Other Minimum post lengths

[Killigrew]

Please quote where you explained why you think so. I might have missed it.

Np! A lot of what I said was more conclusion than premise. I don't think I was arguing no detail, but the statement she replied to there was a hypothetical person who didn't value interaction and development but valued detail and stylistic beauty greatly. Technically I never argued detail = no interaction or development; rather, that post quotas prioritize similarly to the hypothetical person.

The argument I made was for establishing a method of operation that encouraged interaction and development.

Yeah, some like challenges, some don't, but I don't think it has to do with being challenged, but the challenge being superfluous and, even worse, an obstacle to good collaborative storytelling.
My first GM experience was pretty great -- I made this knight academy and threw in some controversial dragons and just kind of made it up as I went. It lacked finesse, but it made up for it in excitement and heart. As the players joined, they inevitably started to ask questions about the magic, causing me to add in details to the lore -- details that we would sometimes collaborate on. Because they had asked me the question personally and clarified my replies, they only started to write about magic and interact with school teachers when they were confident of what they were dealing with.
The RP I referenced earlier was its reboot. I went all out for that one. When I detailed the setting and lore, I cut off communication; the new group of RPers saw no need to ask me questions since I had pre-empted all that they could wonder about. That was a huge inhibitor to creativity! Worse still, they didn't need to contribute anything to the RP. For all their finesse in writing, the RP itself was not a group effort; I was basically writing a story/world by myself and they were tagging along and offering side commentary.
Now to that you can poke away and say it was this problem or that problem and not the problem I'm pointing the finger at... That's the whole problem with bringing forth a personal example; although it specifies the discussion, it's subject to speculation.
I'll just leave it with this: having experienced this myself and having tried different solutions while I was experiencing those failings (by failings I mean that which missed the mark of giddy expectation), I am only certain of what the problem is because that is the only rational explanation for what I experienced. There was no issue with the RPers, no issue with the lore, but the issue lay with (perhaps I should add superfluous, since not all is un-useful) internal monologue (since they had to fill their post with something), aversion to conflict (since a long post doesn't bode well with it), and a lack of participation in worldbuilding (the world was mine, not theirs). I point the finger at post quotas and the standards of 'good rping' not because I think they're all elitists and snobs and there's no other way to please them, but because I was convinced that was the best way to enjoy RPing and not lower my standards on writing -- I could go all out and see where it took me.
There is a middle ground, a best of both worlds. Low requisites, self-imposed standards, the feels-strategem -- that's all ya need to have both interaction and detail -- that's how you get context-driven detail (ooo, pretty). High post quotas may be useful to some RPer who isn't used to writing in general, but not to those with skill in the art. They need to be challenged in different ways, in tone and style, in being compelling and in pacing. When you can meet post quotas, you don't need post quotas.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

How not? Could you explain?

Having a detailed setting doesn't take away from communication. It means you put a lot of detail into the world and that you shared that with the rest of the players. You can both do that and continue to be active in communicating with players. One doesn't stop the the other. Creating more from the start does not take away from the building blocks of others. That's like saying I spoke too much, therefore I took away the things you could say. That sort of logic doesn't make sense in my mind

I kind of explained why I think that; why do you think differently?

Because as I delve into the responses of my characters to another's, as I explore their emotions, I am developing my character. Because I can write action while being detailed. It's because I can do these things that I think differently.

 

[Bone2pick]

Np! A lot of what I said was more conclusion than premise. I don't think I was arguing no detail...

I'm confused Killi. When Quirky made the statement that detailed posts don't equal no action or character development, you replied with:

I kind of explained why I think that; why do you think differently?

I can't see how you weren't arguing against detail, since every writer/storyteller worth their salt values character development.

 

[Killigrew]

I'm confused Killi. When Quirky made the statement that detailed posts don't equal no action or character development, you replied with:


I can't see how you weren't arguing against detail, since every writer/storyteller worth their salt values character development.

What, how'd you get that?
EDIT:

Technically I never argued detail = no interaction or development; rather, that post quotas prioritize similarly to the hypothetical person.

 

[Bang Bang]

Having a detailed setting doesn't take away from communication. It means you put a lot of detail into the world and that you shared that with the rest of the players.

