Viewpoint Hot take: Multi-paragraph posts are unproductive

[Melpomene]

I wish there was a dislike button. Establishing the setting: good. Over-establishing the setting: boring. Why would you assume that not going deep into every irrelevant facet of a setting means one doesn't establish the setting sufficiently? That's a completely false dichotomy, a completely straight-forward logical fallacy, oh great logic human.

To be fair... I don't think that was anyone's argument. I don't think anyone believes you have to describe how many bricks are in the wall or how many tiles are being laid on the floor. What people are saying is that what you think is an adequate description of the setting is not what others would think is an adequate description of the setting. Some people like 'irrelevant' details being mentioned. Some of us don't think of these details being fluff. To some people, there is no over-establishing the setting. I could personally read about a setting alone for a while, it is one of the reasons I enjoy reading Tolkien. If you don't like that, it is fine. But I think you are disregarding that there are people that legitimately find pleasure in reading that amount of detail.

 

[Jet]

An issue is the distribution of focus. Someone with 100 things values 1 thing less than someone with 10 things. It's not about the value of each in a vacuum, but that we have a limited amount of focus and emotions to invest. If you provide too many things, exceeding the amount of focus in a person's brain you start cutting their focus on each individual thing. It's like plugging to many houses into a grid creating a brown out, people will read concepts with darkened fidelity. For another example, Im sure everyone knows exactly what the Mona Lisa looks like down to exact details. If I downloaded your mental image of the Mona Lisa it would likely be within 20% of the actual thing. On the other hand, how close would your mental image be of this (maybe not as famous but pretty close) painting?



Off by at least 40% I'd presume, with only the two main figures included. The reason is simple, the Mona Lisa is very focused and The Creation of Adam is much more complicated. This is not to indict complexity, the Creation of Adam would be worse without the forgettable background but it does show us a functional example of how attention divides. What makes this concept very important for us is unlike visual art where the eyes draw to spots, every word on a page gets equal time. You have to be painfully aware of this when you write, and make care to only describe what is important. The Mona Lisa is a great example, it's not lacking in detail, just focused on a single concept.

If you fill a scene with distractions from the main idea then forgive me if I skim. I feel like my time is being wasted at that point and I start surfing. Now what's your definition of focused? Of relevant information? Well that's opinion, you can be very verbose and productive. I'm not saying long writers are all shit, but many go down the description rabbit hole. Thinking their world building the most interesting thing in the universe they fill pages with random stuff, by the time it's over I've forgotten the plot

 

[Kazami42]

Also FYI Dov , the logic virus eradicates reason and self control, the latter especially around the uninfected. So that's pretty ironic of you to help me out with that joke. Though it seems as always on here the extreme of either spectrum was interpreted. Applied directly to all y'all's CPU, brutha.

But unmemey, Jet and Mel are equally on point. And presumably anyone else posting their interpretation on that point. Even though it wasn't intended to effectively turn the thread into an opinion war as effectively as it just apparently did.

 

[Dov]

Says the guy using bold and italics. Don't be intentionally obnoxious, 95% of this thread has been discussion, nobody thinks it's an argument except you. Go eat a Snickers.

 

[Kazami42]

Says the guy using bold and italics. Don't be intentionally obnoxious, 95% of this thread has been discussion, nobody thinks it's an argument except you. Go eat a Snickers.

I mean we're joking I'd assume, but still just to add conversation: I wouldn't define a opinion war as an argument. It's merely there to represent in length documents on a given subject that can grow to larger numbers, either anticipated or exaggerated, on a topic which itself is as discussed on others is up to context and preference. Making it merely the collective givings of further opinion. As of which stated and with the multiple jokes in the initial post, such as the fresh prince of Bel air theme, hentai is art meme, and ending in head-on.

Though if it was an argument, I probably would more so read in silence. Given the context of the post. It'd just be disappointing. Regardless it did add to the convo with Jet and Mel's posts, which I would say is maybe the last thing we could discuss on the thread without repeating previous sayings, such as opinion, preference, etc. Though taking it like that certainly was a peak to the day, wouldn't ya say? :3

Also PS, I actually do wish I had one of those.

