Advice/Help Difference between Lazy-Lit and just plain lazy?

[Whisker]

Objectively none, imo.

Lazy-lit falls in that category of could drop a thousand word plus bomb or a couple hundred depending on what they feel like doing at that time. I personally don't ascribe it to 'Casual' or 'Semi-lit' because the way those terms have been used historically in the rp communities set an expectation that 1-3 paragraphs is going to be the writer's average and it may well not be. They could write 1 paragraph one day and then drop 10-15 the next depending on what they feel like. They could probably easily drop you a writing sample of anything you want and they're probably also not a stickler on what you write.

Note: I haven't been actively rping recently, so my interpretation of the term may have changed or be off the mark. The context comes from the fact that Ive seen many of my former partners and group members describe themselves as lazy-lit far more frequently than Ive seen it used anywhere to describe rp expectations, whereas Casual & Semi-lit have been used by both writers to describe both themselves and rp expectation.

 

[Jet]

I think these two tidbits are a good case for why I ultimately don't subscribe to the same viewpoint as you do on length requirements, because they touch on my reasons for employing them. I don't think - and in fact I never see anyone claiming nowadays- that length = quality. However, I do see it associated with writing style. For the same content people who are more descriptive will tend to have larger posts, because you need more words to fit more description. Someone can be better or worse at a certain style, but a really excellent writer in a style that is incompatible with your own can be just as bad as a pretty terrible writer on a style which does work for you, because if length is influenced as a result of style, then style is the result of preferences, goals and values one has in writing.

Someone who's laser-focused on moving the plot along may find the story developments far more interesting or simply like a faster pace and intense action. Someone who spends more time focusing on the ways the society works in a setting, taking their time to describe tidbits of customs and finding creative ways that the people in a setting behave may prefer something more gradual and exploratory. Internal monologue may be one of the most notorious cases of this, as many with longer lengths or more detailed writing styles often appreciate the exploration of a character's internal state or thought process, while many who prefer the writing more streamlined tend to find internal monologue in large part frivolous as there is no interaction that results from it.

Length requirements are not ends in of themselves for those like me. It's not like I can't accept you making some posts which are shorter on scenes that really call for it. In the end of the day though, a length requirement isn't supposed to be the expected post, it's supposed to be a minimum. If it's not a length you naturally tend to and not something you can reach even on slower scenes, then that is an indication of a difference in the way we approach the writing itself, and what we want out of our own and each other's writing. Assuming honesty, a writer who takes up a roleplay with length requirements is one who is comfortable with making that regularly. It's someone whom the length requirement isn't really a constraint in most cases because they tend to write above it anyway. It's meant to filter out those whose styles - and therefore whose preferences and priorities - lead to writing less.

Are they the best metric? No, but as the quoted comments touched on, they are a practical choice because they are relatively easy to measure, which makes it simply to know whether someone - applicants especially - meet those requirements. It's also proven effective in my experience, out of all the attempts I made at different such filters and requirements, this one simply worked out the best in actually getting me better partners. That being said, I am considering trying out writing samples, though college work has so far left me unable to make that experiment.

You could just as easily read a sample. It only takes one or two minutes, and that way you're not excluding good writers without cause. If you're running a RP, you are already dedicating hundreds of hours to the project. So why can't you read two posts in three minutes, before accepting or rejecting someone?

It's also important to point this out; that as writers improve, they use less words to describe the same things. They have much more efficient word choice when writing, covering the same ground in half the time. So length requirements quite literally, and without debate, punish good writers. It is easier for a bad writer to make 500 words than a good writer. The bad writer will use two sentences while the good writer uses one (to cover the exact same things) so the good writer must write extra words when there's nothing more to say.

For example, earlier I wrote the sentence.

"It only takes one or two minutes, and that way you're not excluding good writers without cause."

I could've said

"It takes no longer than one or two minutes to read a few posts, and that way you're not excluding good writers for no good reason."

The second sentence isn't properly based on the previous sentence, where posts were already mentioned, so I added a few words when I said, "to read a few posts." This redundancy is often found in bad writing.

I also wrote, "For no good reason," which is easily replaced by "Without cause."

Then there's, "It takes no longer than," which is replaced by "It only takes."

The efficient sentence is 17 words. The inefficient one is 26. That 9 word difference is a 52% increase in length. If we apply those numbers to full posts, bad writers will do 500 words for every 330 done by a good writer. This is a significant difference.

And what happens when a really, really bad writer consistently hits your length requirement, while a really good one doesn't? To make this example very clear, the two cover equal content but the bad writer is unclear, muddled and uses words inefficiently. They're bordering on unreadable and heavily confuse readers. Meanwhile, the good writer is very sharp and witty, and covers the exact same content in less words. They're very clear and legible, and people love their posts.