Just wanted to delve in here and add that I think this helps and encourages communication, action, and interaction between players. The more detailed your Lore is, the more players know where their character stands in that setting; And thus, they know better where their character stands in relation to others. If you have already set up intricate, pre-defined dynamics between say, two different races, or classes, yadayada, those players have a good baseline to go from as to how their characters may view other another - whether they confirm to that dynamic, or if theirs is the sort to debunk it.

Another note is that having increased lore gives players more action to actually engage in - they better know what points of tension/mystery are available for them to press on and expect a reaction. More so, they're able to do so in a way that feels personalised to the RP, rather than just punching someone because they're bored.

Since I've strayed alittle from the OP of post length, this applies similarly; Having longer posts forces players to write more (no shit), which means more speech, more thinking, more actions - all more bits players can respond to. Even if it's all thought, players can act upon it, either by pressing the character to reveal their internal dialogue audibly, or by seeing something in the character's countenance and responding.

Lastly, the idea that 'action' makes a good RP is severely overrated. Certainly, a RP without action could risk being dull/slow for some, but too much action can become repetitive for others. Longer posts give most chance for variety,and encourages people to explore all available avenues; to have some thought, some dialogue, some action.

Aaand that's my random ramble into this place. Happy writing folks!

 

[Bone2pick]

Your post.

Maybe there's some people out there that are really just here to write detail and have no action all the time. They don't care if their character develops or experiences anything as long as their post is pretty and they can admire its loveliness. I don't think that's very fun, and I honestly hadn't considered that option until now. If you're that, I don't think I can relate to you but I wish you all the best with post quotas and think they definitely fit what you're looking for!

Quirky's reply.

Detail doesn't mean no action or character development.

Your reply.

I kind of explained why I think that; why do you think differently?

 

[Killigrew]

Your post.


Quirky's reply.


Your reply.

okay, gotcha. At the time, I kinda figured that it'd be easier to clear up misunderstandings if I said that and had more to work with, but I see my mistake. When I said "I kind of explained why I think that," I wasn't intending to agree with her interpretation, but meant "why I think as I do." It was lazy, so I'm sorry for the confusion.

As for the first post you quoted, though, like I said, it was hypothetical and meant to describe that post quota prioritizes detail and hinders interaction.

 

[Killigrew]

What about the agency of the character connected to the environment, to their thought process and to the other character? Is the time of the day, the wheather, the way the other character is talking, how a character processes what is being said, is all of that somehting which would be irrelevant to a character's actions?

I think I'd like to bring this up again. You raised good points; there would certainly be more information about a character in answering those questions, and I think they do have a place. Even so, it has troubled me to describe details (such as emotional tumult and a line of reasoning) that the character is experiencing in a split second. Unless my character is as self-aware as Hamlet, it didn't seem like writing those things out was in character; my character didnt think in that way nor understand themselves so well. Sometimes he wouldn't understand what made him feel this way, or didn't have time to delve into the memory that made him help someone else. Like falling in love, emotions are sudden and sometimes fierce and aren't often accompanied by a ready explanation. It is often more in-character for me to describe emotions metaphorically and quickly, since action tends to be where the character's mind is set.

 

[Killigrew]

Having a detailed setting doesn't take away from communication. It means you put a lot of detail into the world and that you shared that with the rest of the players. You can both do that and continue to be active in communicating with players. One doesn't stop the the other. Creating more from the start does not take away from the building blocks of others. That's like saying I spoke too much, therefore I took away the things you could say. That sort of logic doesn't make sense in my mind

Oh... hmmmmm

Have you collaboratively built a world before?

If you were to have someone alongside you, writing with you, and you end up coming up with everything a weekend away, from the cultures to the landscape to the plot, what do they have left to do? In that case, the worldbuilding is yours and not theirs; they can repeat what you've made, but they have nothing to contribute.

In my case, I was especially, um, detailed. Considering my view on concision, I covered a lot of ground in a few words. My goal was to give them a lot to work with and to inspire them, but I ended up being the only one inspired; they were, instead, excited for what I'd write... or at least, that's what I imagine drew them to the RP. I can ask one.

TO THE WITNESS STAND OOOO:
Stickdom do you think this analysis of your motives is correct or did you come feeling inspired to grow your character and add to the world? Talkin' about Chivalry here.

Hoo boi, (Be steady, my heart) okay, Stick, don't hold back. I want the truth!

Because as I delve into the responses of my characters to another's, as I explore their emotions, I am developing my character. Because I can write action while being detailed. It's because I can do these things that I think differently.

