This is just stuff I've noticed around the internet. These aren't canon, by any means, but by following them, it will make your life easier, in the way that you'll be much less likely to irritate anybody.



1.) You can use/steal props, but only for a short time, and not in the middle of an action.
Ex: not if I'm, say, shooting a tranquilizer gun.
Me: *shoots tranq gun*
Somebody else: "No you can't, because I stole it!"
That's a derivation of god-moding... It's also claiming you performed an action before another action that has already happened... which is wrong. for the same reasons it's impossible in real life, it should be impossible in an RP. Plus it's really unfair, and gets incredibly annoying.

2.) If you perform an action on someone, it is okay to limit some of their choices to react to that action by stating the direct physical result. But you can only limit their choices once per chain of actions.
Ex: Let's say you throw me. If you decide to give me a chance to counter the throw in mid-throw (which you probably shouldn't) say you attempted to throw me. Then I know I can choose to dodge, evade, counter, or what-not. However if you actually did throw me, I'm already thrown, right? Which means I'm flying in the air. If I were rp-ing, I'd make certain they knew they flew through the air just in case, by saying something along the lines of *I grapple you and throw you, sending you flying through the air.* If you wanted to make it more spectacular you could say *... flying through the air towards (use your imagination)* However, you are not allowed to say how I react once I'm in the air. Think about it, once I've been thrown, what else could you immediately do to me? Not much. You could throw something at me, but since you already took away my choice of whether or not I could get thrown, you can't take away my choice for anything else in the same chain of actions. Thus, if you were to throw me and then, say, throw a knife at me while I'm flying through the air, you can't say it hit me. This point is debatable I know... it depends on the severity of the action and each person's judgment and preferences. In any case, to err on the side of not pissing anybody off, you should only say where you aimed. The same goes for determining how I land. That's not really up to the thrower how the thrown person lands, so you couldn't determine that action for them. You can actually sometimes limit actions twice, if the two actions are immediately and directly related in the chain. for example, if I were to throw a chain at something you're holding and not let you dodge it, I could then choose whether or not to give you the option of trying to hold onto it when I begin to pull it from your hand. The actions of throwing the chain, having it wrap around, and then pulling the weapon away are so closely linked, they really actually count as one action (a more interesting way of saying *I disarm you*).

3.) No god-moding.
That's pretty simple. You can't be immune to everything. That just pisses people off.

4.) No major changes to the characteristics of something after you mention the original characteristics.
I like to find loop-holes. Sometimes I'll let you change something after I find a loophole to what you said. However, if it's something too monumental, that could be considered cheating. I can't really give a good example of this right now, but it does happen. Wait, I got one that happened to me... some events and names will be changed to protect the innocent... After I attacked this guy with his own sword after I stole it (it had some weird power if it touched you that wasn't deadly), he said something along the lines of "I forgot to mention that my sword doesn't work against me and it only works if I'm holding it," That's very borderline cheating as it completely changed the properties of his sword's powers, didn't it. That was a huge change. You can do that kind of change, but you have to do it tactfully. For example, if he had taken the attack, then took the sword back and destroyed it, he could have made another sword (he had the power to summon stuff), then he could have stated that he added those rules to that new sword, so it couldn't be used against him again. That would have been completely fine.




Feel free to post any more you can think of... but if I don't agree, I'll argue with you, so prepare to defend your opinions.