Intimidation - The greatest barrier to entry?

[Bone2pick]

I've wanted to make a thread on this topic for awhile, and out of the restlessness of boredom, I've finally gotten around to it. I regularly read comments from members about their lack of confidence as a writer, and from GMs who have to be extra careful not to scare aware skittish players. I remember a thread where @Grey admitted to never labeling his roleplays as Detailed, because the title alone could give potential players second thoughts.


When you browse through this Discussion section you'll often find members applauding and championing well thought out and unique roleplays. I certainly do. But well thought out story ideas usually require a fair amount of effort (writing), and unique worlds usually need a healthy amount of description & depth for players to understand them. See where I'm going with this?


It's a double edged sword. By "improving" your roleplay you often reduce its player base. Let me be clear though, it's not a death sentence; detailed games can and do launch successfully. But I guess my question is: would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?


Sound off with your thoughts below!

 

[call me rae]

You know what this brings up an awesome idea that I used to utilize on another site when I would create roleplays.


It's something I heard about from some tutorial about - How to Make A Good Roleplay or whatever.


The idea if you have a detailed or indepth roleplay idea what you should do on the first page ( where you put all the credits and such ) is make a quick blurb giving an overview of the roleplay.


Like in the case of this site on the first IC thread just put maybe 200 words or thereabouts giving new players a general idea of what your roleplay is about, where it's set, and what the hook is supposed to be.


So that way you can get an idea of the roleplay without having to delve too deep into the mechanics.


Another good idea is having a Q&A thread and just answer the most obvious questions as simply as possible.


Where is this set? Who are the main characters of the story? Is the world like ours or different? You know whatever questions you think will come up the most.


This gives people short snippets to read that can keep them engaged but aren't as intimidating as long blocks of text.


---


As to limiting your player base honestly if you spend a lot of time making something I would think you would want to be a bit selective on who you let in. I mean you don't want people who regularly write one liners to be moving around in this beautiful world you spent days making up.

 

[welian]

Sometimes I use intimidation to my advantage. If people think the Big Scary Supermod is making a Big Scary Story, then my crowd sort of... Self-filters, I guess. I get less people interested, and those people are less likely to be intimidated.

 

[White Masquerade]

would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?

No, I don't think it would be prudent. Going off what Welian said to the extreme, if someone is too intimidated to join an RP you've set up, then that's not your problem. Yes, you can give them a helping hand (will explain this later), but you can't force-feed somebody confidence. If they pass, they pass. Again, like Welian said, you'll be left with the ones that are capable and care. Who knows. After a few pages of seeing it's not so bad, the skittish ones might actually consider applying. This is not something serious enough to compromise over. What are you going to do after you've "softened " the RP up and got a few nervous players to join? Eventually, they are going to have to learn the ins and outs of what makes the world tick.


I don't believe RPs should ever be sugarcoated just to attract players. If it's detailed, mark it detailed. If it needs 10 posts a week to work, then that needs to be clear. If players need to know a lot of lore, they should not be told otherwise.




This leads into my second point, that covers Raebow's post. All of what she said, falls under execution. There are really two parts to a role-play: idea-making & execution. Just as there are many intricacies to idea-creation and world building, there are just as many for execution (helping-handers). If there are masterful and elaborate world-builders around, then it'd only makes sense that there would be masters of planning and execution too.

It's a double edged sword. By "improving" your roleplay you often reduce its player base.

Elaborate world builders have so much skill in creating, that it usually beats out their skill in execution by a lot. This what you're talking about in the question. This is why Raebow's answer is helpful. It focuses on bettering the execution. Summaries, Q&A's, blurbs, turning long blocks of text into helpful snippets? Guess what? All of that falls under execution. An elaborate, well-built world, is going to need an elaborate, well-built execution to make it accessible. When these two sides mis-match, player-base starts to shrink.

• Deep worlds, small players? Too little execution.
  
• Runs well, but kind of bland? Too little idea-creation/world-building.
  

My suggestion to elaborate world-builders, is to have a CO-GM/Advisor that can break things down well. One that is a good executor, since you already have the idea portion covered. Either that, or pick up a few execution skills. If you go the CO-GM route, please rely on each other as equals. Really, things will click and you'll find each other indispensable.

 

[Chordling]

At this point in my roleplaying experience, yes, I use intimidation to its fullest. Why? Because on RpNation, I've already established my circle of writing buddies. If someone new is going to want to join the gang, then they need to filter through my set of rules first.