Well, but... I think you said earlier that you just wanted "one round of deep opinions" rather than "small talk," right?

If I'm incorrect, do correct me, but isn't that revealing character that already was there rather than developing the character into one more multi-faceted?

For instance, revealing character is like when my character, Sayne, started loosing sweet nothings on her character, Jayne, as is taking pains in describing the vulnerability inside him and concern of how she may react. And then, were she to spit seething hatred his way, and Sayne to retreat back into himself, that does not change who he is, but is a natural logical result of who he is already.

On the other hand, developing character is when my stuck-up noblewoman with a persecution complex is forced to rely on a kindly soldier whose peasantry offends her. As she begins to realize how trustworthy he is, she comes to recognize how cruel she was to him. This new view of herself extends to the world, and she is softer for it.

I'm only bringing these up as something hypothetical and tangible to work with, not to be pedantic (although I have a tendency towards the latter uhhh).

I also think you're right in that you can write action and develop a character in an rp with a post quota -- certainly you can. The post quota just makes it less fun and more difficult to do and to be spontaneous about it, drawing inspiration from the scene and previous scenes, simply by nature of its slog pace.

 

[Stickdom]

*Arrives, heartily confused* Killigrew

I’ll take “Rephrase That Question” for 800, Alex!

 

[Bone2pick]

I also think you're right in that you can write action and develop a character in an rp with a post quota -- certainly you can. The post quota just makes it less fun and more difficult to do and to be spontaneous about it, drawing inspiration from the scene and previous scenes, simply by nature of its slog pace.

Here's an actual stated position. "Less fun" is obviously subjective, I've no need to take that to heart. The part about spontaneity is unclear to me though. Is your assumption spontaneous character interactions have more merit than carefully considered ones? And how exactly is inspiration from previous scenes impaired with paragraph requirements?

 

[Killigrew]

*Arrives, heartily confused* Killigrew

I’ll take “Rephrase That Question” for 800, Alex!

Haha welcome back

I'm just advocating for collaboration and little regulation here.

Quick question tho. Do you think that all the lore I wrote in Chivalry meant you didn't have to add anything to the world? More accurately, did that give the impression that the world was set and I had it handled, didn't want no muddying of the water? And did it inhibit your creativity?

 

[Stickdom]

If you’re asking what I think you’re asking, whether or not conciseness added or subtracted from the story experience, I for one have always leaned towards more detail and longer posts to accurately depict exactly what my actions and intentions are. My role playing is almost entirely reactionary, I never limit my character to blindly making a beeline for their personal goals, rather taking the chance to react to what’s going on around them and find new directions to explore if something piques their interest. In the case of Argrave, my character from Chivalry, he entered into the story with a purpose, he had ambitions and motivations that set out a pretty well defined path for him to take through the story, from A to B. But, due to my style of writing and character development, I left open the option for him to change course if something else came along that changed him on a fundamental level, such as building relationships with other characters or a story-shifting event that put a new perspective on the plot.

I think conciseness has its place when directing a story like Killigrew did for us, it was a well-written plot premise with a solid direction it was headed in. I think one of the reasons it kinda sputtered out was the collective mass of players couldn’t decide if they were going to follow the story or not, so there were many conflicting interests and the plot couldn’t hold up going in so many different tangents at once. I personally would have enjoyed more detail, which is an opinion that never changes regardless of which RP it is, because having clearly defined structure to the events around you gives you so much more to play with, though it really is a balance between having so much detail that it restricts creative license from the players and having minimal detail to encourage filling in the blanks but leaving it vague and undefined.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Oh... hmmmmm

Have you collaboratively built a world before?

If you were to have someone alongside you, writing with you, and you end up coming up with everything a weekend away, from the cultures to the landscape to the plot, what do they have left to do? In that case, the worldbuilding is yours and not theirs; they can repeat what you've made, but they have nothing to contribute.

In my case, I was especially, um, detailed. Considering my view on concision, I covered a lot of ground in a few words. My goal was to give them a lot to work with and to inspire them, but I ended up being the only one inspired; they were, instead, excited for what I'd write... or at least, that's what I imagine drew them to the RP. I can ask one.

TO THE WITNESS STAND OOOO:
Stickdom do you think this analysis of your motives is correct or did you come feeling inspired to grow your character and add to the world? Talkin' about Chivalry here.

Hoo boi, (Be steady, my heart) okay, Stick, don't hold back. I want the truth!