 

[Dov]

I dunno, I thought the new topic of world-building vs focus was adding to things.

 

[Kazami42]

I dunno, I thought the new topic of world-building vs focus was adding to things.

If it helps, we could expand this to another realm, so there's the potential of expanding upon the world building post, through a "subgenre" of it too.

How people feel about the intense establishment of foreshadowing, for events that never transpire, or leak out what the expected ending is. Such as those 99 line intro posts, that looks sinister and deathly, because the creator wants to kill you through traveling into a Budget Swamp™ inhabited by killer pests and trees, that is like it's ripping off of an episode of Rugrats and an SCP article.

 

[StAmuriah]

While I disagree that the majority of rp is dialaugue I do agree that any stipulations regarding word or paragraph count is disruptive to the organic flow of the creative process or even the eb-and- flow between partners. As long as whatever is being contributed is useful its good. I'd rather have some simply reply "no" than a flashback recounting how they got to their decision to say No in the first place.

My motto is simple- pull your weight in the storytelling and if you have a problem, say something. Yes, that means complain to me if you think I'm not being helpful. PLEASE! I hate bad stories, but I hate it when my partner isn't enjoying themselves more.

 

[Asteria]

I think the point of relevancy is really being quashed by the word 'preference' here.

I mean... what one finds relevant in a storyline also differs from reader to reader. I still find that the point of relevancy is based on someone's preference me and my preferences are going to Hell.

 

[Dov]

Can you expand on that? I can't wrap my head around it. How do you define relevancy? I would have figured relevancy is pretty consistent across the board.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Can you expand on that? I can't wrap my head around it. How do you define relevancy? I would have figured relevancy is pretty consistent across the board.

Nope. When you read a story you impose your own personal preference on what is relevant and what isn't. And that is going to be entirely down to what interests you as a reader and (to a slightly lesser extent) what is important to the story itself. You seem to be someone who has an interest in reading more concise posts. So therefore to you "fluff" is any material you do not personally feel is relevant to the story. However I am someone who is interested in reading longer posts to better immerse myself in the world. So to me "relevancy" is more tied to how well the person is expanding the world. If a post doesn't expand anything than I consider it "fluff" and "irrelevant".

Edit - Added an Example
So if for instance Sally where to spend two pages going over the minute details of her daily chores at the unicorn farm. I would find that shit fascinating. It doesn't matter if she is currently in a nice restaurant on a blind date with Dave. I would still be happy to read her go on long tangents about it (Dave might disagree). Now someone else might prefer Sally to just say something to the effect of "I work at a Unicorn Farm and I am up from sunup to sundown." And move on with the conversation. But that's just their personal preference really.

 

[veiledpurple]

to be honest, i pretty much agree.

I usually can turn out at least one paragraph, maximum 10, depends on how into it i am.

Yes, something needs to be worked off of. But I had a partner ditch me because they wrote 50 paragraphs for one reply, while I go from 1-10.

Writing styles may be a conflict, but I constantly worry my replies are too short and that's a major cause of anxiety when roleplaying with new partners. Sometimes I don't know how to fit 500 words into a reply, especially if I'm playing a character, and the interaction is between my character and a character my partner is playing. It's never nice to take over someone else's character.

It's ok to be a little picky over reply length- some people write one sentence and move on- but I don't want it to be the sole make-or-break. I want to have fun roleplaying. My motto: quality over quantity.

 

[Dov]

Rae, you just expanded on it after you said you couldn't expand on it.
So would you say that all world building is a contribution to an rp? Even if all the actions and characters are in one place and the world building is about not that place? (Not including places that have been mentioned and say something about what's going on or the people involved)
Also just to clarify: I've been told my tone comes off as argumentative when I ask questions sometimes. I am actually asking, this is not a 'defend yourself' situation.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Rae, you just expanded on it after you said you couldn't expand on it.
So would you say that all world building is a contribution to an rp? Even if all the actions and characters are in one place and the world building is about not that place? (Not including places that have been mentioned and say something about what's going on or the people involved)
Also just to clarify: I've been told my tone comes off as argumentative when I ask questions sometimes. I am actually asking, this is not a 'defend yourself' situation.