Do I think it is wise for world builders to consider intimidation? Yes, I do. I think it is wise for anyone to consider it. Relating back to my previous statement, I believe it's a matter on who you want your audience to be. Trying to make new friends? Don't be so intimidating. Just want a couple of good roleplaying friends to try something new? Grab that iron fist and start building those walls!

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

If someone is intimidated, then they're not really interested. When a description gets my creative juices flowing, I don't care if there's some sort of crazy standard like posts which need to be the equivalent of a Microsoft word page. When I'm into something, I go the extra mile to hopefully make it work and participate.


Ofcourse that's just me, but the basic gyst is interest. When a roleplay seems interesting, nothing but cold feet and a lack of conviction can stop you. A lack of conviction is usually someone judging a book by its cover.


Someone might look at a well made thread and think, wow this looks cool. But he or she probably didn't even read the thread.

 

[Pariah Stark]

@White Masquerade brings up a good point with idea-making and execution, but I feel like it goes significantly deeper than that when it comes to intimidation. Not everyone is intimidated for the same reasons; some people can be incredibly interested in an idea, but be intimidated by several factors including advanced coding, post length, post quality, character sheet detail, so on and so forth. However, a roleplay could be incredibly simple to get into, but involve a lot of lore and information that occurred in the past ando/or IC that is essentially necessary and a hassle to get to, which means that execution itself isn't the problem, but the idea has expanded so much that it is the intimidating factor.


First and foremost, when you bring up cutting down your player-base, that might be a side-effect of several things that have nothing to do with poor execution or poor-idea making. Increasing post quality/frequency or simply having poor behavior can do that. Also, writing with a certain tone, being overly dark or abusive, or just taking things in a direction they really shouldn't be. Some characters join in for an action-adventure, not a horror-torture. Before ever considering things like execution for an idea or content, one should consider the target audience of RP'ers. You can't use the same bait for every fish, so in all reality, there is no objective 'perfect' balance in roleplay. Some things will always appeal to others and even other groups more than other things will, and with that noted, it's important to consider the intimidation factor - as a GM - for those that you want in. You should be looking for that sweet spot that makes the barrier weakest for those you think would fit best in the RP, and let's face it, there is a diverse assortment of players and preference and not everyone belongs everywhere - regardless of skill or personality.


Now that we have a target audience, let's look at what was brought up. Idea-making an execution. I think that there's a lot more to this. Idea-making is more akin to the act of sharing information without direct communication; ie, an Overview, Settings/Locations, etc. - while you might think of it as designing a world and structure, you should also consider this: the perception of that world changes entirely based on what you, as the GM, write about this. This is especially true for original worlds as you create everything, so you get to show the tip of the iceberg. In fandoms, you basically explain your differences or your 'take' - what you're doing. It's slightly different. The point is, idea-making should really be broken down into concepts of Generating and Sharing Information.


Before we go into generation and sharing, let's look at the information in general. Right now, we're talking about non-interactive information, so this won't include certain things like a FAQ's, but it will tie into those things. So, the two types of information are Static and Dynamic. Some information will change, some information won't. Some information might change every few weeks, some might not be altered until after an arc. How often information changes and how it's portrayed is important. Some GM's literally never update information whereas others continue to add to it and even others edit in new information. Brief summaries of previous events explaining what has happened to the world. Static Information which rarely changes, like an Overview, might never be altered, but a Settings/Locations tab might get a few editions while an Arc/Chapter Summary is added to periodically. Why are they all static? Quite simply because they are meant for a player to go to them and use as consistent reference material. A character roster is dynamic, rules, updates, recruitment status - all dynamic information that is meant to change. Static information is meant to be ever present and reliable while dynamic information exists to communicate directly with players without the use of PM's and get major points across - it won't be there forever nor will it always be applicable to the roleplay.


So, now that we see the two different kinds of information, it's easy to see how something as simple as information generation can greatly vary between them. This is where you might have a hint of intimidation. If static information is a simple paragraph, some people might be offput and think it's just incredibly simple or dull. A few simple tidbits of coding and spacing could make that same paragraph look awesome and give an eerie, mysterious feel to it, which can affect how a player perceives it. Then, you could explode it into a giant wall of information that's uncoded or completely coded or spaced in various ways all to different effects. I'm not going into detail here because there's no objective 'best' way to do it, but these factors all to come into consideration. Dynamic information is the same to the extent it doesn't always exist; many GM's simply use an active OOC instead of a section for this.


