Other Minimum post lengths

[Killigrew]

And while you personally might not like a lot of excessive detail that's a personal preference. It doesn't necessarily follow that that is going to be as much of a killer for other people.

I don't like to speak for other people, but I really must stress that I don't think any one of Hunter's arguments have stated in any way, shape, or form, that he was against detail. If anything, he's stressed that he appreciates detail.
From what I understand, and I'm pretty confident of this, his argument is simply that detail is relative to context. Is it necessary to go into detail? If not, you're wasting someone's time. If so, it'll harm the experience if you don't.
This is both reasonable and wise.

 

[Uncultured]

I don't like to speak for other people, but I really must stress that I don't think any one of Hunter's arguments have stated in any way, shape, or form, that he was against detail. If anything, he's stressed that he appreciates detail.
From what I understand, and I'm pretty confident of this, his argument is simply that detail is relative to context. Is it necessary to go into detail? If not, you're wasting someone's time. If so, it'll harm the experience if you don't.
This is both reasonable and wise.

Someone gets it, thanks for reading.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

I've never seen one go for more than a couple weeks and I've been in over 40 of them.

I'm in one that's been pretty much 3+ paragraphs per post since it started 4 months ago. It's still ongoing, I think. I can't say whether or not it will die in the near future, but I'm still hopeful. At the very least, I'm determined to see it through to the end.

Anyway. I don't think your thought process is wrong and you've clearly been through quite a few experiences (much more than I given your numbers) before coming to your conclusions. However, there are some rpers that would prefer to sink with their ships than give up their standards. And I don't think that's a bad thing either. People who put up their minimum requirements know they'll be turning away quite a few potential rpers when they do so. The fact that they continue to do so anyway means that their desire to keep their rp detailed is far greater than their desire to see the rp finish in an unsatisfactory manner.

That's pretty much a preference. Whether that preference is detrimental to the rp as a whole is a different matter.

There are many potential factors that can lead to an rp's death and I don't really see post length as a crucial one. In fact, many of the more dedicated rpers I've met happen to be detailed writers. They put a lot of care into their posts and, despite being slower in pace, are generally consistent/committed. I believe what Idea was trying to say is correlation does not equal causation. A detailed rp, with heavy posting requirements, doesn't necessarily die because of the heavy posting requirements. It could've died because because people fail to meet these requirements. Or other factors.

While it's difficult to work with too little information, I find it more frustrating to work with too much information. Unnecessarily having your character read into every detail and outlining their every opinion indepth makes the whole post into one extended slow motion capture of a single moment. Just reading that is a hindrance. And then for all the work of slogging through the post, the character does nothing more than offer an average greeting.
At least oneliners tend to have purpose. For all their extrapolation, longwinded posts are futile exercises in empty pontification that serve only to slow everyone down, and maybe make the writer feel like they're contributing.
A long post with content, however, is indeed my favored friend.

Depends on the person I guess. I don't mind reading long, detailed posts as long as it's relevant to the topic at hand. Reading them tells me more about the character my character is interacting with. Sometimes it even gives me ideas on how to continue. And sometimes it can be entertaining. For example, I wouldn't mind reading a 4+ paragraph list of reasons ( one reason per paragraph) why another character hates my character before having their character walk by my character with a single-word greeting, "Die."^^

 

[Killigrew]

However, there are some rpers that would prefer to sink with their ships than give up their standards.

Sorry, you triggered a memory in me. I used to think that post length meant an RP with high standards, and that a lot of lore meant the GM cared about his RP. I was so wrong, and it was totally frustrating to try and reach perfection under those terms.

When I first came to RPN, people were telling me to raise my standards.
"Just tell him that his posts aren't up to the standards of the RP!" I was told to say when someone with bad grammar or awkward characterization posted a Character Sheet. It struck me as a very pompous reaction, but I didn't know what the right thing to do was.
So, since I left a few months and came back, I thought I'd try being stricter. I made an RP and detailed all the standards, the lore, prepared a plot. I put work and effort into it, hoping to reap as I had sown.
The RP started and it was soon clear that it wasn't going in the direction I wanted. Don't get me wrong. Every post was really enjoyable to read. I liked the characters, I liked the way they were written, and I was really looking forward to seeing them develop.
The problem was that no one was going to develop. We were stuck in a single moment by moment storytelling and it seemed there was no way to escape a single night.
If I'd stuck it through, I'm sure they would have stuck it through with me. They liked my story and, maybe more importantly, I considered each of them a friend.
The problem wasn't them, and I don't think it was the RP. The problem was that everyone thought they had to post multiple paragraphs (just to be worthy to be there), had no right to interact with the world (because of how much lore I'd written), and waited for me to progress the story (because my posts were so long, they discouraged interaction.).
Do you see the intimidation that made chains clamp over their writing? They were creative and entertaining writers, but they were trapped trying to meet a standard that kept them from being effective.
This isn't a real standard. That's absolutely true (I agree with my point). Post length is not a standard; it's a quota. Writers laugh at quotas. They're a joke; anyone with a thesaurus can meet them. Disciplined writing is knowing what to say and how to say it. Any director worth his salt doesn't require his actors to repeat lines a set number of times; he wants them to say them right, the way that best fits the character. The actors need freedom to accomplish this, since they're all individuals.
Do you see what I mean? Having no quota but requiring creative and interesting writing is not lowering your standards; it's raising them. Now people have to write wisely and well, and they can't pretend at being a good writer by filling a webpage up with words.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I don't like to speak for other people, but I really must stress that I don't think any one of Hunter's arguments have stated in any way, shape, or form, that he was against detail. If anything, he's stressed that he appreciates detail.
From what I understand, and I'm pretty confident of this, his argument is simply that detail is relative to context. Is it necessary to go into detail? If not, you're wasting someone's time. If so, it'll harm the experience if you don't.
This is both reasonable and wise.