Yes. Because world building is about building a world. That is going to be bigger than the individual people who are present in a roleplay at any given time. I don't know if you caught the example I gave but let's say the scene is Sally and Dave on a blind date. And Sally goes on a long tangent about the time she worked at a unicorn farm after college. That would still be relevant to me even if it wasn't describing the current scene and had only limited connection to the current conversation. (say Dave just asks- "What are your interests?").

I would be interested because it's fleshing out the wider world of the roleplay. It is making the place feel more real and lived in to me. Also it is showing me a lot about Sally as a character. As the fact that she is going on this long tangent tells me (and Dave) that unicorn farming is a passion of hers.

 

[Asteria]

I don't know how well will this go, but I am going to try my best. Everyone, excuse me if this doesn't make much sense. It probably had more sense in my intoxicated brain.

Can you expand on that? I can't wrap my head around it. How do you define relevancy? I would have figured relevancy is pretty consistent across the board.

So. While in this thread we have pretty much discussed the aforementioned topics by referring to roleplaying, I am going to start this mess by bringing forth a real-life situation to exemplify why I believe that relevancy depends on the person that stands in the middle of said situation. Probably most of us have experienced a similar thing -- you are walking down the street with your friend. It is a nice sunny day. Then, you hear a bee passing by you. You don't think much of it yourself; it is a goddamn bee, it is doing its job flying around and doing what bees do. The bee is irrelevant to you, to your situation. But your friend starts freaking out. He starts shouting and moving his arms around like crazy. His reaction is odd to you, because well, it is an irrelevant bee... However, the bee is damn relevant to your friend. Maybe he is afraid of bees in general or he has an allergic reaction if he is bitten by one, maybe he had been attacked by a bee before. That bee becomes relevant to your friend because it affects him in some way and it can affect his situation overall. He is connected to that bee by something.

Let's say that they both wanted to reach the same destination. That's the focus of their situation. However, I don't feel like one of the two friends focuses on their destination and the other is just being distracted by something irrelevant. The focus simply changes for a moment, but it's still there -- the friend is afraid, the other one is focusing on calming them next. That is no way ruins the main focus. It just adds something.

Let's move on to characters now. You have made a good point when you have described how your character would react to a marble wall in two distinct situations in an attempt to separate focus from rather unnecessary fluff. But let's bring another character next to yours. A character that joins your character in both of these situations, like a servant or a guard, but has the same reaction no matter. Why? Because what your character finds relevant right then, like thinking ahead to the meeting with the royals, the other character has little interest in, even if they are headed the same way. They are more like: "Sure, I am meeting the royals, but that affects the other character, not me. If they die, I am going to serve someone else. And I also have lived my whole damn life on the street, how did the royals even build all of this crap? OH, THAT IS AMAZING! LET ME NITPICK AT EVERY DETAIL!"

Now, stories. I am going to point to my girl again, Melpomene , and her Tolkien. Some people love Tolkien's books. Others despise them and think they are too tedious. Why? Because they are seeking something different in the same story. Tolkien certainly found the details relevant if he had taken so long to write them all on paper. The one that loves Tolkien also loves world-building. The pages full of details and details and details are relevant to them even if maybe they don't prove relevant to the story in itself. They just want to be immersed in the world. Maybe they will use those details for stories of their own. The others want fast action and dialogue so everything else is rather irrelevant. Who cares how the house looks like? Give me the dialogue! What are they doing in that house?

There's quite a lot behind the word relevance, really...

 

[Dov]

In response to the value of Tolkein concept: I would suggest that novels and rps definitely need to be separated. Obviously it's all under the umbrella of literature, but enjoying a novel and rping are completely different activities. One is completely self contained so long stretches of world building narrative are both appropriate and relevant. Nobody except the person who laid it out is contributing to whatever happens after that stretch of world building. I would argue that in an rp, taking it upon yourself to fully construct the setting down to the last detail makes it more difficult for the other participants. Once you've established these details, it is now up to everybody else to maintain the consistency of the setting, where a more loosely established setting is more malleable and therefore more useful to the group as a whole.