Information sharing ties into information generation closely, obviously, but it has a key difference in that this is exactly how information is given out. Is it PM'd? Is it updated in an OP? Or, is there a dedicated updates section? Is the overview edited? Added to? Is there an update log list? Is there a separate section for the Overview, Past HIstory, Settings/Locations, IC 1, IC 2, IC 3, etc. - this is structure. This is also the aesthetics. How does it look? How does the content you coded and generated look once its shared? Does it keep a strong, consistent feel or tone? Tons of things to consider.


Then, you get to execution.


WM went into detail on this one, too, and I don't really want to get into as much because I feel I touched on information heavily.


Execution both relates less and more to the notion that you must understand your desired player-base. Execution often includes referring to groups and single individuals, requiring strong people and social skills. However, at this point, the 'idea' or information you've created and shared has done its job drawing in the people. This is less about the audience and more about the people you've interested. Not only that, you have to design the social structure inside the world you've made. Sure, you made a fantastic world, but can you make a five-man group? It's a whole world of difference. Execution can go so far as to involve people that weren't initially interested, preserve people that found the execution process too difficult initially and on the other hand scare away people that initially thought the idea was awesome. Execution is going to include the whole process of character creation and how strict you are in applications. This is where a lot of fine tuning and tough choices come into play.


This is also why White Masquerade brought up having a co-GM. Sometimes, having a co-GM is wonderful and they complement your skills. However, sometimes, you butt heads. Something I personally take a hand in for any detailed roleplay I am leading is character creation and integration. Yet, I'm the world designer. By the intrinsic nature of the system, I'm the idea-guy that wants to take part in execution to keep the idea solid. It more work and effort on me and sure someone else helping would be indispensable, but at the same time, I would hate to have something exist that doesn't sit well with me. Down to it, I'd rather do most things myself until it simply gets too large that I can't.


Intimidation is part of advertisement. You might want to attract the right audience, and others might dislike that. I go into a huge list of my pet peeves, things to not do and examples of things that have happened that irked me when they did. That might be immensely intimidating, but at the same time, if you can't read them and understand why wrote them or understand why that scenario bothered me as a GM significantly, then we're already filtering through potential compatibility issues. It is a tool. It is a tool that is affected by a lot of factors and the most important thing about it is to never lose sight of why you're using it in the first place.


You can't please everyone.

 

[White Masquerade]

@The Architect


Understood. You're right in everything you've said. Our mix-up, is the definition of execution. Since this is an RP site, I see idea-creation as the RP's subject + World-building. Every single thing after that and not related them, falls under execution.


Advanced coding? Make a good step-by-step tutorial. Post length? Figure if it works best short, medium, or long. Character sheet detail? Figure out if it works best simple, casual, or detailed. A lot of lore? Break it down into tons of small sections, with colorful dividers. A lot of information happened in the past, making it a hassle to get into? Find a way to present it that doesn't make it a hassle. Interest checking? Teaming up? Planning plot? Carrying out the plot? Keeping OOC active?


^None of those have anything to do with the RP's subject or world-building, so it falls under execution.

However, a roleplay could be incredibly simple to get into, but involve a lot of lore and information that occurred in the past ando/or IC that is essentially necessary and a hassle to get to, which means that execution itself isn't the problem, but the idea has expanded so much that it is the intimidating factor.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Some peoples' idea-making/world-building is so high level, their execution skills lag way behind. They try to present their complex world, but do it in a way that nobody understands or knows how to get into (execution). For High-level world-building, you need high-level execution. When the execution is not up to par, that's when it starts becoming intimidating.

• Math is a very complex subject. A lot of people today, find it difficult to get. However, those excellent math teachers that everyone wants, know how to present math in a way, that makes it easy to understand.
  
• The genius scientist that has great theories, but can't articulate them in common language. No matter how smart the idea, if it can't be presented in an understandable way, people don't even have the chance to decide if they really like it or not.
  

Everything from your second paragraph onward I wont touch, because the suggestions on what might cut down player-base, falls under this definition of execution. That is what blows my mind. Execution is pretty much everything. You could say it's 95% of the process. Yet, without the idea, you have nothing. Zero. Zilch. Ideas may be 5% of the process, but they are SO critical. They have so much weight. It's crazy. I feel that's what trips some people up. Yeah. Idea-making is sexy. It's the idea-makers that get the credit and praise. However, without execution (which is most of the actual work), things go awry. Everyone has ideas. A lot of people with the same ideas. What separates them? The ones that are executed best. Idea-making and execution go hand-in-hand. Can't have something wonderful without effort from both.