And a lot of people have said - that is his personal preference / opinion. I mean several people have already said they do not feel the same way and they have their own experience to the contrary. Like what is necessary amounts of detail is going to be subjective to an individual. Further I don't really think that has anything to do with roleplay longevity which was the main point of my post.

 

[Tabby]

I mean I've been on sites with required post lengths that have been alive for 10+ years. If you want high quality members, does it really matter if you weed out those who can't be bothered to do a certain amount? The few that do stick around and learn to meet them have usually been glad they did in my experience, and those that didn't were never missed. I don't LIKE quotas. I personally feel that good writers don't need them because they've already found a pace that works well for them, much like poetry and prose are both respected despite one of them being significantly shorter than the other. But if your ideal is to keep writing to a certain quality or experience level and weed out the chaff? More power to you.

That said, I feel like people get too stressed about how long those minimums should be. I've seen crazy shit like 1000+ word minimums that I would never do - not because I CAN'T (I used to do that much or more before I got better at writing and settled on ~400-500 as a more normal length for my posts) but because the only groups that do that are typically elitist assholes afflicted by the cancer of purple prose and so hopped up on their own delusional supremacy that they wouldn't know good writing if it kicked them in the dick. Length and quality are NOT equivalent exchange - double length doesn't mean double quality, and length for its own sake is the exact inverse of quality. Saying what you need to and portraying the scene adequately in detail and design without drowning the reading in bullshit.

In general though, it depends a LOT of the setting and whatever you're going for as to what an 'appropriate' minimum is. I would expect a lot more introspection from say, an introspective 2deep4u kind of RP than some shonen-style 'I punch the other guy.' Also depends on the character. A cerebral, introspective character may need consistent 300-400 word posts as a minimum. A musclehead marine played by a good player might take two paragraphs to say as much as he could ever need to in a single post. But there's so many opportunities for relevant detail, from thought to setting to even just describing actions and reactions the character themselves doesn't realize. One-size-fits-all arguments opining about universal word count minimums are an exercise in futility at the best of times.

I personally like a minimum of somewhere around 200 words/2 paragraphs on sites I've RP'd on historically, pretty interchangeable, pretty much a bare minimum to ensure people are making a token attempt to detail their character's thoughts or surroundings. I won't argue that it's impossible to make good posts shorter than that, the soul of wit is brevity and all that, but the vast majority I've seen of people who struggle to or refuse to hit that minimum don't have the quality to back it up anyways.

Post speed is another can of worms entirely - again speaking from experience I personally have found the generic 200-300 word / 2-3 para rule to be a good place for speedy back and forth posts (defining 'speedy' as 10-15 min turnaround) and I have certainly had some great RPs in that speed range, but I have found that more in depth, delicate stuff, especially when I'm trying to be careful with word choice and push deliberate character development or evoke a scene strongly, will typically take me more in the realm of 300-500, with occasional forays into 1-3k that I don't like to do often but occasionally just fit the scene.

In the end though, if you want to write 100 words or 1000, it doesn't matter. Just find a RP that works with that and people who are similar. I have absolutely no doubt that there are phenomenal writers rocking 1500 word posts back and forth, it's just not for me. I've yet to see any of real quality posting many one liners, though, and it seems like a pretty disingenuous argument to make considering extreme shortness of that level is almost always used to cover for lack of experience, inspiration, or time rather than any level of quality in itself.

------

Skimming through the former posts, I'm highly amused by whoever it was that thought conversations couldn't be long though. I've had many topics of page after page of long ass posts (500-1000w), just a couple characters talking or arguing back and forth about simple or technical things. Existential crises or fantasy politics. Sometimes at breakneck speed so it almost feels like a genuine conversation, back and forth, going on and on. Sometimes slow, a post or two a day. It's perfectly doable. Just a matter of the players and the writing styles and qualities. Problems in a RP can come from MANY directions that aren't length, and I'd go so far as to say that in a well structured RP with clear expectations length is rarely or perhaps never actually an issue at all. More concerns like chemistry and dedication.

 

[Mad Prince of Sanity]

Hmm quite a topic we have here. Let us see what another of our resident 'old-timers' aside from Killigrew and Tabby have to say..... Ermm meaning myself <.< Not sure why I said it like that.

Anyways!

In direct answer to the original post D Duskstalker as far as this showing up recently for you, I have known these to be a thing for my entire role-playing career in many different flavors and forms. From loose phrasing such as "Just make sure you don't one-liner anyone" to "You MUST post at least this much every time". Now, to personally address your acknowledgement of this happening a lot more recently I do have to say that on the site lately (and by lately I mean sometime early last year when I got back on here and looked for new RP partners rather than just hit up my old tried-and-true friends from here) I have noticed, at least from my perspective, a rather awkward shift in the 'feel' of the site. One of those being a lot more role-players that simply lack good grammar and have to strain themselves to achieve a paragraph. The hassle so much so that said people stopped because they did not want to even put forth that effort.

Truth be told, my only insight into this is the assertion that these are younger role-players who are likely far more used to text-length (as in texting on a phone) and texting level speed of responses. Something they can do simply, without much effort and at their leisure without having to devote serious time to it. As a side thought, I would also posit that this and the increased number of people requesting RPs on KiK and other places may be a related line of thought. Not saying that they ARE or that the people who do have their RPs moved there are not skilled, it merely makes sense to me.

Now, onto what exactly "minimum post lengths" mean to myself, if you care to read it, and what they have been used for in my experience.