In this scenario, do you ignore context and kick the good writer? Or do you use context and keep them? Do you keep the bad writer who spews 500 words of crap, or keep them because they hit your requirement?

Now lets say you keep the good writer, then what's the point of the rule? You've also set a precedent that bad writers, who don't meet the length requirement, will use against you. They'll say, "But you didn't kick them? Why are you kicking me?"

And now your backed to a corner, forced to say "Well you see, they actually write well."

It just seems like extra trouble, and a poor way to select for good writing. I don't understand why you can't read one sample post, and make a value judgement based on quality. Are you sure this isn't just conflict avoidance? That your rigid policy stops you from directly criticisizing writers (telling someone they're simply not good enough) because the rule handles it for you?

So for me, there's no reason to say posts must reach X amount of words, and there's no reason to say posts cannot exceed X amount of words. It's dependent on context.

Yes you can ward off some writers with length requirements, but to be clear, good writets will stay away too. There are many who won't join because of post length requirements, because of the reasons I mentioned before. Ironically, there are many bad writers who will join without a thought, because school made them excellent fluff writers.

All that said, do you. It's really not that big of a deal. I rarely join RPs and almost exclusively GM, so this isn't a problem for me. If it works for you then so be it.

I just think common sense >>> zero tolerance rules, and zero tolerance rules annoy me.

 

[Idea]

You could just as easily read a sample. It only takes one or two minutes, and that way you're not excluding good writers without cause. If you're running a RP, you are already dedicating hundreds of hours to the project. So why can't you read two posts in three minutes, before accepting or rejecting someone?

Because I don't trust writing samples as indicators and they are a far more subjective metric. I also don't care how good someone's writing is if it doesn't fit the style I'm looking for, or more importantly, the mindset characteristics that mindset represents.

It's also important to point this out; that as writers improve, they use less words to describe the same things. They have much more efficient word choice when writing, covering the same ground in half the time. So length requirements quite literally, and without debate, punish good writers. It is easier for a bad writer to make 500 words than a good writer. The bad writer will use two sentences while the good writer uses one (to cover the exact same things) so the good writer must produce extra content when it may not exist.

Yeah I don't think that's true. It is true that you learn to be more efficient with your word choice for the same content, sure. But the rest - that "a bad writer has an easier time writing 500 words" or anything so related doesn't necessarily follow from that for the exact reason I explained before, that different writing styles have different goals and values. Yes with experience you learn better sentence structure, expand your vocabulary and so on... But you may also see opportunities and aspects of the content that you wouldn't otherwise. For some styles this isn't of relevance because you don't find it important to mention those additional things, but in other styles the amount of things to mention increases more and/or faster than the size is decreased by efficiency.

And what happens when a really, really bad writer consistently hits your length requirement, while a really good one doesn't?

I don't work with either. The bad writer because they are too bad, the good one because they are trying to work with the wrong person. I am not just looking for quality. I am primarily looking for compatibility. The length thing is a compatibility filter not a quality filter, but nothing says it is the only metric by which I choose partners.

It just seems like extra trouble, and a poor way to select for good writing. I don't understand why you can't read one sample post, and make a value judgement based on quality. Are you sure this isn't just conflict avoidance? That your rigid policy stops you from directly criticisizing writers (telling someone they're simply not good enough) because the rule handles it for you?

It's also proven effective in my experience, out of all the attempts I made at different such filters and requirements, this one simply worked out the best in actually getting me better partners.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that if anything I have the opposite problem, being a little too eager at times to give my opinion or criticism, though I do try to have self-awareness and mind my words.

The rule helps in one big way, aside from simple efficiency and being an objective rather than subjective metric: Self-selection. Since the point is that it needs to act as a filter, it's good to have a metric which can easily be communicated in a way that understood in the same way by both parties.

So for me, there's no reason to say posts must reach X amount of words, and there's no reason to say posts cannot exceed X amount of words. It's dependent on context.

Well, for me there is. That is because the style of RP and writing I'm looking for produces those kinds of lengths. Sure it's not going to be every time ...

It's not like I can't accept you making some posts which are shorter on scenes that really call for it.

...but it should be in almost all of them. In fact most posts should be exceeding that. Are there other things you sacrifice as a result? Yes, though none of them are quality.

Yes you can ward off some writers with length requirements, but to be clear, good writets will stay away too. There are many who won't join because of post length requirements, because of the reasons I mentioned before. Ironically, there are many bad writers who will join without a thought, because school made them excellent fluff writers.

Sure there are many good writers who won't join. There are many I don't want to have join. But I don't need that many, and even if I got those it would be unlikely to work out. You can make the best tuna in the whole damn world, prepared by a top tier chef served in solid gold cutlery and I will still not like it because I don't like tuna. That doesn't make the quality of what was prepared any worse, it just makes it unfit for my tastes. That tuna is best given to someone who can appreciate its quality rather than fished up by someone on there mere grounds that it's really good even if one can't enjoy it.