Even using the dictionary definition of execution, it all boils down to one thing: doing. Which still covers most of what makes an RP work.

Intimidation is part of advertisement. You might want to attract the right audience, and others might dislike that. I go into a huge list of my pet peeves, things to not do and examples of things that have happened that irked me when they did. That might be immensely intimidating, but at the same time, if you can't read them and understand why wrote them or understand why that scenario bothered me as a GM significantly, then we're already filtering through potential compatibility issues. It is a tool. It is a tool that is affected by a lot of factors and the most important thing about it is to never lose sight of why you're using it in the first place.
You can't please everyone

This is where we differ as builder & executor.


Up top I suggested to Bone, to use intimidation as a tool to see who was really interested, because I know Bone is a world-builder. There's no reason to sacrifice doing what Bone loves to do, just to appeal to other players.


Honestly, I myself, as an executor, could not care less about my world. I find zero interest in making wonderful settings. I only care about making things accessible, work, and easy to get into. If doing that requires destroying half the world in the middle of an RP, I will do it. Leaving an area unexplored? I will do it. Cutting short an important event? I will do it. For true executors, the goal is to make anything work. Which also means making everything work. The ideal, is to get every single person into a functioning role-play. Everything done, is to that end.

Also, writing with a certain tone, being overly dark or abusive, or just taking things in a direction they really shouldn't be. Some characters join in for an action-adventure, not a horror-torture. Before ever considering things like execution for an idea or content, one should consider the target audience of RP'ers.

It's an executors job/dream to solve things like that. It's not realistic, but the answer to that, is to have a massive site-wide RP that caters to each and every genre people are into. Whether they can be woven together into a cohesive whole, I don't know, but I'm sure it's possible.




Architect, I want to say thank you for the answer and enjoyed reading about your thoughts on it, especially about the two types of information shared. It made me think deeper about what I've said. If you're ever involved in any projects in the future, I would like a hand in, so we could talk about things.

 

[Pariah Stark]

I don't have the time to come up with an adequately detailed response, but the short end is that you separate the process into idea-creation and execution whereas I separate the process into information generation/sharing and execution/interaction. The simplest reason for this is the type of communication involved: active and passive. Your difference is a scientist creating a theory and articulating it. My difference is a scientistic writing their theory then delivering it verbally. While that sounds like two different forms of articulation, what it comes down to is structure. An idea has structure, but until it is wrote down and made static, it doesn't have a foundation. A scientist and their theory is pointless if it doesn't even consist of a hypothesis. That integral step of creating the foundation is so important that I believe it to be part of actually bringing an idea to life. Anyone can entertain an idea, but it needs formal structure to exist outside of the mind.


For now and for the sake of respect, I'm going to refer to your system as your "model" and simply state that in your model, yes, execution is 95% of everything, but what I would go on to add is that execution as per your model is a skill. It is the application process of ideas, but that's the point I'm making: that skill can be used for almost any idea. Any other content. It is a service of sorts. More importantly, it is a skill that can be used for other ideas, which is why a co-GM relationship can work.


I may be a world builder, but I have gone far enough to use my designs to give social structure. While you are all about execution, I try to design not just a world but an OOC/Character Creation system that is self-executing. It uses intimidating and attraction to bring in those I would prefer and filter the rest. I set rules and examples for what not to do, so on and so forth. Then only after that does one engage me for execution and at that point I'm working on a whole new element: the narrative. Many world builders design a world as if it's frozen in time or that its plot is etched in stone. By the time someone gets through my system, I'm already working on ways to make them and their ideas part of the narrative.


I want to write stories, not just create worlds.

 

[White Masquerade]

Aha. Then there you go. You are one of those rarer hybrids. Whether it's one person as 50-50 or two people at 100-100, a healthy balance is what you need. Keep up the way Arc :5/5:.

 

[Pariah Stark]

Instead of going off into the dozens of potential topics that I could, I'm actually going to do a full round-about and return to Intimidation. Before I go on about our models, I want to address the fact we have both really been addressing this with the mentality that I am a world-builder and you are an executive. I want to disregard that mentality because I know for a fact both of us have skills in world-building and execution, as per the definitions of your model. Instead, I prefer to focus heavily on the setting and narrative; to me, the social structure of a roleplay and those within it essentially come second. You admittedly would tear apart a setting and rewrite a whole narrative to preserve the social structure of a roleplay and to potentially 'make it work' for the roleplayers in question. This isn't a difference of skill; it's a difference of priority, so for the upcoming topic, that's how I'll approach it.