First and foremost, just getting this out of the way in that there is no 100% correct answer in why an author may implement one in their RP or what it may mean to them. Such answers vary as much as the individual authors themselves.

Personally, minimum post lengths have never really been an issue for me and are something that among all the sites I have written on even the most egregious ones (5+ paragraph minimum as an example) at the very least provided enough lore, information and back-drop to compensate for building your first few posts in reference to the world/setting itself. As such, as far as seeing a particularly big minimum length and going "aww man I can't do that" I have to say I've never been in that particular pair of shoes. (As one can tell from reading this fucking novel of mine right now, I'm not even done and can already tell that just this blurb of thought on what these minimums mean would satisfy any realistic minimum a role-play host could devise).

I feel like, next, to cover what they have been used for in my experience I also need to point out the four main camps I see pop up when concerning this topic. The first is, quite simply, the "I can't be bothered" camp. Seemingly taking the mindset of RP being a hobby, and a hobby shouldn't have minimums or "excessive guidelines" like them outside of what is actually feasible in the RP itself. In my own view, they are an exacerbation of the next 'camp'. The next camp is only slightly more rigid than the previous but bears an important distinction I think. This "Laissez Faire" camp is mainly concerned with keeping the roleplay alive, progressing and fun for all involved and tries to make sure no-one interested gets turned away, but also wants to foster something of a sense of devotion in the people involved. By far the easiest type of people to deal with when cooperating on a RP, they do however struggle with the fact that you can please some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time but not all the people all the time. As such, while very open to everyone the 'soft hand' approach may dissatisfy those whose personal writing styles are clashing too fiercely with their partner(s).

Now, to flip over the 'center' of this spectrum to the only slightly rigid twin of the Laissez Faire camp we have the 'Pack' camp. This is where most of the role-plays I have ever participated in have been, whether how the people running the RP thought of it or the people in the RP acted while in it, this 'camp' essentially establishes an agreement between the person running it and those involved that they will all keep to a certain pace/length. But no one is ever kicked for having an off day and understanding is generally given if the requirements aren't met on occasion. However, unlike the previous camp, it is seen as an, albeit slight, negative and generally those who struggle with a post or two are encouraged to pump up their writing or inspiration somehow.

Lastly, we get to what the people in this thread have called the "Elitist" camp. While I DO have experience with people who ran their role-plays this way, people with such iron-handed grips on the throats of their own creations and standards that more often than not they usually kill what they try to preserve. Often, these kinds of groups are in some sort of 'contained' role-play environment. Whether it be one site entirely devoted to one setting or timeline, or a private section of a larger overall site with a particularly heavy-handed roleplay creator. The minimum post lengths these people impose are often too steep for most and if the select few people able to meet the high barrier of entry don't find the idea interesting then they often die very quickly. However, I will say this, as I stated earlier on (I think) the people who have such high standards for the posts in their roleplay have often put a monumental amount of work behind it and it is particularly painful to see yourself get inspired about an idea, an amazing idea you LOVE, let's say it's beginning was the length of this post I have written so far just establishing the first setting, and replies you get are.....

X character looks around"wow nice place lol" i go and sit down somewher.

olivia looked around at the place and was surprised "man this place is huge" she saw someone sitting by themselves "oh hi im olivia nice to meet you."

X character looked up"hey olivia"

(As a small example of how trying to match a writing style/length you are not accustomed to, I actually had to go back and edit the above two fake posts to have such bad grammar after writing them because I am so used to how I structure my writing. This doesn't mean I don't understand there aren't people who don't naturally write like that however.)

.... and so on. It's a particularly, though unintentionally, hurtful thing to have your idea inspire others so little. Role-playing is a very personal outlet after all and if you want to craft something worth remember, or even a world unto itself, then posts like the above truly do not help the case. As such, minimums become almost necessary for such a determined role-play author.

Now, this is not to say I like high minimum post lengths, in truth I am somewhere between Laissez Faire and "Pack" mentality but with something like this, that has been a hurdle for some, a non-factor for others, or even an outright barrier stopping someone from participating I think it's something that just has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As in all things people of differing mindsets will gravitate towards those of similar mindsets and if no-one present seems to fit your style right now give it some time. For example, I am sure there are people who took one look at this post of mine and went "Lol fuck that you blabbermouth" and will just scroll past it, such is their preference. So to end things off, I think that is the key, and optimal word, it just comes down to preference.

P.S. I'm also stopping because good grief this got too long in the first place. I hope everyone who bothered to read the whole thing enjoyed it in some capacity. ^^

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Sorry, you triggered a memory in me. I used to think that post length meant an RP with high standards, and that a lot of lore meant the GM cared about his RP. I was so wrong, and it was totally frustrating to try and reach perfection under those terms.

