Ranting about people who talk like they know what should be the logical solution to a problem but still the "MC" does something completely opposite.

[immortalartisan]

I wanna talk about relatively funny and stupid “why the fuck would you do that” from a ttrpg. I know it doesn’t fit topic but I think it’s got the same spirit. So game was a starbound inspired stars without numbers game. Star bound being a sci-fi setting glued over a also sci-fi system. My character was a novakid (gasbag people) Expert who was the pilot and glass cannon using double pistols. Name was Uirst Gerbura (I know, I’m just not good with making up names). Hold on I rambling most important bits.

1. Character was female for the hell of it

2. Race is made of star plasma controlled via “mind”

3. Game was done via word chat not Voice

Alright into our “MC” of this story. Guy introduces His character as a human warrior Named let’s just ember because that’s what he ends up as. with a suit of Samurai armor with a katana. Starbound already has a Japanese themed race the frog like hyotl the humans in setting being a minority and rather strange. As we all have likely come to know by now katanas are useless against armor and its sci-fi EVERYTHING IS ARMOR. Dm mentioned he should’ve played a hyotl warrior instead. Dude asks what’s that. We already knew by now this guy was gonna be a bit harder to get along with and would require us to explain an entire game’s worth of lore over chat.

Game starts. Party is in a bar seeing a posting by my character looking for general crew for a new ship they got. Everyone introduces their character honestly they were all interesting but we don’t have time. By the time I finish introducing my character as they arrive at the ship. Ember immediately tries to seduce my character. They refuse politely session continues. that should’ve been it that really should’ve been it. Later after first mission was done we were back on ship recovering ember says he’s gonna try and get my character alone. He says it’s for “relationship deeping”. We all know what’s he is implying. Dm tells him no As something crosses my mind I’m a novakid a NOVAKid. I message the dm and tell him to let him try and remind him of my race.

Alright so ember says he follows me to my room and locks the door behind him. Attempts to try and persuade Urist to “do”. Rolls a 6. Probably thought
“great, dice Gods hate me”

I tell him uirst says he can with a mocking tone. Immediately says he leaps at her. Dm informs him to roll for a insane amount of fire damage like it took us 2 minutes of straight rolling for it to add up. He’s deader then someone dropped into magama. Starts raging at dm saying that’s unfair and that I was okay with it. I inform him how novakids works and that he would’ve known to not do that so recklessly if he had read basic lore. Needless to say ember never returned. Game went fine from there on.

So
First “why the fuck would you do that”: not reading basic lore on a unique setting to a system dm provided.

Second “why the fuck would you do that”: attempting to Fuck one of the other pc characters with rolls like any npc.

 

[Hitspark]

I feel like this goes both ways. A character has to have believable actions and the audience has to sympathize with those actions. Being fictitious doesn't excuse stupidity and people know when someone is being dumb for the sake of the plot or when a character genuinely lacks the intelligence to make a better decision.

Here is an example in "In This World Humans Are The Strongest"

Spoiler

Our main character spends 40+ chapters being scared of everything and everyone around him, while almost simultaneously being worried about his absurd power level. The first feat this guy has accomplished is BLOWING UP THE MOON WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT! He's also murdered a dragon accidentally and would later kill an undead dragon intentionally. This guy has Super Strength, speed, senses and the whole nine yards but knives have broken on his contact with his neck when he didn't even realize he was being attacked, nevertheless everything is scary to him. This is over the course of 40 chapters. By this point any person with basic logical functions would figure out that the only thing he has to be afraid of is how much destruction he can accidentally cause.

It's stuff like that that make people want to rip their hair out and scream "What is wrong with you?" The character isn't presented as being mentally challenged, but that's a clearly handicapped brain being used. A character just has to have logical consistency. If the character isn't the brightest, then just have them admit or imply that he's not smart enough to figure out the problem (I know that's hard because every manga has to have a super genius protagonist or one who is expertly skilled in something they've barely had any real time mastering). The second the character, who we are all shown should be more intelligent than they are acting, is dumb for the sake of plot then it will get called out.

This is amplified if it a twist is super obvious to the reader because the author foreshadowed it too heavily or we just know better from previous dealings with the characters involved, but the character doesn't get the hint (because they can't or the twist would be ruined). This is why a lot of Shonen manga have characters that are INCREDIBLY stupid in day to day life but fairly savvy combat-wise. Because you lower your expectations and know where the character's strengths lie and know when they should be smart enough to do something and when they shouldn't. Most manga, however, did not get the memo of setting a reasonable expectation for your MC, so the MC is either "average intelligence" (meaning he should react like a normal person but likely won't) or "Highly Intelligent" (Meaning if your audience sees the twist, your MC should have as well).

So I think it's fine when people point out dumb plot moments because, well, a lot of manga flub their character intelligence. My only problem with it will be when the suggested solution is exclusively from the audience perspective (We saw his knife, so we know not to trust him but the MC never even saw him pick it up).

 

[nickandnacks]

Dang everyone writing essays out here. While I just type in some words that makes sense.

Gotta get back on reading books.
My brain is deteriorating just by playing video, reading manga and anime.