[QUOTE="White Masquerade]For High-level world-building, you need high-level execution.

[/QUOTE]
I'm going to keep it short and sweet (edit: I lied) this time despite my somewhat lengthy intro. As you've described things and as per the definitions of your model, you believe that the most astute of execution could essentially make anything work through almost any problem for any person - to its most extreme, of course. That's more-or-less theory. You called these types of problems a executives dream/job at one point, and all I'm doing is taking it to its farthest logical extent. With that in mind, you then make this quote. A high level of world building requires a high level of execution. This, I believe, isn't the correct correlation to make.


I made it paramount before that your target audience of roleplayers/writers/readers should be whom you begin sculpting your roleplay to. Intimidation and attraction techniques are, in my opinion, just parts of this. I believe the level and type of execution is more dependent on your audience than your content. I'm a systems designer, not just an executive. I don't just make things work; I build them to function. While you would sacrifice parts of a world to make a player-base happy, I'm more than willing to sacrifice a huge chunk of player base to create the exact world and even tone that I want. This creates a fundamental difference in that I have a variance of 'acceptable losses' while your goal is generally to have no losses. That variance may seem slight, but it defines the purpose and goal of execution in my particular case. My execution exists with acceptable losses, and admittedly, it's a huge chunk for me, thus when using a skill such as intimidating for the purposes of execution as per the definition of your model, I'm going to create an ideal target audience and begin sculpting every little thing about my RP to appeal to them. A high-level world might not necessarily need high-level execution; I know many incredible world-designers that used very basic and what I would define as 'enigmatic' execution techniques to make their world work while maintaining an attitude similar to mine.


This all, in my opinion, comes down to the simple fact that not everyone is intimidated by the same things. Intimidation is part of execution as per your model, and keep in mind that the initial question was:

would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?

While we might be on the same page, I'm going to have to disagree with your 'no' because the question essentially asked if we should show care and consider player intimidation. In my opinion, yes you should. Intimidation can be a healthy tool; intimidation does exist and intimidation can be controlled in a way that is more beneficial than if it was completely uncontrolled. A hammer driven by a novice can still forge a sword, but a blade from an artisan will shine through the longest of wars. You said that if someone is too intimidated to join your RP, it's not your problem. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Of course it's not my problem! ...it was my goal.

 

[White Masquerade]

. I want to disregard that mentality because I know for a fact both of us have skills in world-building and execution, as per the definitions of your model. Instead, I prefer to focus heavily on the setting and narrative; to me, the social structure of a roleplay and those within it essentially come second.

This here means there's nothing more I can say. I would rather not argue whether how I look it and how you look it, is correct or not. There's no answer. As we look at it differently, things like this happen:

While you would sacrifice parts of a world to make a player-base happy,

That's not the reason I do it. According to your model, that's what it looks like, but in actuality (my model; since I'm the one being examined. It'd be flipped if I were examining you), it's for a completely different reason. There's no further place we can go with this. I did enjoy reading your answers though. I hope we can discuss more things in the future, about other topics

 

[Pariah Stark]

The topic of this thread is intimidation. I went full circle and returned to that topic. Lol. I'm not examining you or completely dissecting what you said even though it might seem that way. I'm trying to stay on topic as such is polite etiquette in this case. Lol


But yes, I do look forward to future discussion. If everyone agrees with me all the time, things get dull. If they disagree and it's not constructive, then it's pointless. A proper discussion is refreshing.

 

[theplasticdemon]

I've wanted to make a thread on this topic for awhile, and out of the restlessness of boredom, I've finally gotten around to it. I regularly read comments from members about their lack of confidence as a writer, and from GMs who have to be extra careful not to scare aware skittish players. I remember a thread where @readingraebow said and make a tl;dr version. just maybe. i might even get someone to co-gm, really, at the moment, i'm going with the flow of my schedule.
though, from other gms i have rped with, i have decided to adopt the easter egg strategy by placing random bits of things (such as songs, certain phrases, inside jokes, etc.) to place onto your "other" portion of the CS just to clarify that players have indeed read all the information. i also have high expectations for the CS' that i make my future players fill out. all because i strongly believe good characters contribute greatly to great stories. and if you can make and play great characters, then you shouldn't be intimidated by a world someone worked very hard to create. ^-^

 

[The Gunrunner]

For the most part, nothing can be for everyone. Personally, I'd love a setting that goes into depth and makes a massive effort into fleshing out a world. In fact, the intimidation I feel from it acts as motivation for my writing; I want to be part of it and I want to see myself as worthy of being so.

would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?