When I first came to RPN, people were telling me to raise my standards.
"Just tell him that his posts aren't up to the standards of the RP!" I was told to say when someone with bad grammar or awkward characterization posted a Character Sheet. It struck me as a very pompous reaction, but I didn't know what the right thing to do was.
So, since I left a few months and came back, I thought I'd try being stricter. I made an RP and detailed all the standards, the lore, prepared a plot. I put work and effort into it, hoping to reap as I had sown.
The RP started and it was soon clear that it wasn't going in the direction I wanted. Don't get me wrong. Every post was really enjoyable to read. I liked the characters, I liked the way they were written, and I was really looking forward to seeing them develop.
The problem was that no one was going to develop. We were stuck in a single moment by moment storytelling and it seemed there was no way to escape a single night.
If I'd stuck it through, I'm sure they would have stuck it through with me. They liked my story and, maybe more importantly, I considered each of them a friend.
The problem wasn't them, and I don't think it was the RP. The problem was that everyone thought they had to post multiple paragraphs (just to be worthy to be there), had no right to interact with the world (because of how much lore I'd written), and waited for me to progress the story (because my posts were so long, they discouraged interaction.).
Do you see the intimidation that made chains clamp over their writing? They were creative and entertaining writers, but they were trapped trying to meet a standard that kept them from being effective.
This isn't a real standard. That's absolutely true (I agree with my point). Post length is not a standard; it's a quota. Writers laugh at quotas. They're a joke; anyone with a thesaurus can meet them. Disciplined writing is knowing what to say and how to say it. Any director worth his salt doesn't require his actors to repeat lines a set number of times; he wants them to say them right, the way that best fits the character. The actors need freedom to accomplish this, since they're all individuals.
Do you see what I mean? Having no quota but requiring creative and interesting writing is not lowering your standards; it's raising them. Now people have to write wisely and well, and they can't pretend at being a good writer by filling a webpage up with words.

I don't think I'd ever argue quantity over quality.

That said,

Having no quota but requiring creative and interesting writing is not lowering your standards; it's raising them. Now people have to write wisely and well, and they can't pretend at being a good writer by filling a webpage up with words.

This is an even harsher requirement than setting a quota.

 

[Idea]

I dont really see how my arguments have holes considering that, unlike your theory, my argument has basis in proof. Dont really see why you have to throw shots when sustaining a detailed RP is done maybe 1/100 times because of the reasons I am stating.

I wasn't throwing shots at you, though upon re-reading my previous post I can see where you're coming from. So before I continue this response, do let me apologize for having offended you or if I somehow insulted you or anyone else with similar views, that was my not intention and my own poor word choice in my previous comment is to blame.

That said, to say that your argument has basis in proof while mine doesn't couldn't be further from thruth. Because the thing you're trying to prove is NOT proven by the facts you're using to prove it, and in fact it's likelihood is reduced by the sheer existence of an alternative. You claim that longer posts are by their own nature too straining for ANY roleplay or roleplayer and thus will always nomatter the circumstances result in the death of the roleplay they are a part of. The "proof" you present for this is having been in a wide variety of detailed RPs all of which died shortly, whereas less detailed RPs lived longer or had more success.

What you have there is a classic coetris paribus fallacy, that is, you're assuming (falsely) that everything is constant other than the variable you're calling the cause, when in fact there are other relevant variables at play. Yes, my suggestion is based on more than pure empirical data, but your own also is, and in fact that empirical data can only support either of our positions circumstancially, that is, after they have been assumed as it by itself does not otherwise suggest either.

Your theory has no basis in fact, never seen it done once in practise.

While you probably didn't see the solution to the problem in pratice, I at least can say I have seen the pratical evidence of what I suggest is the problem, in the form of three factors:

1. The fact that there are people joining roleplays because of their craving and ignoring the present rules of the roleplay is something which I've experienced both by being able to draw more people into the roleplay with a title change as well as many players simply not reading rules and the rarity with which questions like "is there a post minimum?" occur in search threads. What this implies is that players are more concerned with the topic of the roleplay than they are it's compability with what they can sustain.

2. The common excuse "I lost my muse" and it's equivalents. You will not get this excuse from someone used to planning out and creating larger and detailed posts, concerned more with the quality of the story than the immediate feeling. Yet it is by far the most common excusse I have seen for players not posting on or leaving a detailed roleplay. And yes, this stems from the large posts and slow pacing, but...

3. There are roleplayers for whom that isn't a factor. Players who like the size and detail and not it's opposite, people who come not just willing but expecting to put in the larger amount of work.

What's above are empirical facts. What I propose merely connects those facts and others and provides an explanation that justifies it all, regardless of pratical usefulness.

We common folk call this the scientific method.

By admitting that most RPers are too lazy for detail heavy RPs and that detailed RPs fail to provide the instant gratification that many people crave, you already concede that sustaining a detailed RP is very difficult. Your counter to this is to just "weed people out in the recruiting phase"

Woah, don't put words in my mouth. Sure, some people are in fact lazy, but I didn't say anyone was necessarily lazy. What I said is that they aren't used to or apt to a particular roleplay style or even that in some cases it may just not fit them. Yet those same people still go to roleplays they aren't suited for in search of the topic that roleplay offers and as a result, they can't keep up and everyone is worse for it.


In addition, "weed people out in the recruiting phase" is not my counter. It's simply the only solution we actually have available to prevent the issue described above. As I previoulsy said, it's a warning sign when we need a fence, but we want to be fair, so we don't put a fence.

At the end of the day, the OBVIOUS truth is that people will participate in an RP if they find it enjoyable and will drop if it's not, and for the vast majority, writing like Tolstoy and reading essays just to move the plot forward by one day is not enjoyable at all, not because they are idiots but because that shit is boring unless you have a serious investment in the plot which most will not have

"shit is boring unless you have serious investment" is exactly my point. You need to be invested to begin with, meaning you need a certain mindset for the detailed kind of roleplay.
The problem is that "people dropping if it's not enjoyable" should not happen because of something they knew beforehand was gonna be a factor. It's as simple as "if you don't like roleplaying with 4+ paragraphs minimum" don't join a roleplay that has that as part of its's rules. Yet many people still do. What's worse, you said it yourself, peope who don't like those things constitute the vast majority of RPN's community.