As for the bad writers.... most tend to give themselves away pretty early on, from my experience.

I just think common sense >>> zero tolerance rules, and zero tolerance rules annoy me.

That is a bit of a false dichotomy, if only in the sense common sense isn't mutually exclusive with having defined rules, and what you're referring to here as "zero tolerance" is just a rule that is actually defined, as opposed to one that is subjective (in other words there isn't anything concrete and pre-defined as a basis).

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

That's why I don't like length requirements. They ignore context and pacing, forcing you to over-write during quick dialogue or action scenes.

The older I get, the more I appreciate this mindset, but really for dialogue in general. The "knitback" style of roleplaying becomes a nightmare when it means balancing multiple conversations at once, and I suspect that at least some people depend on it because they want to pad their posts. I'd rather deal with a 200-word response with a single dialogue hook than 600 words with two. It flows much better.

On my primary roleplay community, seeing rules for a quantity minimum is a rarity. I just checked 10 group interest checks, and only one of them had such a rule. If any others mentioned posting requirements, the GM's stance basically amounted to, 'give people enough to respond to.' I think part of what helps is that the average roleplayer there is 30+, and most have been doing that or some form of writing for around a decade or longer, so the quality is generally good. That and post history can't be hidden, and a lot of members roleplay in threads, even for 1x1s, so everyone screens players that way.

In other words, the community is starkly different from this one in at least a few ways. Generally, I support an alternative to quantity minimums, but I can see where it might be a challenge in a community like this one due to the site features and the personalities.

 

[Luscinioide]

I don't work with either. The bad writer because they are too bad, the good one because they are trying to work with the wrong person. I am not just looking for quality. I am primarily looking for compatibility. The length thing is a compatibility filter not a quality filter, but nothing says it is the only metric by which I choose partners.

as someone who regularly writes 1-2k word posts, i appreciate this. i don't impose length requirements because im a dick and think that quantity makes me a god king. i do it because someone who writes 200 words will NOT be able to keep up with me, will get overwhelmed, and not have a fun time. we won't be compatible. yes i know, not all posts need to be 1-2k words, but i like writing a lot and put my enjoyment over the opinion of flying monkeys on the forums

it's not about being elitist or exclusionary. it's called i've been in the rp community for 8 years and knows what works and what doesn't work. i'm gonna do what's best for me, even if that means some players get left out

 

[Jet]

A Sparkling Zombie

Yeah it becomes very, very unrealistic the longer posts are. Poor side effect of the medium, where characters post in rigid turns instead of quick, realistic back and forths. Then your response becomes a bullet point address of their massive, winding monologue, unless you decide to write realistically. In that case, you'll probably address the last thing they said, or a specific thing that really stood out.

Cue, "You're not matching my length and effort."

But um, Janice, you wrote 400 words of dialogue. My character was forced to stand there like a zombie while you covered the entire history of Rome. Yes I can match length and cover multiple topics and conversations, it's not difficult by any means, but it's unrealistic and grand standing.

I think frequent 300-400 word posts, in a dialogue scene, is vastly superior to massive, monologing posts where characters talk like they're in debate club. Especially when the giant posts are infrequent. Why would you dump your effort into one giant, unrealistically written post, when you can split your posts into smaller, more realistic and relatable ones?

Food for thought, for everyone who disagrees.

Now if anyone wants to take this as a personal shot, sorry that's not my intent. I'm just calling a spade a spade. It's pretty clear that giant speeches aren't realistic, while faster, conversational dialogue is. If you don't care about realistic dialogue, that's absolutely fine. But I don't like the value judgements. When people act like these long, "advanced" posts are somehow better than realistic, well paced writing done in smaller blocks.

Time to get flamed, heh. I'm ready

 

[Idea]

When people act like these long, "advanced" posts are somehow better than realistic, well paced writing done in smaller blocks.

I agree. I just don't think the inverse is true either.

 

[Jet]

I agree. I just don't think the inverse is true either.

It depends on the amount of content you have to cover, which is why I stress context. There are times when 300 words is sorely lacking and low effort. There are times when 3000 words is asinine and ridiculous.

There are times when the opposite is true, and either 300 or 3000 words is the perfect length.

If we respect each other as writers, which is the basis of a good collaborative experience, we should allow people to make decisions and post what's necessary to convey the content.

The basis of my argument is that different tools are needed at different times. Sometimes you need a scalpel and sometimes you need a sword. It's a mistake to force everyone to use a sword all the time, which is what length requirements do.

Here's a compromise I'll suggest. Use length requirements when you initially recruit people, but relax them over time. Once you trust someone as a writer, I don't think you should police their quantity.

