easily fixable, just add a reason. perhaps they would veto the last line, "Slowly, the wound knits closed, Abba sighing in relief as he stabilizes." and replace it with "Despite Abba's best efforts, the knife must have been coated in something, and her healing energies can't get the wound to close." This seems a little more reasonable to me.
I think another reasonable cut would be when Abba goes to put her hands on the wound. If the actual character Bently does not wish to be healed, I think it would be kosher for him to bat her hands away or shove her back or something to prevent the attempt entirely.
Again, RP noob here. Am I on the right track with these kinds of resolutions?
In my personal opinion, the roleplayer of Abba would be godmodding when they forced the wound to close (1) since they have forcibly taken over the control of the targeted character to close the wound (even if only briefly and affected a small area). If the second player were to pick up as if it had never happened (2), then they would be godmodding as well for erasing the history of something clearly out of their control as they have no control over Abba. The same for claiming that the healing never worked (2) since that would be undermining the other roleplayer's character as a whole; what if Abba's heal is omnipotent? The same logic would apply to the better worded (3). I think you are on the right track with the resolutions by separating all the actions of the characters (4), and it is generally a great thing to do in roleplay. The problem, I think, is such limitation actually takes away from the roleplay. I think it would be worth it to try to improve the communication between the two players. Asking questions to clarify the boundary before any action. Ask for consent before overriding control of anything. Replay the scene if necessary. If you have the right partner and synergy, all of the above should be simple to achieve. If you wish to extend your control to the environment, story, and history then ask the roleplay maker/designer for permission. Everything here is my personal opinion, and I believe that communication is the key to any successful roleplay. The second being synergy between the players. The third is the foundation of any specific roleplay.
Last edited:
Yes, OOC communication BEFORE posting is the solution to this. If you want to keep details on the DL, you can slide into DMs; otherwise, the OOC thread is the place to hammer out details like these.
Even if the other player doesn't WANT their character to be healed, you cannot just roll back the clock. Hell, without a good reason you can't just say nothing happened when she tried. It's like IRL when you wear a DNR bracelet, nothing physically PREVENTS an EMT from resuscitating you (except for complications, I suppose, which could happen). You can sue the shit out of them after (which I personally think is bullshit, but you can), but you cannot prevent them from resuscitating you. Same thing here.
The former (rolling back the clock) is a BIG abuser, whereas the latter is a small enough abuse that I'd probably let it slide. But it's important to note that they are BOTH godmodding.
Of course, all of this discussion was predicated on the idea that the person in question is actually the owner/operator of the character in question.
If Player A heals player B's character, and player C says "Nope" then player C is godmodding no matter how you slice it.
But someone suggested leaving the action hanging. That's an option, too, but it can be jarring. Better to hash it out OOC and flesh out the post.
Even if the other player doesn't WANT their character to be healed, you cannot just roll back the clock. Hell, without a good reason you can't just say nothing happened when she tried. It's like IRL when you wear a DNR bracelet, nothing physically PREVENTS an EMT from resuscitating you (except for complications, I suppose, which could happen). You can sue the shit out of them after (which I personally think is bullshit, but you can), but you cannot prevent them from resuscitating you. Same thing here.
The former (rolling back the clock) is a BIG abuser, whereas the latter is a small enough abuse that I'd probably let it slide. But it's important to note that they are BOTH godmodding.
Of course, all of this discussion was predicated on the idea that the person in question is actually the owner/operator of the character in question.
If Player A heals player B's character, and player C says "Nope" then player C is godmodding no matter how you slice it.
But someone suggested leaving the action hanging. That's an option, too, but it can be jarring. Better to hash it out OOC and flesh out the post.