Feedback Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1.

[chrisboidudeman]

Attention is the currency of roleplay. If you demand it from others in a way that falls under not acting like you want to keep your job, especially command/sec, by forcing them to ignore the other things happening in the round, you are taking on the role of an antagonist. If you're doing that without rolling antagonist, you're breaking the rules, because you're making the game harder and less fun for both Sec and the people who actually rolled antagonist.

---

My take regarding gimmick characters that are "so beloved" but against the rules: the rules are not there to impede your creativity, they are there to create an agreed-upon foundation for everyone to be creative and tell interesting stories. The setting is "you are all coworkers on a space station, but today something goes wrong" and it sets the stage for the people who actually roll antag to be that problem.  If you break the setting, or break the rules, it's not cute or quirky. It takes away from the experience that the game is trying to facilitate.

That definitely clears things up regarding gimmick characters, but the first part of your reply causes more confusion for me, not less. I always assumed the difference between an antagonist and crew member was the ability grief and antagonisms against the crew. If the main difference is how much attention your roleplay asks for then that makes things more questionable.

I'd like to ask you about one instance specifically that may toe the line of the rules. Imagine a lawyer sues security multiple times, and a member of security is now attending a trial, preventing them from performing their duties. If nobody involved is an antagonist is this rule breaking behavior? This scenario pulls away from other avenues of roleplay and attention that the antagonist could be having. Yet, it's almost exclusively how the lawyer role is used in practice.

---

Thank you for replying, by the way. I really appreciate all the feedback on the topic I can get.