In response to the real life scenario with the bee, of course that adds. It's now become part of the narrative. The moment a character notices something and gives it importance, it becomes important. I would suggest that if no character gives something importance, it is not important to the rp. If you as the writer know it will be important, then sure, draw some attention to it. It will have relevance to the characters in the future. If it's never relevant to the characters though, it adds information that obfuscates the parts that are actually relevant, depending on the degree of detail.

Example: Jacob is walking by a field, heading into town. The field is patchy, dotted with sheep, nobody is out in it.
The field itself isn't relevant to the story, but very briefly describing has already established that the land is rural, agricultural, not perfectly maintained but not dilapidated either. I don't need anybody I'm playing with to have a perfectly exact image of the field. Maybe somebody makes it more relevant by noting the little house at the edge of the field, out of which comes Alice, the shepherd's daughter. Because I don't build the world in detail, other people have room to make their own relevant aspects of it. So I don't care about the bee, but somebody else does, and that person can talk about the bee and make it a part of the story. If no character is concerned with the bee, I don't want anybody bringing it up.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Dov I think you might have missed the point that Asteria was trying to make. So to put it in simpler terms. Ask yourself what is the main focus of your writing? Is it developing characters? Is it developing a plot? Is it something else? Now obviously whatever that focus is will influence how you determine whether something is relevant or fluff.

In my case my main focus is always fleshing out the world. So it doesn't matter to me if I'm describing something that is relevant to the plot or even necessarily to the characters. It is relevant to me because it fleshes out the world and makes it more lived in. As for giving more details narrowing your partners participation again that depends on what your partner's main focus is and what they are getting out of the roleplay. I regularly take the lead in fleshing out the world of my roleplays and will go into details that would probably be deemed unnecessary or fluff to you. And all of my partners enjoy it. Heck some of them directly request that I do that because they aren't comfortable with world building on their own. And the ones who do world build? I absolutely engage with that.

I seriously got so excited last night over my partner mentioning an elevator in their post. It was basically just a throw away line but we talked about if for at least twenty minutes because it completely changed the nature of the world building (to be clear it's a magical roleplay so the existence of an elevator led to a question on relative technology). But honestly the likelihood of the elevator ever coming up again in a post is pretty minimal. Unless we have a scene where it breaks it is probably just a random part of the world that is just mentioned in passing. But it makes the entire world more lived in because it fleshes out the link between magic and regular technology.

 

[Asteria]

I agree that a more loosely established setting is better for a roleplay overall, but I also have met several people that simply jump into the world built by their partners. And I don't mean a world that is simply sketched, I mean a full world. Mostly because they want to be immersed in someone else's world and react to it, instead of actively participating in creating it. I think that is what most roleplays that are formed out of a narrator (someone who sets the setting of the scenes, brings in NPCs, gives the character choices) and a character (that reacts to everything). Or at least I believe so, I have never participated in one myself.

I also wouldn't fully separate novels from roleplaying. The act itself is still writing and while most roleplay as a hobby, some take it pretty seriously and do actually end up writing stories that I would consider novels. In theory, at least.

I am sorry, but I don't really understand statements like these ones:

If it's never relevant to the characters though, it adds information that obfuscates the parts that are actually relevant, depending on the degree of detail.

If no character is concerned with the bee, I don't want anybody bringing it up.

How do you decide what is relevant and what is not to a character that is not your own? And considering that roleplaying is collaborative writing, how do you decide what is not relevant to the story if the action is something that both you and your partner contribute to? I consider that when you begin thinking that what your partner's writing, characters, and characters' actions are rather irrelevant or they do not contribute to the plot, there is a lack of communication. Or you are not on the same page when it comes to things.