So, even if you are the person who enjoys long posts and details, it's not that simple to keep any roleplay going when half the roleplayers up and vanish.

not nearly as easy as it seems

No one said it was supposed to be easy

My rebuttal, this website has 20k members. Under 10k active, half stick to 1x1 or small scale RPs with only a few people, so the pool of RPers that you can get off interest checks is what? A few thousand? Now cut out all the people that dont have it in them to post detail heavy stuff for long periods of time and we have several hundred, now divide that by a few because a lot of people stick to one or two types of RP. So when making a RP in modern setting for example, which is underpopulated by comp to the rest of the site, you might have 50-75 RPers SITEWIDE that will actually post detailed stuff for the long haul. So its not nearly as easy as it seems. Furthermore, it's damn near impossible to predict who will stay and who will drop and once a couple people drop it becomes very hard to compensate and generally leads to a reboot.

I do have to ask, how exactly would this rebute any of my points?

ts not impossible to have a sustainable detailed RP, but it has a high degree of difficulty and blind luck needs to be on your side. Under 5% of detailed RPs ever make it ten pages, let alone 100+ where the percentage is less than 1%. Just look around the website. You make it sound so easy but the track record says otherwise.

I never once said it was easy. When someone claims somehting is true that doesn't necessarily mean it's convenient. In fact I recall saying exactly the opposite, that fixing this issue is nealry impossible because changing someone's mindset is nearly impossible.

Which does bring up the question of why I'm still arguing...

Also, long and detailed posts are objectively worse for interactions because they look stupid.

You say something is objective then immediately follow with a subjective justification.

Ive seen full monologues written in response to one line of dialogue because a writer is space filling and thisnis very common. Quick lines of dialogue are far more believable and natural than someone going on for 1000 words in response to "hey whats up" creating strict limits is the same anti common-sense bullshit that Common Core and Home Owners Associations are built on.

True, which is why BOTH players should agree upon a style beforehand. Like, say, by setting a posting minimum that would prevent one roleplayer from literally keeping their post to "hey what's up"?
Not to mention, you say it's more believable, but have you seen the real world? Every little thing is filled with detail, first impressions are vivid trains of thought, everything in real life would justify a huge train of words in writing. So it's not more believable, at most it's more fluent to keep to the immediate response.

 

[Bone2pick]

Heya Bone2pick my good friend (=u =

Howdy Killi. I've read all your posts here and, no surprise, they're all really insightful. Not all of your sentiments line up with my own point of view, but I respect them all the same. And everything you put forward, even the parts where we differ, were well reasoned.

You're pretty much right by and large, though. While in some rare cases everyone is willing to just deal with it and keep posting, by and large long posts kill pace and motivation. A post ought to incite a response, and you'd have to have a pretty awesome idea for 12 paragraphs to incite a response rather than a yawn...

Here's one spot where we may have different expectations/wants. You feel a post ought to incite a response, and depending on what you mean by that, I don't. At least I wouldn't word it that way.

I don't participate in 1X1s, but even if I did I suspect your ought would never be my expectation. What I expect, what I hope for as a detailed ambitious group RPer, is a quality post. A story & character developing post. And that post may very well have little to do with my character or any of the other characters in the group.

I love storytelling. Roleplayers who write entire scenes. Groups with multiple separate character arcs. Conflicts that will likely never threaten my character, but which are devastating an interesting character in the same world. For me it's rarely a tennis match. Every post, or even the majority of them, don't have to read like a ball hit my way that I need to return. When the times call for fixed interactions I prefer longer collaborative posts.

I don't just enjoy writing I enjoy reading. And so long as my fellow participants are cranking out content that showcases their amazing characters while exploring the setting, I'll be satisfied. And furthermore, if I'm honest, that doesn't happen for me with two paragraph or less RPs. So I choose to swim in deeper waters.

 

[Killigrew]

This is an even harsher requirement than setting a quota.

Yep. I think it's better to focus on the creativity and compelling nature of a post than its length, though. I'm always evaluating something that I do or don't enjoy by its content, not length, after all. I really can't see a good case to be made to hold length as more important than content, so why not make that the requirement instead?
I think the reason is that it's too much work and too much scare for a GM to enforce good content, so the default choice is to enforce length instead.

You feel a post ought to incite a response, and depending on what you mean by that, I don't. At least I wouldn't word it that way.

The more I read of your explanation, the more I agreed with you. I would definitely reword my statement now, as it doesn't represent what I meant to communicate.
I'm a very particular reader, and when I write (alone, not in RP), I'm constantly revising until I feel like it's acceptable. The labor is stressful, but well worth it, because when at last the pearl of art emerges, I can show it to anyone and they'll understand it.
I love writing and reading... good books. Now, this may be where we differ. I can't stand bad writing in a book or a movie, but in an RP, I'll live, because I can still react and push the story in a better and more interesting direction (I guess thats what I meant by 'posts should incite a respnse'). Now this may harm my whole 'quality over quantity' argument if it's misunderstood, so I'll do my best to express this...
Since I can be perfectly satisfied writing a book and feel the same collaborative spirit when I come to someone for their thoughts on it, I RP because I don't know what the players will do. How will they react to my post? What will this incite in their character? Will they go down the plot as I expect (boring!) or will their characters suprise me again?? And then what will my character do, what's he feel in that situation? The suspense! The anticipation! The fellow writers!
That's what's fun. If I wanted to read a good story and well-written prose (things definitely worth copying), I'd stick to my old friend Rosemary Sutcliff; she puts you all to shame! And I still haven't even finished her Rome series!!!
All I want from an RP is a decent story and a lot of player freedom so we can enjoy the world together. Players that aren't afraid to add to the world, whose plotlines are far from cliche, whose characters are consistent, that's the kind of RPer I just fawn over for gladness.
I hope that makes sense! Bottom line is, in my eyes, we may be here for different reasons entirely, and that's a good reminder; while in some cases difference in technique is due to ignorance, in others we have different purposes driving us.
You've thought it through and explained it well. I salute you. o7

 

[Idea]

I think the reason is that it's too much work and too much scare for a GM to enforce good content, so the default choice is to enforce length instead.