 

[GrumpySwallow]

When I'm the GM of a game, I ask for a decent grasp on grammar and enough material for other RPers to respond to. My mindset is that we were all beginners once (I myself started RPing in the one-liner script style of RP), and some folks just have a hard time with things such as capitalizing I's and such but still make good and entertaining posts. I don't want to intimidate, exclude, or drive away new, beginner RPers. I just want genuine effort in posts. If I can read, understand, and respond to you, then I'm good.

 

[Idea]

It depends on the amount of content you have to cover, which is why I stress context. There are times when 300 words is sorely lacking and low effort. There are times when 3000 words is asinine and ridiculous.

There are times when the opposite is true, and either 300 or 3000 words is the perfect length.

If we respect each other as writers, which is the basis of a good collaborative experience, we should allow people to make decisions and post what's necessary to convey the content.

I mostly agree. The caveat there though, is what decisions the person makes if left to their own devices. Are those decisions ones that will work for me? Is this person inputting the type of content and the kind of style I look for in a partner and in my partner's posts?

One person might respond to my detailed description of how the character travelled through a castle and it had all these decorations and magical gadgets with an off-hand comment and a line or two addressing it, mentioning only the most plot or character-relevant points before moving forward with the action. Another person might go over how their character reacted to the various things, and what information they might have speculated based on what they saw. Or perhaps they will discuss their feelings and how the character expresses those in their outward behavior or body movement, and how it might affect their impression going of the people who own the castle. In my view, both approaches are valid and both can be written really well without leaving the confines of what I described here. However, both are attempting to do very different things, fitting for different styles and aims, and one of those clearly takes more length.

Basic respect is not the requirement of a good collaborative experience. It's a requirement. Compatibility is another. I don't want to work with the person who only sees a 100 words of content there. I want to work with the person who sees 1000.

The basis of my argument is that different tools are needed at different times. Sometimes you need a scalpel and sometimes you need a sword. It's a mistake to force everyone to use a sword all the time, which is what length requirements do.

And if I'm looking to recruit bodyguards, it makes sense that I require they have a sword. Even if, on very rare occasions, we need them to cut up something smaller and with more precision.

Here's a compromise I'll suggest. Use length requirements when you initially recruit people, but relax them over time. Once you trust someone as a writer, I don't think you should police their quantity.

That is pretty much what I do. I'm not counting every single post, and like I said it's not like I'm inflexible. As soon as we start working together it becomes apparent whether the way they are writing is compatible or not. If I do count, it's most often because I wanna be sure to put in some extra effort if they gave me something extra nice as well. But if a player struggles to meet the requirements right at the start, that's an ill omen right there.


Also, I was editing this into my other post, but you ended up responding before I could finish so I'll put it in this one instead:

Why would you dump your effort into one giant, unrealistically written post, when you can split your posts into smaller, more realistic and relatable ones?

Because while I agree they are more realistic that doesn't make them more relatable automatically nor more engaging or even immersive. Lengthier writing styles are more artificial and involve things like "fluid time" (posts not being in an immediate sequential order, but partially happening concurrently to others in a way that at times may cause some chronological blending), so they are less realistic and less organic. On the other hand, I tend to find short posts extremely bland, like reading from a shopping list. Why this happens with low-quality posts I think is obvious, but even more skilled writers will tend to trim down not just on wording but on content as well for shorter posts, and many of the early things to get cut are the very details that make certain kinds of writing more appealing to me. The building of atmosphere, interesting facets of worldbuilding or setting exploration as asides, little tidbits of reaction or interaction with my own work that may not be as necessary, etc...

When you cut off the "unnecessary", all too often that criteria is excluding aspects I value.

 

[Jet]

Idea

1. You can learn those things by briefly checking previous posts, which is the only thing I'm advocating for.

2. What if the character isn't very reactive? What if they grew up around the cool gadgets you mention? What if they genuinely don't care? What if they're lost in thought and don't notice things? What if the character talks throughout the journey, breaking it into pieces with only two or three possible observations per post? Would you really prefer a silent walk with zero dialogue, filled with endless exposition? That sounds depressing lol. I'd rather walk and talk, and gradually touch on scenery as the characters progress.

Also, now you're punishing/rewarding character archetypes. A character interested in architecture or magic will have tons of observations in your hypothetical, but a nature lover won't. On the flip side, a gear head won't react strongly to a walk in the woods, while the nature lover will. You can't always have strong, lengthy reactions unless you either,

A. Are writing Monkey D. Luffy
B. Break character for extra content

I'll also harken back to my point from a while ago, about how good writers trim words without trimming content. You operate under an assumption, that short writing has less detail, but good writers can deliver detail in less words. I feel like we are talking in circles to some extent, so this will probably be my last reply, but it's just factual that a good writer won't waste words, and everything they write contributes to the description, rather than junk sentences and pointless words, mixed with inefficient descriptions, riddled with redundancy and poor imagery.