Nope. I want to, but I haven't yet.

Yes it's my world. I'm the gm. I built the world. I want people to add to that world. I want them to make it their's just as it is mine. I also understand how hard that is, but logically speaking, it shouldn't be impossible given the players with the right mindset. That's the mindset to see the rp to the end. More than skilled writing, more than short or long posts, what I look for in a player is loyalty in the rps I want to build.

Given my samples2 and samples3, could you respond to that? I already know I don't make it easy for people to respond. I like to challenge my players. I'm not even asking them to interact with my character. I just want them to reply with their character. To build off my post.

Well, but... I think you said earlier that you just wanted "one round of deep opinions" rather than "small talk," right?

If I'm incorrect, do correct me, but isn't that revealing character that already was there rather than developing the character into one more multi-faceted?

For instance, revealing character is like when my character, Sayne, started loosing sweet nothings on her character, Jayne, as is taking pains in describing the vulnerability inside him and concern of how she may react. And then, were she to spit seething hatred his way, and Sayne to retreat back into himself, that does not change who he is, but is a natural logical result of who he is already.

On the other hand, developing character is when my stuck-up noblewoman with a persecution complex is forced to rely on a kindly soldier whose peasantry offends her. As she begins to realize how trustworthy he is, she comes to recognize how cruel she was to him. This new view of herself extends to the world, and she is softer for it.

I'm only bringing these up as something hypothetical and tangible to work with, not to be pedantic (although I have a tendency towards the latter uhhh).

I also think you're right in that you can write action and develop a character in an rp with a post quota -- certainly you can. The post quota just makes it less fun and more difficult to do and to be spontaneous about it, drawing inspiration from the scene and previous scenes, simply by nature of its slog pace.

I do. That's just what I like.

Character development and detail are two separate matters. The difference between you and I is that I don't mind slog paced. As long as it's clear you're still willing to write then I'm still willing to write. Still, I can understand that some people might have a difficult time doing that. Attention spans are short. If anything, a post requirement serves to deter the ones who can't keep going a certain length from joining an rp. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I hope I've made it clear that, in my opinion, detailed doesn't equate to flowery. Nor does it equate to skill. It's just people who like lengthy replies. Who don't mind reading what some people might consider boring.

Your argument is that post minimums makes it harder to interact. That it prioritizes detail and hinders interaction and communication. Feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I agree with the first part to a limited degree. I don't agree with the second part...because of my logic and how I see things. I can understand your reasoning (I know my posts are hard to respond to sometimes), but I don't agree with it because to me it's not logically sound. Your example of your failed rp for example...you concluded it failed because it had too much detail and the other players didn't feel the need to involve themselves. I'll argue the players you had simply didn't want to involve themselves. Or they didn't know how. And none of the players communicated their thoughts effectively to each other.

Whisker
Argues that a post minimum encourages bad writing habits. I countered by saying it can encourage good writing habits as well. Also that the two aren't necessarily correlated. I used my examples to prove that.

 

[Killigrew]

Here's an actual stated position. "Less fun" is obviously subjective, I've no need to take that to heart. The part about spontaneity is unclear to me though. Is your assumption spontaneous character interactions have more merit than carefully considered ones? And how exactly is inspiration from previous scenes impaired with paragraph requirements?

To your first question, yes. More merit in the sense that it makes the experience of the RP generally more exciting. By spontaneous I mean ideas springing up while you're reading their response, and perhaps filtered out with care, but definite direction. From this is derived genuine friendship or enmity between characters.

To your second question, post quota RPs have a slow pace, so even while you move on to the next scene, you tend to forget the previous, and even when you reread and remember, the same momentum and excitement has faded and the post reply is lackluster as a result. Worse still, the same thing is happening on the other players' end. All the detail gets in the way of the larger picture, the relationship.

 

[Idea]

It's a pleasure talking and replying to one so quick to understand, listen, and consider what I'm saying!

Are you talking about me, Agatha Christie or your RP partners?

I think that's all either established prior to the conversation and/or implied in the conversation, which I much prefer. Agatha Christie is one of my favorite authors, and she is very good at keeping a story organized; that is a beauty of its own. Each detail in its place, each piece of information in its time.