It depends on what the guy wants; if his ladder of wants has "numbers" at the top, then my answer is Yes. If he wants roleplayers that write in detailed paragraphs, then a bit of No; you're not going to get those roleplayers since they, I imagine, like detail.

 

[Pariah Stark]

@The Gunrunner


You're pretty on-par with what I explained.

 

[The Gunrunner]

@The Gunrunner[/URL]
You're pretty on-par with what I explained.

I didn't read the other comments.

 

[Archie]

I've wanted to make a thread on this topic for awhile, and out of the restlessness of boredom, I've finally gotten around to it. I regularly read comments from members about their lack of confidence as a writer, and from GMs who have to be extra careful not to scare aware skittish players. I remember a thread where @Grey admitted to never labeling his roleplays as Detailed, because the title alone could give potential players second thoughts.
When you browse through this Discussion section you'll often find members applauding and championing well thought out and unique roleplays. I certainly do. But well thought out story ideas usually require a fair amount of effort (writing), and unique worlds usually need a healthy amount of description & depth for players to understand them. See where I'm going with this?


It's a double edged sword. By "improving" your roleplay you often reduce its player base. Let me be clear though, it's not a death sentence; detailed games can and do launch successfully. But I guess my question is: would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?


Sound off with your thoughts below!

Absolutely! I think this is the main issue with RPs in general, too much detail or not classifying detail within an overview. I've run very detailed RPs including on this site with a lot of scientific stuff and a full blown explanation of how the magic in the world works, etc. and gotten decent numbers of applications (though my biggest ever anywhere have always been generic and simple), but it's improtant to do an overview, then use a lot of spoiler tags, and classify things by subject. Then, to be conceptual instead of detailed so it reads like a book, not like a balance sheet. Sometimes with really detailed ones I've seen great GMs use study guides.


A lot of the time the description of a detailed RP involves a lot of unnecessary information, sometimes because creators are convinced of their own brilliance, but also (and more commonly) because when you read what you write with full information in hand, it never sounds the same as someone else reading it. A lot of detailed RPs start out like "The Kingdom of Xel'Naga was once a peaceful place, but was since taken over by the Seven Hells, with the Three Chakras of magic, Amythite, Drasekos, and Mithril, dominating the world atop the rolling Virtillian plains"


Extrapolating off of this, I think there's a major difference between intimidating and non-intimidating detail. That phrase above is a lot of unnecessary embellishment explained in no logical order. I think just by minimizing jargon GMs and players can make major improvement in their posts, plus with more organization and a storyboard.

 

[Pariah Stark]

I want to propose an idea here. This discussion is about intimidation and the question itself was "would it be prudent for elaborate world builders to consider player intimidation for their roleplays on this site?" As we know from before, my stance is essentially "yes, it would be prudent because intimidation can be a healthy tool for player recruitment as well as a detriment to roleplay entry." My proposal now is that intimidation is just one of many factors that effect roleplay entry, and should really be considered alongside them.


For example, the topic of this thread has emphasized how intimidation can 'scare off' roleplayers, but what about the uncoded, single-paragraph roleplays that are ultimately enjoyable? I know quite factually that I and some of my peers see those and are immediately put off by just plain how little there is to it - we crave more. We're not intimidated. And, it's not really fair to say that having a set standard or not being impressed by lackluster world descriptions is any different from being intimidated by immense detail - in all reality, they are two sides of the same coin. This also brings up another point:


What intimidates one roleplayer might be completely enthralling to the next. If I see gorgeous coding and long, in-depth explanations that begin to structure a world and if I see a definition guide for Jargon then even if I don't enjoy the roleplay I'm sure as Hell going to read an overview. I know again, quite factually, that I along with several people I've met have a list on this site and others of the more impressively coded roleplays or even beyond that the ones that even if aren't coded fantastically are just a great read from start to finish. I will commend anyone for this.