I'll link this as an example of my writing. I feel like it delivers plenty of imagery and details in only 600 words. I deliberately omit certain things (the man's appearance for example), as I'm building a mystery in my RP.

Post in thread 'The Great Games of Nye' Fantasy - The Great Games of Nye

2. I feel like respect is the basis of collaboration. You might feel otherwise, but I think mutual respect is crucial. I've seen hyper detailed writers work with less detailed ones, and it wasn't a problem. I've never seen two people, who share zero respect for one another, ever do anything successfully. We can chalk this up to different experiences I suppose, but I don't think group RPs require 100% compatability between everyone. I also don't think it's fun to have one writing style and only one style. That sounds boring as sin. I'd much rather have a multitude of styles.

This is all subjective to be fair. Your experience clearly differs from mine. I don't think you're wrong or stupid, we just value different things. I'm just a big, freedom loving libertarian at heart lol. Here's to personal agency

I also don't understand why other writing styles are so distasteful to you. I guess you're extremely picky, which again, is totally fine. But that's not how the vast majority does things. I think I'm speaking for most people on RPN, while you speak for a picky minority, and that's cool too.

But I'm a lot different.

For example, I have no issue working with hyper detailed writers, or extremely sparse ones. Good writing is good writing.

3. Bodyguards? I respect a lot of what you say, but this speaks to a usery attitude. I feel like you should reconsider this statement.

Your members are doing you a favor, pumping their time and effort into your project. I feel like they deserve better than to be called bodyguards; simple tools for your own devices. They're producing art to further your personal vision, and if that art is good, even if it's not your specific style, you should have some appreciation for it, no?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting. I know you're not a villain, especially after the last time we debated. You proved your decency there. I probably misinterpreted, or you chose a bad term to illustrate your point.

4. You're conflating bad and short writing, which is what really bothers me. I'm a little bit salty about it lol. You actually think details need to be cut on shorter posts? If anything, many short posts (a few hundred words each) passed back and forth like a ball, provide as much, or more cumulative detail than giant ones. It depends on the writer. I blend descriptions into every sentence. They're part of every action and surround every noun, which is how I achieve detail in relatively few words.

And about relatability, we relate to humans, not plastic figures espousing long speeches. Realism is important for audience connection. That's why flawed characters are always more beloved than perfect ones, because we see ourselves in them. In the same way, we don't see ourselves in monologuing weirdos who talk for three minutes straight. We see ourselves in normal people, shooting the shit like we do in real life.

That's why Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese are two of the best writers & directors of all time. Here's a scene from Wolf of Wallstreet. Note how natural and real these people seem.



Contrast that with classical plays with monologues, where people talk in long, eloquent speeches. It's not nearly as relatable or realistic.

I'm gonna call it here. You can have the last word. I'll read but won't reply, as I've said my piece on this thread.

Good talk as always

 

[Idea]

1. You can learn those things by briefly checking previous posts, which is the only thing I'm advocating for.

You can, that's true. But as previously mentioned, a concrete metric has the advantage of enabling self-selection, and the whole point of the length requirement is that to the person who fits within the style its filtering for it is seldom actually any obstacle. This doesn't of course mean it won't take work to get there, but that this aligns with the kinds of posts they write anyway, not adding much if anything extra.

What if the character isn't very reactive? What if they grew up around the cool gadgets you mention? What if they genuinely don't care? What if they're lost in thought and don't notice things?

All of these are things that can add content still in the same way as I described before. If you don't care or are lost in thought, then you are thinking about something else. You can describe those thoughts and/or how the character entertains themselves while they are bored. You can maybe have the character make blunders because they are distracted like walking into a wall or almost tripping, etc.... If they grew up around the gadgets (and presumably in this case aren't exactly passionate about them) they might actually have a lot of knowledge and potentially bits of backstory that have been offered a silver platter opportunity to talk about, internally or otherwise. If the character isn't very reactive, then they may be more proactive, but even if they are just passive, then you could focus your attention on the towering presence of the guide for example, giving importance to the way your character is experiencing a pull.

What if the character talks throughout the journey, breaking it into pieces with only two or three possible observations per post?

Only in this example, the entire journey was described in the previous person's post. If the character talks throughout the journey, you can just have the dialogue of the various time broken up within the post.

"That's quite interesting..."

"Oh, I remember those!"

"Wait, what do you mean they are used to..."

"I couldn't imagine myself dressing like that."

Would you really prefer a silent walk with zero dialogue, filled with endless exposition? That sounds depressing lol. I'd rather walk and talk, and gradually touch on scenery as the characters progress.

That "zero dialogue" assumption is a pretty big one. In universe more conversation may be done implicitly than is done explicitly in the posts for one. For two, while you may not like the kind of dialogue often done in long-form with potentially several ongoing conversations within the same post from different points in time, or ones that are have strectches of dialogue per person - that is wholly different from saying there would be none.