I think I'd like to bring this up again. You raised good points; there would certainly be more information about a character in answering those questions, and I think they do have a place. Even so, it has troubled me to describe details (such as emotional tumult and a line of reasoning) that the character is experiencing in a split second. Unless my character is as self-aware as Hamlet, it didn't seem like writing those things out was in character; my character didnt think in that way nor understand themselves so well. Sometimes he wouldn't understand what made him feel this way, or didn't have time to delve into the memory that made him help someone else. Like falling in love, emotions are sudden and sometimes fierce and aren't often accompanied by a ready explanation. It is often more in-character for me to describe emotions metaphorically and quickly, since action tends to be where the character's mind is set.

I'd like to disagree here because, even if we ignore that you can't describe the thought process beforehand because the thought process is something which happens as a response to something else (or at least the one which I was referring to is), the characters are not suddenly in a void after they start interacting. Time is still passing, the wheather still occurs. And you could argue that the wheather only occurs, in roleplay, if you make it occur. Nomatter how long you wait, the strong breeze won't write itself, you have to will it in. So, in that sense I could see someone arguing the point that maybe it's not that important. Yet, and perhaps this is just because I'm passionate about worldbuilding, I see huge loss in engagement, realism and opportunity there. Moreso than I would see in a character not interrupting the other one at certain times and similar events.

I would also, again, say that it happens with everyone, whatever happens you are processing what happens. I think that it makes more sense to change the way things are described rather than whether they are described when it comes whether it is a conscious thought process or not. For example, sometimes this will mean I will change into a pseudo-dialogue when the character is making conscious thought rather than the natural process of having a perspective, in other cases I may make one process more metaphorical and the other less. Other times it's irrelevant so I don't bother making a distinction. There is also implication here, I don't just go and break the "show don't tell" rule as a standard, which means I'm not telling what the thought process is, but rather depicting it happen.

Still all of that said, I think this aspect is a matter of preference in how we characterize characters, which I think may come from how we appreciate them as well, but that is speculation on my part. Yet if I may put it in a somewhat poetic fashion, I want to create life. You want to experience life. In your characterization you are more concerned with the vibe it gives you, it's more important that times feels like it's flowing faster than what would happen in that time because the experience is damaged by the act of experiencing it too slow. You want things to vivid, engaging and foward and you want to see the character come to life before your eyes rather than simply making them alive because you want to go on an adventure with them or even be them in their adventure. If the ground is shaking, you'll dash ahead so you don't have to worry about what's behind.

Me though, I will build iron support rods to keep the ground from shaking, dig tunnels to install whatever if I have to, because I want the ground beneath me to be solid and not loose it's richness. And I want to dig depeer into that ground and find what's there and connect to the world and characters beneath their surface. I prefer the ever-present atmosphere of knowing what and who the character is and being more able to feel the weight of what happens... I want to create a world to surround me, characters to sink into and trust my imagination to picture the scene rather than being compelled by the writing format. I want a content that is more tangible to me, and more meaningful that one that draws it's meaning from the excitement of moving away from itself.


If any of that makes sense....

I can see planned RP as being a good way to keep the writing organized and pretty without losing character agency in interaction, but yeah, like you said, it comes at the cost of that nail-biting suspense!! Since that's half the fun for me, I've only planned stuff out at a minimum.

EDIT: Actually it's more like I tend to plan out goals rather than interaction by interaction. Something like 'let's make these two have a sibling relationship' after the reaction starts, or 'My teacher is gonna be murdered and we're gonna search for the culprit but my character is gonna blame yours,' that kinda thing. I gave interaction by interaction more thought and I guess it wouldn't be so bad; the suspense would be more in the planning than the RPing is all.

I don't usually plan out full interactions either, just the overall direction and perhaps the main events of a scene. And of course, I like to have the world and characters basiclaly fully constructed before the roleplay begins, at the very least the basic rules of the world established and the characters given all the meaningful information that exists about themselves.

In that sense, it doesn't really come at the complete expense of suspense. For one thing we don't need to plan every scene beforehand, it's perfectly possible to plan just a few at a time, then flesh them out, then plan the next ones with that taken into account. Second, in the process of fleshing out the scenes you'd be surprised at how many interesting surprises can come from small details or how things are phrased XD. And third, even if you loose on some of the surprise, there is the satisfaction of a plan coming to fruition and seeing a puzzle being put together because sometimes even if the result is inevitable, seeing the inevitable happen can be just as exciting by the awe of what is produced.