Let me ask you this: How DO you set a minimum of content quality players can actually abide by as a rule?
Mind you, just saying "make good content" isn't enough- that rule is so generic it's implicit, yet many still don't produce quality content.

So question is, what rule CAN we, who GM, make to enforce good content?
Doesn't that begin by coming up with and imposing a concrete measure for what good content is? What if someone disagrees with your notion of "good content"?
If you let them pass as they like, then your rule is just "so long as you label this good content, you can post it". AKA, it's no rule at all
If you don't, then either they do have a legitimate reason to say you're making up rules midway through (as you never made the content of the rule explicit) or you're gonna have to come up with a concrete guide on how make quality posts and then have people read and agree to it before joining.
And this is before we even necessarily get to measuring the quality of each individual post....


Do you see the issue here? It's not that it's a scare or too much work, it's simply that it's impratical if at all possible to make a rule for a quality requirement. Don't get me wrong, minimum post lengths are a horrible way to go about it, but in mine and many other's eyes, they are better than the alternatives, which are doing nothing or doing the impossible. For many of us, we use size minimums because that's the only available solution.

Now it would be a little hypcoritical of me, to say there are no one other solutions, one which I in fact use (the content minimum), however, not only do they also carry with them separate issues like the praticality of imposing them, but any measure one can come up with will in fact suffer from criticisms of effectiveness exactly like the ones minimum post lengths do.

 

[Killigrew]

Let me ask you this: How DO you set a minimum of content quality players can actually abide by as a rule?
Mind you, just saying "make good content" isn't enough- that rule is so generic it's implicit, yet many still don't produce quality content.

So question is, what rule CAN we, who GM, make to enforce good content?
Doesn't that begin by coming up with and imposing a concrete measure for what good content is? What if someone disagrees with your notion of "good content"?
If you let them pass as they like, then your rule is just "so long as you label this good content, you can post it". AKA, it's no rule at all
If you don't, then either they do have a legitimate reason to say you're making up rules midway through (as you never made the content of the rule explicit) or you're gonna have to come up with a concrete guide on how make quality posts and then have people read and agree to it before joining.
And this is before we even necessarily get to measuring the quality of each individual post....


Do you see the issue here? It's not that it's a scare or too much work, it's simply that it's impratical if at all possible to make a rule for a quality requirement. Don't get me wrong, minimum post lengths are a horrible way to go about it, but in mine and many other's eyes, they are better than the alternatives, which are doing nothing or doing the impossible. For many of us, we use size minimums because that's the only available solution.

Now it would be a little hypcoritical of me, to say there are no one other solutions, one which I in fact use (the content minimum), however, not only do they also carry with them separate issues like the praticality of imposing them, but any measure one can come up with will in fact suffer from criticisms of effectiveness exactly like the ones minimum post lengths do.

Who was it that said, "Saying something doesn't make it so?"
I've gotta say, just because you say it's impractical doesn't make it impractical. Nor do quality requirements have to be what you've thought of. We really have different perspectives, you and I, and very different ways of arguing.
I'd say a large factor in the 'scare' reason is the cognitive dissonance of believing "good is subjective" and yet desiring good writing and development from the rpers. That's one good reason to shy away from setting standard on good. How can you tell them to write good stuff if you think everyone can define good for themselves?
Those ideas of a gatekeeper and all... it's just not how you manage quality, bro. Simple criticism, suggestions, and careful consideration of character sheets is how you do it.... and there's more besides, but for the most part it's just being a thoughtful, experienced, and involved GM who tries to promote the creativity of his cast.

EDIT: just reread the post and edited out my forgetfulness lol

 

[Idea]

I'd say a large factor in the 'scare' reason is the cognitive dissonance of believing "good is subjective" and yet desiring good writing and development from the rpers. That's one good reason to shy away from setting standard on good. How can you tell them to wrie good stuff if you think everyone can define good for themselves?

Ah, perhaps my post created a misconception, my apologies. I do not believe quality is subjective, I believe it is objective. The problem lies in having to define the boundaries of what constitutes quality beforehand so that it can actually be used as a rule.

If what I mean by that isn't clear imagine for a moment that a new law is being voted for saying people couldn't fnaha. Now, nobody knows what "fnaha" is, but some people heard it might be this it might be that.
Now, you are one of the people who has to vote in favor of or against this law. You can vote for it or against it. Keep in mind you have absolutely no idea, or if you do have any idea it's only your own guesswork, about what "fnaha" means. For all you know, the law will have you arrested the next time you take a step. Or it could be a law that would prove to bring utopian results. But that is unlikely and you have no solid info beyond the promises of quality of those propmoting a law, which have not even disclosed what it is.
Now in that situation do you...
A) Vote for the law
B) Vote against the law
C) Say you need to know what the actual law says before you can vote on it.

If you're like most people, you probably picked C. Now consider this law is the rule about quality and voting on the law as joining a roleplay with that rule. The issue here is the player has no idea what they are agreeing to when the rule just says something like you need to give quality content. Or, they will assume that what THEY think is quality is what the standard is and get upset, annoyed or something similar when you end up telling them the post isn't good enough.

However, from your latest comment I belive (and my apologies if my assumptions are wrong), that you mean that imposing a standard for quality in posts isn't what the method for requesting quality lets says would be, but rather:

That's not how you manage quality, bro. Simple criticism, suggestions, and careful consideration of character sheets is how you do it.... and there's more besides, but for the most part it's just being a thoughtful, experienced, and involved GM.