I'll also harken back to my point from a while ago, about how good writers trim words without trimming content. You operate under an assumption, that short writing has less detail, but good writers can deliver detail in less words. I feel like we are talking in circles to some extent, so this will probably be my last reply, but it's just factual that a good writer won't waste words, and everything they write contributes to the description, rather than junk sentences and pointless words, mixed with inefficient descriptions, riddled with redundancy and poor imagery.

And I agree with you. Pointlessness is a hallmark of bad writing. As skill improves efficiency with word use improves as well. That being said, where we disagree is where this final result leads. You say this leads to a variable writing style, where length is seemingly completely context-dependent, with that context being tied to the contents of the scene. My position is that the scale isn't that broad. That the scale is affected not just by skill, but by writing style.

Short posts do tend to lack detail. Or better said, they tend to lack certain details, which ones may depend on the person. This isn't necessarily because the writer is incapable of delivering that detail. It's because the writer doesn't think of or value that detail. There's only so much you can really trim down the writing before you start making cuts on what is actually being said. Writers with longer and more descriptive styles may find better opportunities and ways to weave things and see aspects of the scene or narrative they wish to include they couldn't before.

Both styles need less words for the same content as skill improves, but one style trims down on the content to what it considers most essential, whereas another style may have more content or touch on stylistic methods that it couldn't before, resulting in more length overall, not less.

I feel like respect is the basis of collaboration. You might feel otherwise, but I think mutual respect is crucial. I've seen hyper detailed writers work with less detailed ones, and it wasn't a problem. I've never seen two people, who share zero respect for one another, ever do anything successfully. We can chalk this up to different experiences I suppose, but I don't think group RPs require 100% compatability between everyone. I also don't think it's fun to have one writing style and only one style. That sounds boring as sin. I'd much rather have a multitude of styles.

I did say respect is "a" basis for collaboration. I just don't think it's the sole one, or even the primary one, which is what the word "the" would imply. I don't think 100% compatibility is required either, but I do think the styles need to mesh in such a way that everyone involved is getting what they came for. For some people, I suppose, that might be different writing styles, though from my experience at least that certainly has not been the case.

I also don't understand why other writing styles are so distasteful to you. I guess you're extremely picky, which again, is totally fine. But that's not how the vast majority does things. I think I'm speaking for most people on RPN, while you speak for a picky minority, and that's cool too.

I'm not sure what you mean by "distasteful" here. If you mean I look down on them or people who write in them, then that would be entirely wrong. I simply recognize there are differences in the styles and what people within them seem to want. If you mean that I don't personally enjoy those styles, it's because they lack the things that make reading what they write enjoyable for me, because they don't put as much focus on the things I like to read and that lacking is palpable.

While yes, I think I speak for a minority as far as my writing style goes, I think the writing styles matter is actually one that is borderline universal. It simply happens to be the case that the most flexible among the general classifications (labeled 'casual' from 'simple, casual, detailed' based on old terminology) also happens to be the one the majority of the site is interested in.

. Bodyguards? I respect a lot of what you say, but this speaks to a usery attitude. I feel like you should reconsider this statement.

Your members are doing you a favor, pumping their time and effort into your project. I feel like they deserve better than to be called bodyguards; simple tools for your own devices. They're producing art to further your personal vision, and if that art is good, even if it's not your specific style, you should have some appreciation for it, no?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting. I know you're not a villain, especially after the last time we debated. You proved your decency there. I probably misinterpreted, or you chose a bad term to illustrate your point.

My use of the term 'bodyguards' was simply intended to work within the analogy as a role which implicity requires the use of weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. I apologize if it came across in some less savory way.

That being said, I can intellectually appreciate the effort someone put in and the quality of their work without personally enjoying it. So while indeed I want to make something good out of the RP's writing, I also want to enjoy it. Failure to meet either of those goals means a failure of whatever criteria I might be using in that instance.

You're conflating bad and short writing, which is what really bothers me. I'm a little bit salty about it lol. You actually think details need to be cut on shorter posts? If anything, many short posts (a few hundred words each) passed back and forth like a ball, provide as much, or more cumulative detail than giant ones. It depends on the writer. I blend descriptions into every sentence. They're part of every action and surround every noun, which is how I achieve detail in relatively few words.

Earlier you mentioned us talking in circles, and I think this is the exact reason why that might be happening. Because you're again stating that I'm saying or doing something which I explicitly and repeatedly stated I disagree with in this very conversation, in this case that I am associating bad writing with short writing. I am not. I do associate short writing with cuts in detail, but I neither associate short length nor a lack of detail with poor writing.