 

[Killigrew]

If you’re asking what I think you’re asking, whether or not conciseness added or subtracted from the story experience, I for one have always leaned towards more detail and longer posts to accurately depict exactly what my actions and intentions are. My role playing is almost entirely reactionary, I never limit my character to blindly making a beeline for their personal goals, rather taking the chance to react to what’s going on around them and find new directions to explore if something piques their interest. In the case of Argrave, my character from Chivalry, he entered into the story with a purpose, he had ambitions and motivations that set out a pretty well defined path for him to take through the story, from A to B. But, due to my style of writing and character development, I left open the option for him to change course if something else came along that changed him on a fundamental level, such as building relationships with other characters or a story-shifting event that put a new perspective on the plot.

I think conciseness has its place when directing a story like Killigrew did for us, it was a well-written plot premise with a solid direction it was headed in. I think one of the reasons it kinda sputtered out was the collective mass of players couldn’t decide if they were going to follow the story or not, so there were many conflicting interests and the plot couldn’t hold up going in so many different tangents at once. I personally would have enjoyed more detail, which is an opinion that never changes regardless of which RP it is, because having clearly defined structure to the events around you gives you so much more to play with, though it really is a balance between having so much detail that it restricts creative license from the players and having minimal detail to encourage filling in the blanks but leaving it vague and undefined.

Ahh, thank you, friend. You get to the heart of the matter well

 

[Stickdom]

Haha welcome back

I'm just advocating for collaboration and little regulation here.

Quick question tho. Do you think that all the lore I wrote in Chivalry meant you didn't have to add anything to the world? More accurately, did that give the impression that the world was set and I had it handled, didn't want no muddying of the water? And did it inhibit your creativity?

I am always a fan of lore in any form, the bigger and more detailed and intertwined the better. However, there comes a point where it’s so vast and expansive that it’s too oppressive for the players to feasibly take it all in. The obvious solution is to have just enough history to support your plot line, that the players have context for the events at hand and they can have the freedom to add their characters into it. I think a more creative solution, though a bit more messy, is to have the players collaborate with the GM about their specific characters before the story begins, pitching concepts and ideas back and forth, in doing so opens up the possibility that the character and their personal history may inspire the GM to expand the lore and history to include any significant details to accommodate specific aspects that would be an addition to the plot line, and the GM can work with the player to set expectations of what niche their character fits into at the start so there are no conflicts in backstory and the character has a well-defined base.

 

[Idea]

I am always a fan of lore in any form, the bigger and more detailed and intertwined the better. However, there comes a point where it’s so vast and expansive that it’s too oppressive for the players to feasibly take it all in. The obvious solution is to have just enough history to support your plot line, that the players have context for the events at hand and they can have the freedom to add their characters into it. I think a more creative solution, though a bit more messy, is to have the players collaborate with the GM about their specific characters before the story begins, pitching concepts and ideas back and forth, in doing so opens up the possibility that the character and their personal history may inspire the GM to expand the lore and history to include any significant details to accommodate specific aspects that would be an addition to the plot line, and the GM can work with the player to set expectations of what niche their character fits into at the start so there are no conflicts in backstory and the character has a well-defined base.

Let me ask then, what if the lore exists but the player doesnt need to know it all to add to it? For example, what if I have several kingdoms, but the players only need to know, say, the lore of the city they are in and the general lore of the world?

 

[Idea]

To your second question, post quota RPs have a slow pace, so even while you move on to the next scene, you tend to forget the previous, and even when you reread and remember, the same momentum and excitement has faded and the post reply is lackluster as a result. Worse still, the same thing is happening on the other players' end. All the detail gets in the way of the larger picture, the relationship.

I'd say that's half-true. In reality sure you're gonna be less excited about something the second or third time you into it, even if it's say, an amazing movie you just watched, but at the same time the way the movie is made and where it focus is important. If a detailed or long post is written like a casual post, focusing on the action and dialogue, AKA what happens rather than how, then sure it's gonna get considerably boring to go back to it. But if the focus of it's writing is on the atmosphere it creates, or on in how and why things happen rather than hooking you just by what happens then at leats by my experience those posts can really be fun to read and re-read.

 

[Idea]

On the other hand, developing character is when my stuck-up noblewoman with a persecution complex is forced to rely on a kindly soldier whose peasantry offends her. As she begins to realize how trustworthy he is, she comes to recognize how cruel she was to him. This new view of herself extends to the world, and she is softer for it.

