Other Central Vs Decentralized Roleplay

[Intellectual Sword]

It doesn't mean either of those. A "quest roleplay" is a roleplay that works like one of those "choose your own adventure" books where one person will write for the roleplay and the others will, usually, simply pick among a set of options

I think that's more or less what I mean with "Here's a mission assigned" but scratch mission for options. Quest roleplays are a bizarre concept to me nevertheless, never really experienced one since I can't really differentiate it from a regular roleplay. Quest roleplays just feel like unlampshaded roleplays. One's just blatant about the points of elements of plot development and one is well, isn't. Though I guess players in a quest roleplay are more inclined to restrict their contribution to the world. Thanks for the clarification though.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

It probably depends on how well I know the GM. If it's someone I know we'll I'm going to feel more confident contributing to world building and plot, knowing that I have a rough idea of what they're looking for.

With a GM that I don't know, I'm more looking at their creative vision and whether they can execute it, so I'm happy for the roles of player and GM to be more strictly defined and to kind of go along with what they have planned

 

[White Masquerade]

Intellectual Sword
Very nice conversation and viewpoints. I generally agree with everything you've said. I only doubt option 2 because strong players don't necessarily create the structure/world needed in a roleplay. They're making great interactions and story, but who's making the world and grand plot, you know what I mean? I'm more thinking of long-term roleplays.

Idea
Nice ideas as well, Idea. I do still disagree with the planning things out part though. I never liked it when I began roleplaying and I don't like it now lol. I've resported to using dice just to avoid that.

It probably depends on how well I know the GM. If it's someone I know we'll I'm going to feel more confident contributing to world building and plot, knowing that I have a rough idea of what they're looking for.

With a GM that I don't know, I'm more looking at their creative vision and whether they can execute it, so I'm happy for the roles of player and GM to be more strictly defined and to kind of go along with what they have planned

What an answer. So out of the 3 options what did you or would you pick?

 

[Idea]

Nice ideas as well, Idea. I do still disagree with the planning things out part though. I never liked it when I began roleplaying and I don't like it now lol. I've resported to using dice just to avoid that.

Thank you. Well, if it's fine if you disagree. I do believe it upgrades the experience but of course as with pretty much anything a person does one's goals are what gives it utility. If we look for different things in our roleplay some things that might contribute greatly to roleplaying for me might have a very different effect to you. Planning takes effort, takes commitment and with that comes the risk of it being fruitless. It removes the easy mystery of the unknown plotpoint for the excitment of the journey alone. Anything like that can be difficult to like. So while I, again, think that it is an excellent tool and genuine improvement to one's experience, I don't blame anyone's decided it's not worth it. I would still critize those who simply refuse to try, however.

 

[Intellectual Sword]

Intellectual Sword
Very nice conversation and viewpoints. I generally agree with everything you've said. I only doubt option 2 because strong players don't necessarily create the structure/world needed in a roleplay. They're making great interactions and story, but who's making the world and grand plot, you know what I mean? I'm more thinking of long-term roleplays.

Idea
Nice ideas as well, Idea. I do still disagree with the planning things out part though. I never liked it when I began roleplaying and I don't like it now lol. I've resported to using dice just to avoid that.


What an answer. So out of the 3 options what did you or would you pick?

Let me elaborate. One thing, for sure the GM as the person who makes the roleplay is also the person who establishes the first foundation of the world. That's irrefutable. However, how do they -then - proceed to build on the world even further? Through their subsequent posts in the roleplay right? Now anyone can do that too, which is why anyone can wrest this power of the GM away. Should they? Of course not, that's terribly ill-mannered especially without bringing it up with the GM. But what if you have a GM that.. doesn't care and acts more like a player more than anything? Someone has to take the mantle. That's the only case for my position, I'm not advocating for option 2 either way but I wanted to clarify my view. I really don't think option 2 work in any other case. Even if the GM isn't doing a good job, unless they express otherwise, their creative control of their roleplay should be respected. And since that means players should work with GMs, good or bad, should be why option 3 is ideal.

Then again working along with people with questionable standards.

 

[iFreedawg]

I'm gonna talk strictly about 1v1's, my experiences may not apply to group RP. But here it is.
When I GM and my partner doesn't step on my toes a little bit, and take control of the setting and some side characters, I get awfully bored. The way I see it, perhaps in an ideal world it's the GMs responsibility to present enough circumstances to create aspirations and conflicts, and enough tools and pitfalls solve or fail them.
But that's really fucking hard. It means the GM has to handle the plot perfectly and set up material for the partner to somehow understand and mix together into an interesting outcome. You have to plan ahead and prepare so much.

I prefer it if my partner writes some of her own circumstance and and tools into the RP so I don't have to lay all the groundwork.
Well, this is also hard. Because it was originally my idea and she has to wrap her head around whats in my own extremely strange head, for things to turn out well. But even though it's hard, I just wish someone would finally mix well with my poor little self and take the initiative to establish that elf society that I happened to mention lived on the southern border, or elaborate exactly what the monsters ecosystem looks like...you know?
A man can dream.

Umm, yeah. So option three is the ideal.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

What an answer. So out of the 3 options what did you or would you pick?

I picked option one, I figure the style that lets me work with strangers is more useful than the style that only works with RP friends since I'll have fun with them regardless of how they approach things. If that makes sense.

 

[Whisker]

It depends. For group rps, a strong GM directing players should be essential. The GM did all the world building, all the lore creation, set up the plot etc. They should allow the players some freedom, but ultimately advancing the plot is the surest way to keep player interest and prevent the RP from falling into a convoluted, plotless mess.

With 1x1 RPs, one player proposes a plot, but they generally work best when the two work together to create something that appeals to both. I have done several 1x1s that follow a leader-chaser format as well, but only with experienced partners with whom I have a certain familiarity.

So in short, I'd say Option 1 for groups, 3 for 1x1s.