 

[DeusNine]

Simply because it is fiction. The commentor wants to get mad that it doesn´t fit into their preferred fantasy or they simply want to make themselves look smarter by bringing logic into fictional storytelling and that´s that

not to say as if there isn´t a whole plethora of other other things they could say or think but I´m pretty sure it´s mostly that group that keeps bitchin and moanin

 

[BroederTrapist]

The problem with rants is that they immediately turn off the target audience. No one likes to be told they’re a buffoon or inept. Serious Mistakes has been the second poorest selling information product I’ve ever created. So, ranting is just an exercise in futility. This post will be no different; “ranters gonna rant.” My point is that most people skip over the walls of text created by a rant. But if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, so I’m going to offer an alternate viewpoint. Some try to generate, material and programs that people can actually do step by step. Indoor Range Practice Sessions and the Pistol Practice Program are examples of that. Even Serious Mistakes has some ideas in it about how to not shoot your finger off or forget your pistol in a public restroom. For those in the blogosphere who feel like tearing off on a rant, here’s a possible structure for your rant.
Here’s the problem. This is a possible solution.
The first step to implementing the solution is….
Further steps in the solution are….
It’s going to take XXX amount of time and XXX amount of resources to make the solution work long term.
A journey of 1,000 miles (or 1,000 Days) begins with one step (or one practice session.) ~ Lao Tsu
While you’re crafting your rant, also keep in mind the limitations your audience has that you might not. If someone’s been overweight all their life, they’re unlikely to drop a bunch of weight just because there’s a rant about them needing to. (More their, they’re, there wordplay fun.) Keep your solution within the realm of reachable reality. (Some alliteration wordplay.)
It’s common to talk about constructive criticism but its implementation is often forgotten. Where our own perceptions are concerned, we’re likely to forget we were beginners or uninformed or not up to snuff at one time, too. (Did it again.) Think that there are ways that you can help your target audience achieve their goals instead of just telling them they’re one of the Three Stooges (there, their, they’re and alliteration wordplay fun all in the same sentence.)
Thanks for reading this. I doubt it will do any good but I had fun writing it. As General of the Armies John J. Pershing said “An officer is responsible for his own morale.” Wordplay and philosophy are two things I don’t get to indulge in very much at the keyboard.
Maybe we should treat ranting like smoking, restricting it to certain remote areas – the Arctic Circle, for instance. Or the caves of Kentucky. Perhaps we should rank ranting right up there with obesity; do away with fatty foods and fatuous arguments. Ranting in the 21st century is like a hybrid of bullying and streaking.
Ranters come in all stripes these days. They rant on the radio and TV and YouTube and variegated websites. They rant on Fox and MSNBC and everywhere else. Alec Baldwin raves. Rachel Maddow rips. Ann Coulter roils. Rush Limbaugh and Spike Lee rant and rant.
You can like the ranter, but hate the rant.
Time was, ranting was pretty much the province of politicians, preachers and the occasional pub patron.
That has changed. Today, comedians rant: Comic Dennis Miller wrote a book: I Rant, Therefore I Am. Athletes rant: When Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman ranted recently about his performance in a football game, CNN put together a list of renowned ranters, including college basketball coach Bobby Knight and boxer Mike Tyson. Whoopi Goldberg, Charlie Sheen, Penn Jillette, Justin Bieber and countless others have gone on tirades.
"Computers and the Internet have made it really easy to rant," musician Scott Weiland told Spin. "It's made everyone overly opinionated.". People commandeer comments sections. They mess up message boards. They overshare — and overbear — on bait-and-bitch sites such as Rant Rampage and D-rant.
Here are D-Rant's 3 Laws of a Good Rant:
1) Don't be afraid to let it out.
2) Keep things PG — would you want your children to read this?
3) Have fun. A good rant should always make you feel better afterwards.
"When some people rant, it opens up a Pandora's box," John Suler, a psychology professor at Rider University, tells PBS NewsHour. "It leads to feelings of shame and guilt about being so angry and out of control. For many people, ranting is a dead end. It goes nowhere."
The PBS story also points to a study published in 2013 in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. The research reveals that ranting online may not necessarily lead to a more peaceful mood.
Rants are usually solo affairs.
We wail at the TV.
We rail at the radio.
We rage against the machines.
In some places people rant at each other. In what are called slanging matches. Tamra Mercieca, a relationship therapist and advice columnist in Australia, sees worth in being angry. She tells people it's ok to go on a rant every now and then. "Expressing anger is necessary," Tamra says, "because what negative emotions don't get expressed end up getting stored in the body ... making us either physically or mentally unwell."
However, she says, "when you express a negative emotion such as anger you need to express is in a healthy way — scream into a basin or water, punch a boxing bag or some pillows. Taking your anger out on another person is not healthy, especially given this: If a person's actions, words or behaviors trigger you into an emotion, then you're the one who has internal issues that need resolving."
When it comes to ranting, she adds, "we would be more productive educating people on the issue at hand, then actually coming up with a solution to fix it - this would be much more productive than starting a slanging match."



If you only read this final line then you proved my point.