I'm only bringing these up as something hypothetical and tangible to work with, not to be pedantic (although I have a tendency towards the latter uhhh).

I also think you're right in that you can write action and develop a character in an rp with a post quota -- certainly you can. The post quota just makes it less fun and more difficult to do and to be spontaneous about it, drawing inspiration from the scene and previous scenes, simply by nature of its slog pace.

I'd actually say detailed and having a quote is MORE apt for those things than the opposite, as you actually get room to show the character transition rather than have them just up and change suddenly.

 

[Killigrew]

Are you talking about me, Agatha Christie or your RP partners?

Absolutely definitely you.

I'd like to disagree here because, even if we ignore that you can't describe the thought process beforehand because the thought process is something which happens as a response to something else (or at least the one which I was referring to is), the characters are not suddenly in a void after they start interacting. Time is still passing, the wheather still occurs. And you could argue that the wheather only occurs, in roleplay, if you make it occur. Nomatter how long you wait, the strong breeze won't write itself, you have to will it in. So, in that sense I could see someone arguing the point that maybe it's not that important. Yet, and perhaps this is just because I'm passionate about worldbuilding, I see huge loss in engagement, realism and opportunity there. Moreso than I would see in a character not interrupting the other one at certain times and similar events.

I would also, again, say that it happens with everyone, whatever happens you are processing what happens. I think that it makes more sense to change the way things are described rather than whether they are described when it comes whether it is a conscious thought process or not. For example, sometimes this will mean I will change into a pseudo-dialogue when the character is making conscious thought rather than the natural process of having a perspective, in other cases I may make one process more metaphorical and the other less. Other times it's irrelevant so I don't bother making a distinction. There is also implication here, I don't just go and break the "show don't tell" rule as a standard, which means I'm not telling what the thought process is, but rather depicting it happen.

Still all of that said, I think this aspect is a matter of preference in how we characterize characters, which I think may come from how we appreciate them as well, but that is speculation on my part. Yet if I may put it in a somewhat poetic fashion, I want to create life. You want to experience life. In your characterization you are more concerned with the vibe it gives you, it's more important that times feels like it's flowing faster than what would happen in that time because the experience is damaged by the act of experiencing it too slow. You want things to vivid, engaging and foward and you want to see the character come to life before your eyes rather than simply making them alive because you want to go on an adventure with them or even be them in their adventure. If the ground is shaking, you'll dash ahead so you don't have to worry about what's behind.

Me though, I will build iron support rods to keep the ground from shaking, dig tunnels to install whatever if I have to, because I want the ground beneath me to be solid and not loose it's richness. And I want to dig depeer into that ground and find what's there and connect to the world and characters beneath their surface. I prefer the ever-present atmosphere of knowing what and who the character is and being more able to feel the weight of what happens... I want to create a world to surround me, characters to sink into and trust my imagination to picture the scene rather than being compelled by the writing format. I want a content that is more tangible to me, and more meaningful that one that draws it's meaning from the excitement of moving away from itself.


If any of that makes sense....

That... makes total sense. You've made it all clear to me. Thank you I think I'd love to read your RPs now that I better understand where your mind is and your priorities lie.

I don't usually plan out full interactions either, just the overall direction and perhaps the main events of a scene. And of course, I like to have the world and characters basiclaly fully constructed before the roleplay begins, at the very least the basic rules of the world established and the characters given all the meaningful information that exists about themselves.

In that sense, it doesn't really come at the complete expense of suspense. For one thing we don't need to plan every scene beforehand, it's perfectly possible to plan just a few at a time, then flesh them out, then plan the next ones with that taken into account. Second, in the process of fleshing out the scenes you'd be surprised at how many interesting surprises can come from small details or how things are phrased XD. And third, even if you loose on some of the surprise, there is the satisfaction of a plan coming to fruition and seeing a puzzle being put together because sometimes even if the result is inevitable, seeing the inevitable happen can be just as exciting by the awe of what is produced.

That's cool! I believe that you can be both spontaneous and planned, that that's possible, but since I'm the kind to stick to the rules of a thing like glue, it would be quite the challenge. I'd definitely need a coRPer I could trust not to be mad at me (or worse, lose interest) for straying from the path, haha.