However, this too has it's shares of problems.
1. It still requires some standard for what quality is that the players have to agree to beforehand
2. This way of doing things works after the fact, the time in which the person already worked the post out and is least willing to modify it, by my experience
3. This way of doing things multiples the extra burden on the GM for each present players, effectively imposing much harsher caps in player number and potentially in the GM's ability to manage the rest of the roleplay, plus the GM pretty much has to stay active 24/7 to look over posts so they won't have to be edited after someone already responded forcing them to edit theirs and so on...
4. Runs the likely risk of the GM imposing not just specific wording, but specific actions, feelings or thoughts into the characters instead of giving the players freedom to work into what suits their character within a predifined standard

 

[Killigrew]

Ah, perhaps my post created a misconception, my apologies. I do not believe quality is subjective, I believe it is objective. The problem lies in having to define the boundaries of what constitutes quality beforehand so that it can actually be used as a rule.

If what I mean by that isn't clear imagine for a moment that a new law is being voted for saying people couldn't fnaha. Now, nobody knows what "fnaha" is, but some people heard it might be this it might be that.
Now, you are one of the people who has to vote in favor of or against this law. You can vote for it or against it. Keep in mind you have absolutely no idea, or if you do have any idea it's only your own guesswork, about what "fnaha" means. For all you know, the law will have you arrested the next time you take a step. Or it could be a law that would prove to bring utopian results. But that is unlikely and you have no solid info beyond the promises of quality of those propmoting a law, which have not even disclosed what it is.
Now in that situation do you...
A) Vote for the law
B) Vote against the law
C) Say you need to know what the actual law says before you can vote on it.

If you're like most people, you probably picked C. Now consider this law is the rule about quality and voting on the law as joining a roleplay with that rule. The issue here is the player has no idea what they are agreeing to when the rule just says something like you need to give quality content. Or, they will assume that what THEY think is quality is what the standard is and get upset, annoyed or something similar when you end up telling them the post isn't good enough.

However, from your latest comment I belive (and my apologies if my assumptions are wrong), that you mean that imposing a standard for quality in posts isn't what the method for requesting quality lets says would be, but rather:


However, this too has it's shares of problems.
1. It still requires some standard for what quality is that the players have to agree to beforehand
2. This way of doing things works after the fact, the time in which the person already worked the post out and is least willing to modify it, by my experience
3. This way of doing things multiples the extra burden on the GM for each present players, effectively imposing much harsher caps in player number and potentially in the GM's ability to manage the rest of the roleplay, plus the GM pretty much has to stay active 24/7 to look over posts so they won't have to be edited after someone already responded forcing them to edit theirs and so on...
4. Runs the likely risk of the GM imposing not just specific wording, but specific actions, feelings or thoughts into the characters instead of giving the players freedom to work into what suits their character within a predifined standard

A couple points, since I'm pressed for time:
1. (Setup stage) The GM can define what he wants from the rpers (what quality means in the context of his rp; this must be specific and clear), but he must express what he wants in the recruitment process.
2. (Enforcement stage) The GM says no to players or characters that don't work according to his requirements.
3. He takes a reaction-based approach, only asking players to modify posts and ideas (or in a very extreme case, to leave the rp) when they make a mistake. (Like lore issues or awkward characterization.) Of course, he should humbly ask questions and be willing to accept their explanation, especially if the awkwardness was purposeful.

That's the method I'm trying for my RP. It's working well so far, but I'm sure there are other and better ways to get quality posts and quality players than that.

EDIT: also thank you for your politeness. It worked wonders on my frustration. I really appreciate it.

 

[Idea]

A couple points, since I'm pressed for time:
1. (Setup stage) The GM can define what he wants from the rpers (what quality means in the context of his rp; this must be specific and clear), but he must express what he wants in the recruitment process.
2. (Enforcement stage) The GM says no to players or characters that don't work according to his requirements.
3. He takes a reaction-based approach, only asking players to modify posts and ideas (or in a very extreme case, to leave the rp) when they make a mistake. (Like lore issues or awkward characterization.) Of course, he should humbly ask questions and be willing to accept their explanation, especially if the awkwardness was purposeful.

That's the method I'm trying for my RP. It's working well so far, but I'm sure there are other and better ways to get quality posts and quality players than that.

Hum... very well, would you mind if I took a look at those standards? So I can make an informed replied or perhaps change my mind regarding your suggestions. Of course, I can wait until you have time

 

[Killigrew]

Idea
Sure thing!

What I’m Looking ForI’m not looking for heroes, if that’s what you’re wondering. Nor am I seeking out people who will post long, detailed writing fit for a novel. And I’m especially not looking for mysterious loners or creepy evil dudes.

I’m looking for RPers that do (or want to do) as follows:

• write paragraph-size, easy-to-read posts
• exercise creativity (that means come up with ideas that make the plot more interesting and involve their character. Ask me questions! I love questions.)
• don’t take a lot of maintenance aka enjoy writing posts (if I leave for a few days, I'll come back to pretty posts )
• are here for the adventure, not just for looooove

Are you what I’m looking for? Say no more! Like this post or drop a comment below and I’ll have a Character page up before you need post again!

 

[Idea]

Idea
Sure thing!

Thank you. Well, you seem to have four topics there, and while I am a little confused as to how "adventure not love" could be a standard for quality, we've already established that it's the GM's sensibilities that matter more in this case. I will also ignore the "paragraph sized" there. However, there are still things here which fall into the problem I previously described:

"easy to read", "creativity", "interesting" and "pretty posts" are all concepts which are some vague and others actually subjective. Having to define a standard for quality wouldn't stop at having to define some major traits like those because the issue remains that you don't have a concrete measure beyond what your impression of it is, meaning that you fall into the same traps as you would if you left quality undefined.