What I will note is that almost all of the examples I have are of non-Fantasy genres. While I don't want to explore the difference in genres, what I want to really note is that a lot of fantasy world builders begin from the ground up. If they didn't, they'd more than likely be a Fandom. And, since I know you've been on the Stopping RP's from Dying Thread, I know you've read my long rant about interaction. In roleplays like these, I don't always feel like the introduction to the world is as enticing or capturing as it should be. Every roleplay needs a hook, and when you create everything from scratch, a solid hook might become an afterthought.


But, now I really want to circle back to the idea that intimidation is just one of many factors. Intimidation is part of perspective, really. Every single person that reads your roleplay or at the very least clicks on its link is going to more than likely see the first portion of it and read the first paragraph, and that is your chance to get them interested. This is where I believe you, @Archie , are entirely correct: a lot of world builders design their world without really advertising it. The first step to really getting people involved in a detailed roleplay is getting them interested, and interest extends far beyond "oh this is the right genre I'm looking for with the right level of detail, let's go ahead and give it a try" - there is no single genre here that doesn't have an alternative. With so many alternatives available, you should be always looking for a way to make a potential roleplayer think, "oh, this is for me."


But, intimidating isn't single faceted as a factor. So what, you've got them interested. Let's see what it takes to even understand the world. Do I need to understand a local area, or the global politics? Is the magic so complicated and convoluted that I have learn half a field of science, or can I stick with my own little area? Is everything by the books, or can it be fudged a little? But, not only just that, you have to look at navigation. How easy is it to find information in your roleplay? Okay, you have spoilers and accordion tags, cool, but how easy is it for a new roleplayer to figure out which one to click on? How frustrating is it going through four slides just to find a bit of information? Or, are you that roleplayer that added thirteen slides 'cause why the Hell not? Even if a roleplayer isn't intimidated by this, they could easily be frustrated by it. Frustration, or conversely, Ease of Use, is another factor to consider that ties real close with Intimidation.


But, let's assume you get passed all that. Let's say you've broken the intimidation barrier for entry, the organization wasn't too intimidating or frustrating to use and now you're at the final real step: character creation. Need I even say it? Character creation, in my experience, is one of the most controversial aspects of entering a roleplay. Some people hate to create personalities and histories because they feel it takes from spontaneity and their creative freedoms, thus just by adding those two fields alone, you can cut off a good portion of roleplayers. Oh, how detailed does a history need to be, then? Can they have continuity errors that you force them to fix? Check! There's another issue. How much detail needs to go into magic and powers? How long is the sheet? Is it coded? Are you that GM that wants EVERYONE to use your sheet without editing it? Those are all factors that can potentially be intimidating, easily be frustrating, and all tie into getting involved in a roleplay.


I think organization and structure do less to diminish intimidation and more to reduce frustration, but that's not to say it doesn't do both. On the other hand, the more structure a roleplay has, the more any roleplayer can look at it and think it's too much work. Thought-for-thought, the more effort you put into anything, the more it shows. If effort shows in something, some people simply won't want to join it it because they will feel like it'll be too much work. It's as simple as that. It's not necessarily about intimidation as much as it is every roleplayer is searching for something that appeases them and sometimes you can't drive that nail. So, in my proposal, if intimidation is just one factor - or, in the terms the thread uses - if intimidation is just one barrier to entering a roleplay (and not necessarily even the greatest; I personally lend that to frustration), then we should look at "improvements", "additions", "organization" and overall "structure" and see how all of them affect these barriers, and just formulas can start tearing them down.

 

[Virgo]

I have been on both sides of the intimidation spectrum. I have been intimidated by roleplays and I have intimidated others by my roleplays. But with that being said...






It is impossible to completely control the intimidation factors.






As mentioned before, just labeling your roleplay as detailed can turn off some players, including myself because some people have a lack of confidence in their writing. Saldy that is not always the case. Again using the label of detailed as an example, there is a stigma around it that those seeking a detail roleplay are picking and one too many mistakes will get you kicked out so you can't be yourself. Not true but that would intimidate people, correct? Same goes for world building. If someone sees how much detail you put into the world they might be scared of joining, because it may not feel open enough for them to be themselves. These factors are hard to control, but what is the one thing most of these have in common?

They don't feel welcoming to the players.








So how do we fix this?




First off write as much as you want to and use that 'detailed' label, but go back as think:

• Do I sound strict and unforgiving?
  
  
  
  
• Is all my information easy to digest and understand?
  