 

[Killigrew]

I am always a fan of lore in any form, the bigger and more detailed and intertwined the better. However, there comes a point where it’s so vast and expansive that it’s too oppressive for the players to feasibly take it all in. The obvious solution is to have just enough history to support your plot line, that the players have context for the events at hand and they can have the freedom to add their characters into it. I think a more creative solution, though a bit more messy, is to have the players collaborate with the GM about their specific characters before the story begins, pitching concepts and ideas back and forth, in doing so opens up the possibility that the character and their personal history may inspire the GM to expand the lore and history to include any significant details to accommodate specific aspects that would be an addition to the plot line, and the GM can work with the player to set expectations of what niche their character fits into at the start so there are no conflicts in backstory and the character has a well-defined base.

*claps*
Beautiful :,)

 

[Stickdom]

Let me ask then, what if the lore exists but the player doesnt need to know it all to add to it? For example, what if I have several kingdoms, but the players only need to know, say, the lore of the city they are in and the general lore of the world?

I have quite a few open-world RPs that I’ve worked on, by myself and with other members of the community here, and the solution that has usually worked best for me/us is to leave the focus centered on the characters and their location, or leading their destination if the story involves some continual active motion from one point to another. Like you said, the only thing the players need is the overall layout of the world they are in to provide context, and the local lore of the place they are currently. BUT, that doesn’t mean you should neglect the rest of your world, it’s a living and breathing system that will run itself if you give it a backbone to form around. In your example, having multiple kingdoms means you have agreed as the GM to manage multiple kingdoms. Even if they aren’t important to the story, if they’re just a name and a general place you’ll never go to, you should still flesh it out to the point that a player can work with it. Maybe they want to create a character who hails from one of those kingdoms, maybe they had a reason to journey to one of them before they got involved in the overarching story, you never know the reason for a player’s motives, but if you leave the world as an open, blank slate with just a general history penciled in, you lose out on a whole sphere of creativity for your players to tap into. Or worse, leaving it so open and completely undefined gives players total freedom to make up what they want, and quite a few will railroad your story or make up convenient locations and lore of their own that could overthrow the direction you as the creator have put into place that you’d have to fix. An ounce of prevention for a pound of cure.

And even if the players don’t need the details of other major places, the kingdoms and cities and people all still interact with each other, they don’t stand still when you’re not looking. They will still connect and influence and alter each other without player interference, and the aftermath of such interactions may be of inportance to the general lore as a whole. For example, two kingdoms the players have never even heard of go to war, suddenly they’re dealing with refugees and travelers and soldiers who come marching through their plotline. Is it of plot-related importance? Possibly not, it might just be a stand-alone event they never have to deal with, but it still directs the currents of the world around them. You don’t even have to make it a public announcement to the players, you can just drop little hints, so what if the players never pass through the war zone, they could still stay the night at a village that’s afraid they’ll be next, they could still pass by conscripted soldiers making their way to the front, they could still “accidentally” affect the players, and vice versa, the players could accidentally sway the world around them without even knowing, which could lead to changes in the world that they do know. If you pass up the chance for these collisions of “background places”, then you totally pass up the chance to add depth and relatability to your story, and you trade in a living, shifting, progressing world for a book-cover “here’s what’s happened so far” synopsis.

 

[Idea]

Absolutely definitely you.

That... makes total sense. You've made it all clear to me. Thank you I think I'd love to read your RPs now that I better understand where your mind is and your priorities lie.

Wow! Well, feel free anytime XD. In fact we could even RP, I do have a freshly updated (though not fully, between exams and my teeth feeling like exploding) 1x1 search thread in my signature

#shamelessadvertising (boy I didn't pull that one out in a while)

Spoiler: Confession

I'm a little worried you're just saying that to get out of the argument...discussion? With this weirdo here

That's cool! I believe that you can be both spontaneous and planned, that that's possible, but since I'm the kind to stick to the rules of a thing like glue, it would be quite the challenge. I'd definitely need a coRPer I could trust not to be mad at me (or worse, lose interest) for straying from the path, haha.

Well, like with everything else, take your time, do it when you feel you're ready and have time to commit to something unnusual. Sure it'll be work. I think I've made it clear thus far that everything I'm defending is to be made with the awareness that it comes with a price for what rewards it may offer. But I also think you can do it. That's why even when I can tell someone isn't really made for detailed RPs I usually still let them into. If they want to challenge themselves or try something usually out of their comfort zone, I think that is a commendable effort and hope it can let them grow, in whatever direction they wish to. And of course, the same would apply to you or me