And about relatability, we relate to humans, not plastic figures espousing long speeches. Realism is important for audience connection. That's why flawed characters are always more beloved than perfect ones, because we see ourselves in them. In the same way, we don't see ourselves in monologuing weirdos who talk for three minutes straight. We see ourselves in normal people, shooting the shit like we do in real life.

I would argue you're being very reductive, for several reasons. One, it's not the real it's the plausible which grounds things for an audience connection. Unreal things which still make sense as something which could happen or we could see happening help immersion and connection a lot more than a realistic but narratively misplaced element or one that is real but based on something exotic to the experiences of the audience.

Second, even if we were to accept the initial premise of "realism is important for audience connection" that neither means it is essential - you can have a lot of relatable characters that act in ways that would be quite alien to you or I - nor is only one thing contributing to its construction. While I am not asserting this is what you're implying, the way you've worded things makes it sound as if one is incapable of relating to a character unless they match them in virtually every way. What I would argue is that you actually need very little to make a character relatable. The human brain will relate to a pair of trousers if we put googly eyes and sad music on it. Perhaps less natural dialogue is less relatable, but I find that an acceptable trade off for the alternative.

There is a reason why we don't constantly write dialogue with all of the little quirks that we realistic use. In some sense we decide that you can cut those "uhs" and repetitions and common stutters.

I'm gonna call it here. You can have the last word. I'll read but won't reply, as I've said my piece on this thread.

Good talk as always

Thank you For what it's worth, I hope you have a good night or day.

 

[BackSet]

Pretty sure that still counts as a one-liner or Script roleplay.

Don't actually have anything insightful to say here, just barging in to say that this is not a Script Roleplay because it looks absolutely nothing like a script or screenplay if any sort and I am sick of people calling it that! If you have to call it anything call it a chat roleplay but do not besmirch the good name of screenwriters by implying such posts are anything remotely resembling a script.

Okay, that's my daily dose of Screenwriting Nerd rage out of the way. See ya.

 

[GrumpySwallow]

I left Gaia Online many years ago because the vast majority of new RPs at the time were demanding full essays for posts as well as post decorations. I recently logged back into Gaia Online because I suddenly got the urge for forum RP again, and it was the only place I knew of, and saw that nothing changed. There is nothing for the light, casual RPer who just wants to hop into a game after work and relax, or the young or new RPer who is still learning. My return to Gaia Online did not last very long. That's actually how I found this place!

I definitely believe quality is more important than quantity, though I can understand why folks would use terms like Casual, Semi-Lit, and Adv. Literate; they're looking for players that are more their speed. However, the more you demand from your players the less likely people will join. If you don't mind being that picky and having a smaller pool of potential players to fish for, then good for you. For me and a lot of folks, RP is supposed to be fun and relaxing. I don't want it to be a stressful chore because EVERY post MUST have 1000 words, even if all my quiet and introverted ranger is doing is whittling away at a piece of wood while keeping watch at night. At the same time, a shorter post doesn't necessarily mean a good quality post. A post can be so very, very short compared to the rest of the posts in the thread, and adds so very little to the game, that I feel the player may as well not have posted anything at all. A 500 word post about a PC having an inner monologue may be interesting to read, but if I were that player's RP partner that'd give me nothing to work with for a response unless my PC is a mind reader.

Reading a very huge post when nothing super interesting is happening, and it's all just padding for word count, can be VERY boring. I will admit that if there's such a big post in a game I'm in, unless the other person is directly interacting with my PC I'm just going to skim through the post or outright skip it.

I've seen RP rules that say something like, "Posts must be 3000 words, it's not hard!" or "If I'm making posts 3000 words long, you have to as well because it's not fair that I put all that effort into my posts just to get shorter posts in response!" and it does not make one look like a good GM in my eyes. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to write such big posts. You willingly and freely chose to do that. Don't be so snobby and entitled!

 

[Luscinioide]

i keep seeing mention of 'padding out for word length' throughout many posts in this thread; can anyone actually provide an example of what they think this means? because i'm curious as to if this means "they write more detail than i like to read" or if it's something like "breaking up contractions into two separate words".

i'm getting very 'purple prose' vibes, which has a similar issue of there's no real definition and it's entirely subjective. i feel like it usually just means 'they like to elaborate on details that they enjoy, but i personally view as unnecessary.'

(this is not meant to be argumentative, i genuinely AM just curious about what people believe is padding out. edumacating myself)

 

[GrumpySwallow]

I just think of my dad's advice to me for reaching the word count on an essay, which is "Baffle with Bullshit". It's putting as much unnecessary or redundant material in the writing as possible because the teacher isn't likely to read it all anyway.

For me, as much as I enjoyed the LotR movies, I had a hard time getting into the books because of how long-winded they were, if that works as an example. Tolkien's works are very popular though, so it's definitely a subjective topic!