 

[Dov]

I don't decide what's relevant to another person's character, I input what is relevant to my character and let other people build upon that by inputting what is relevant to their characters. Then we have a well-developed world without anything that doesn't matter to any of our characters. My building up things that don't matter to me or my character definitely doesn't add anything for me, and may not add anything for anybody else. Maybe some random detail I elect to throw in could matter to somebody else, but why should I make note of it? Let them make note of it. If the field Jacob walks by has little flowers that attract bees and Alice has an issue with bees, let Alice take note of it. But Jacob is a shepherd himself, so he notices the sheep, not the bees. Maybe the sheep aren't relevant to anybody else's character, but they flesh Jacob out a little more, and I didn't spend 3 pages talking about the sheep. If somebody wants to know more about the sheep, maybe that person will strike up a conversation with Jacob about them, then we can talk about what color they are, how many they are, if they're recently shorn. But chances are, nobody cares as much about the sheep as Jacob, so I'm not going to waste other people's time, energy, and brain cells reading about the sheep.
I could absolutely talk about the sheep for several paragraphs. Jacob's sheep have individual personalities, but if nobody ever meets them, nobody needs to know that, at least not in detail. I can add a lot to the story, character, and setting by mentioning that Jacob's sheep bite him a lot. If anybody wants to know more about that, the plot will make room for it.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Dov I think your example also really illustrates the difference between character and player. Maybe the character walking next to Jacob doesn't care about the sheep. But that doesn't mean the person reading the post doesn't care about the sheep. And that's kind of the point of world building. It isn't about limiting the information written about to what is relevant to the characters or the plot. It is adding information just so your partner can read it and learn more about the world.

Maybe you as a reader wouldn't care to read three pages about the sheep. Honestly as a reader I would. I would be super interested to learn about the sheep, their color, how recently their shorn, etc. Maybe the character I'm playing wouldn't necessarily care. Maybe their more like you and their like, "well they're sheep." and move on. But I am not my character. So what I find relevant isn't going to necessarily be in line with what my character finds relevant.

 

[Dov]

Alright, fair point, I see where you're coming from. I do write under the assumption that if I think it's mundane, so do other people. Given the partners I do end up playing with, I'd be right, because it's not likely I'd be writing with somebody who elaborates on details that no characters are invested in.
So ultimately, it's a difference between writer interest and character interest, and investing time in one or the other. It makes sense that people who are more invested in character-driven plot would not be interested in things that the characters aren't interested in. Your style sounds more like an art appreciation essay than narrative writing to me, but I do understand that your interest is completely different than mine so that would appeal to you despite it not being plot-centric.

 

[Asteria]

Dov I think your example also really illustrates the difference between character and player. Maybe the character walking next to Jacob doesn't care about the sheep. But that doesn't mean the person reading the post doesn't care about the sheep. And that's kind of the point of world building. It isn't about limiting the information written about to what is relevant to the characters or the plot. It is adding information just so your partner can read it and learn more about the world.

Maybe you as a reader wouldn't care to read three pages about the sheep. Honestly as a reader I would. I would be super interested to learn about the sheep, their color, how recently their shorn, etc. Maybe the character I'm playing wouldn't necessarily care. Maybe their more like you and their like, "well they're sheep." and move on. But I am not my character. So what I find relevant isn't going to necessarily be in line with what my character finds relevant.

Well said. Well said! As a roleplayer, my character engages with my partner's character, but I also engage with the player behind that said character through my post. Roleplaying is about the characters, as well as the players.

 

[Melpomene]

What Asteria and rae2nerdy have been saying is very true! Both character and player relevance matter in this instance. Which is why it is best to partner up with the people you know match your style the best. I would not partner myself up with someone who I feel does not want to put the same emphasis on the world around them and developing the setting as I do. I like to write a lot, I like to make very detailed accounts of the setting my character is in and how that is affecting them. And if you don't, that's okay, it is just good to remember that some people do and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Dov It doesn't have to be an either or thing necessarily. But that is more down to the stories your writing than anything. I for instance tend to create more slice of life stories where the main focus is in two characters exploring the world in bigger or smaller ways. So a lot of times one or both of the characters are actively involved in the world building alongside the players. But that is because I know what the focus of my writing is going to be and I try to work within that strength rather than against it.

Which I think might have been part of the problem with posting minimums in general on your end. It was working against what is ultimately your strength as a writer. Which seems to be more character / plot focused writing. Whereas for someone like me, whose strength is world building, I can write pages of text easy as pie. If anything going to shorter posts is a struggle with me because I naturally want to describe what's going on and not focus so much on simple character interaction.

 

[Asteria]

OFF-TOPIC.

Melpomene and rae2nerdy , I love you both. Go out and conquer the world, my children.