  
  
  
• If I was someone looking at my roleplay, how would I precieve it?
  
  
  
  

That's all I got that can help anyone out that may be having this trouble. It's my intreprtation of Intimidation. Hope this helps!

 

[Sunbather]

I can definitely remember that I was really intimidated when I first joined this site. There was an RP called The Valkyrie Project, or something like that. I loved it, but I was sure I couldn't keep up with the detailed thingy, so I didn't join. Honestly, all it did was make me wanna get better so I could join. Do I think it can repel players? Yes, definitely. Do I think it can have positive effects as well? I sure as hell do.


Also, and this is gonna sound really dickish, I know, but personally, I usually wouldn't necessarily want the type of player who doesn't want to play detailed in my own roleplays. That sounds really stuck up, I know, but I just have a certain idea of what I enjoy and what I wanna play, and if that's not met, then what's the point really. In the end, everyone's just not gonna have that much fun. So I believe the intimidation aspect also has a useful aspect to it.

 

[Fremont Humphreys]

There's so much writing here, I feel kinda bad about not reading it all, but I feel the need to give my input here too. Sorry if I'm repeating anyone. As for "intimidation", I'm not wholly for or against using it. The main issue I find, would be that if everyone was to suddenly start only writing immense epic and detailed plots, then you're basically scaring off anyone who's just trying to start out. It's not healthy, because you'll eventually start finding all these "experienced" RPers moving on in life and then the community will die.


I'm more inclined to make things more accessible. Whenever I start off with an RP, I like to just come up with a simple idea. Might just be a basic plot, or description for a setting. Then when I've got a few people interested, I bump them up to the same level as me. I encourage them to share their ideas and soon we're fleshing out something much more elaborate.


There is a downside to this, because in a lot of cases in the past, experienced RPers have looked at my RPs while they're still in the very early stages of development and found them to be "beneath them", which really irritates me because I know that I'm just as capable as they are to weave an epic tale in most cases, and I really can't stand people who think themselves above anyone.


My point is that an RPer needs to start somewhere, and if everyone else is all like "Oh, we only want experienced RPers in our story", then there's a serious issue right there.


Having said that...


I do think there needs to be a good balance. I've taken part in RP threads with people who have been writing for as along as, or longer, then I have. It's a really awesome experience when you happen upon a group of writers who are at the same level as you and you can just dive in to writing one hell of a hugely detailed story. Sometimes, I'd be selective to the point I'd just start an RP with people I've hand picked and invited personally purely because I've enjoyed RPing with them in the past. But then, I also like to come up with some that are accessible to RPers of all levels. As long as everyone gets a chance to get involved in some RP or other, I'm game for everything.

 

[Thorn Darkblade]

Having attempted a few dice-based games for new players and letting them die, I have to admit sometimes teaching new players to be better poses an accessibility issue from a GM perspective.


The best way to say it is it's not that I don't want new players, but I want -enthusiastic- new players. Players who are willing to hunt down a copy of the rules for themselves, ask questions, and push forward faster than a dragging step-by-step process that often comes with trying to teach someone that does not have the urge to look up, even a tiny bit, some of the rules for themselves.


When it comes to that, I find myself starting full of energy but often because of my ADHD, I see it dragging to a complete stop when character creation alone has taken 3 weeks for a single individual that needs to be spoon fed every bit of information.


Sadly, this poses a conundrum. It makes dice based games often more inaccessible for new players without someone who is willing to go the distance, which makes them more and more likely to pass up such things.


I think a good balance would to be to find a game that interests you and do a bit of research on it. I'm not talking about understanding every last bylaw and sidebar in a system, or knowing the complete history down to every family tree for a fandom, but at least enough where the person running it can meet you halfway and bring you into becoming a better roleplayer, and understanding the rules more thoroughly. Don't stress yourself on it, but it is appreciated by GMs.

 

[Muffinboi]

One thing that intimidates me in RPs is when everyone is writing long posts in a casual RP while I can write only so much. It's gotten to the point where I had to ditch an RP because everyone was writing way more than me.

 

[Grey]

On reflection, I feel like this is a context issue.


It's the whole 'paralyzed by infinite possibility/crippled by overspecialization' thing; if the players cannot see gaps for their character in your world and prospective plot, they may be intimidated. If there are too many gaps, they can't settle on something interesting and relevant.


Also, I think internet freeform roleplayers miss the point of hardcore world-building - I am doing all this work so my players won't have to.