To my example with playing in a game with a 1000 word minimum requirement, and in the RP all my PC is doing is taking watch while the rest of the party sleeps during the night: he's a quiet and introverted guy so he won't be saying much. Instead, I go on and on about each and every rock, tree, and bug around him. Then, I type my ranger having an inner monologue about the piece of wood he's whittling down, how it's pinewood and how he wishes it was basswood because it's better. Then I ramble about all the different types of wood my ranger could use for whittling, where the trees are located in the world, and why they are better or worse than the other. Eventually, I reach the post size minimum, but it's all rambling with nothing that actually adds to the RP or gives the players something to react to.

When I talk about padding posts, I'm talking about posts that just ramble on and on.

 

[Luscinioide]

For me, as much as I enjoyed the LotR movies, I had a hard time getting into the books because of how long-winded they were, if that works as an example. Tolkien's works are very popular though, so it's definitely a subjective topic!

it's funny you bring up tolkien because i've mentioned him previously in one of the miscellaneous 'what qualifies as purple prose' discussions. xD he, along with the likes of other classic fantasy authors (especially r.r martin) are a very good example of why i've always referred to purple prose/word padding/other "unnecessary detail" words as being unreliable because....some people (me) LOVE tolkien and martin. they love that those two will go on for pages and pages describing food, what a character is wearing, and other little tidbits. some people HATE tolkien and martin because they want to get to the point with as little elaboration as possible.

it really is just a matter of personal preference, i think, because the details you mentioned as your example actually wouldn't bother me. i'd probably enjoy it. i don't mind listening to a craftsman think about his craft and consider the possible ways he could improve it, even if it's not directly relevant to RP. it lets me better understand that craftsman and get into his thinking process/personality. BUT. and a big but. i value character development more than anything and i don't care as much about action or 'big looming conflict'. that's not the norm for most RPers who aren't accustomed to keeping characters around for more than one RP. i operate on a long-term scale and keep up character continuity, so maybe that's why i don't blink at what others consider to be "mundane details".

interesting, interesting indeed, hmm

 

[GrumpySwallow]

I don't mind details. I love the Redwall books and how descriptive Brian Jacques can be especially in regards to food, but he's not long-winded about it. I also value character development and getting insight to a character's life, but I don't know too many people who would enjoy a 1000 word essay on an ant trail my PC is casually watching, or an encyclopedia of all the possible carving woods he could use when, "The Ranger wished he had some basswood: basswood is soft enough to carve without wearing down tools yet durable enough to hold fine details. It also has a uniform grain that is appealing to look at," would probably suffice!

 

[Jet]

i keep seeing mention of 'padding out for word length' throughout many posts in this thread; can anyone actually provide an example of what they think this means? because i'm curious as to if this means "they write more detail than i like to read" or if it's something like "breaking up contractions into two separate words".



i'm getting very 'purple prose' vibes, which has a similar issue of there's no real definition and it's entirely subjective. i feel like it usually just means 'they like to elaborate on details that they enjoy, but i personally view as unnecessary.'



(this is not meant to be argumentative, i genuinely AM just curious about what people believe is padding out. edumacating myself)

Regular writing: John swung his hammer and bashed Michael's shield with a clang. The blow ripped paint from the shield and left a deep, jagged dent on its surface.

Padded writing (I have seen this shit in many RPs, this is not an exaggeration): John's rotater cuff tilted forward as his muscles tightly contracted, nerves firing as he swung his blade upwards in a diagonal, angular arc, whistling through the air as molecules were split by the razor sharp weapon. His grip was tight and his arm ligaments were rigid, stronger than steel as his blade clanged into Michael's shield. The weapon scraped against it with a shrill, metallic sound, paint scraping away like snow on the winter wind. The expertly crafted weapon gouged into the shield and its molecular hardness, so great it was, left a deep, gnarled gash like a cut on human skin.

Now extrapolate the second passage over an entire post, with multiple actions. It makes for a shit reading experience. There's a reason no decent author actually writes like that, but it's exceedingly common in the RP community. The reason is that RP is turn based, so many times you don't have enough content for a couple thousand words (unless everyone is just bunnying everyone else) so people pad things out with these overly detailed, largely irrelevant descriptions.

Nothing in my second passage actually contributed to the imagery, which is one of the most important pieces of writing. The first post has a lot better imagery and it's actually a dynamic passage, as one action smoothly leads into the next.

The second passage has this very slow, pause button effect, where movements don't cleanly follow each other. It's a much less visual experience, which again, really detracts from the imagery.

If you write like the first passage for an entire post, with action and dialogue cleanly feeding into the next movement or word, you can't possibly hit say, 1000 words on every post.

If you write like the second it's very easy. However, an editor would literally laugh me out the building if I showed them that.

 

[Celestial Water]

After reading everything over I’ve been convinced to drop the lazy-lit tag. I think seeing if the player can write between 100-1000 words and also be able to play multiple characters might be more fitting for searches.