 

[Uncultured]

I wasn't throwing shots at you, though upon re-reading my previous post I can see where you're coming from. So before I continue this response, do let me apologize for having offended you or if I somehow insulted you or anyone else with similar views, that was my not intention and my own poor word choice in my previous comment is to blame.

That said, to say that your argument has basis in proof while mine doesn't couldn't be further from thruth. Because the thing you're trying to prove is NOT proven by the facts you're using to prove it, and in fact it's likelihood is reduced by the sheer existence of an alternative. You claim that longer posts are by their own nature too straining for ANY roleplay or roleplayer and thus will always nomatter the circumstances result in the death of the roleplay they are a part of. The "proof" you present for this is having been in a wide variety of detailed RPs all of which died shortly, whereas less detailed RPs lived longer or had more success.

What you have there is a classic coetris paribus fallacy, that is, you're assuming (falsely) that everything is constant other than the variable you're calling the cause, when in fact there are other relevant variables at play. Yes, my suggestion is based on more than pure empirical data, but your own also is, and in fact that empirical data can only support either of our positions circumstancially, that is, after they have been assumed as it by itself does not otherwise suggest either.


While you probably didn't see the solution to the problem in pratice, I at least can say I have seen the pratical evidence of what I suggest is the problem, in the form of three factors:

1. The fact that there are people joining roleplays because of their craving and ignoring the present rules of the roleplay is something which I've experienced both by being able to draw more people into the roleplay with a title change as well as many players simply not reading rules and the rarity with which questions like "is there a post minimum?" occur in search threads. What this implies is that players are more concerned with the topic of the roleplay than they are it's compability with what they can sustain.

2. The common excuse "I lost my muse" and it's equivalents. You will not get this excuse from someone used to planning out and creating larger and detailed posts, concerned more with the quality of the story than the immediate feeling. Yet it is by far the most common excusse I have seen for players not posting on or leaving a detailed roleplay. And yes, this stems from the large posts and slow pacing, but...

3. There are roleplayers for whom that isn't a factor. Players who like the size and detail and not it's opposite, people who come not just willing but expecting to put in the larger amount of work.

What's above are empirical facts. What I propose merely connects those facts and others and provides an explanation that justifies it all, regardless of pratical usefulness.

We common folk call this the scientific method.


Woah, don't put words in my mouth. Sure, some people are in fact lazy, but I didn't say anyone was necessarily lazy. What I said is that they aren't used to or apt to a particular roleplay style or even that in some cases it may just not fit them. Yet those same people still go to roleplays they aren't suited for in search of the topic that roleplay offers and as a result, they can't keep up and everyone is worse for it.


In addition, "weed people out in the recruiting phase" is not my counter. It's simply the only solution we actually have available to prevent the issue described above. As I previoulsy said, it's a warning sign when we need a fence, but we want to be fair, so we don't put a fence.


"shit is boring unless you have serious investment" is exactly my point. You need to be invested to begin with, meaning you need a certain mindset for the detailed kind of roleplay.
The problem is that "people dropping if it's not enjoyable" should not happen because of something they knew beforehand was gonna be a factor. It's as simple as "if you don't like roleplaying with 4+ paragraphs minimum" don't join a roleplay that has that as part of its's rules. Yet many people still do. What's worse, you said it yourself, peope who don't like those things constitute the vast majority of RPN's community.

So, even if you are the person who enjoys long posts and details, it's not that simple to keep any roleplay going when half the roleplayers up and vanish.


No one said it was supposed to be easy


I do have to ask, how exactly would this rebute any of my points?


I never once said it was easy. When someone claims somehting is true that doesn't necessarily mean it's convenient. In fact I recall saying exactly the opposite, that fixing this issue is nealry impossible because changing someone's mindset is nearly impossible.

Which does bring up the question of why I'm still arguing...


You say something is objective then immediately follow with a subjective justification.


True, which is why BOTH players should agree upon a style beforehand. Like, say, by setting a posting minimum that would prevent one roleplayer from literally keeping their post to "hey what's up"?
Not to mention, you say it's more believable, but have you seen the real world? Every little thing is filled with detail, first impressions are vivid trains of thought, everything in real life would justify a huge train of words in writing. So it's not more believable, at most it's more fluent to keep to the immediate response.

Idea

You're an idealist, which is where we divide. In theory you're correct and I agree with you. Yes you can get a group of people who are super dedicated, who are willing to stick with a detailed RP for a very long time, and you can get past the pacing issues if you have a really dedicated GM who does time skips and regulates the pacing well. You can get people who will get really invested in the story and will stick around for months. This is all possible but difficult, which we agree on.

The wrinkle is this, at what point is the difficulty prohibitive? When is hard too hard? This difficulty is also an issue because when a RP fails, all the time spent creating the RP and all the time spent being in the RP is wasted. You say that it's not a waste and that even if a RP dies fast it doesn't matter, but that's completely subjective. For you that might be true, but me and many other people measure the success of a RP by how far it goes. Of course enjoyment comes from world building, character creation and introductory posts, but doing the same cycle of world build, character create, intros over and over again is not entertaining or fulfilling as a writer. What's fulfilling to me is starting and finishing parts of a story and looking back on the story that I created with other people.

As far as post length, there is a narrative permeated by academia where length is equal to quality, where writing long is writing good, but in storytelling this proves false. Writing in storytelling is done to convey a story, the who, what, where, how and why. You don't write in prose, just to write. No matter how beautiful the writing is, if it accomplishes nothing then it is useless. Writing just to write for the sake of beautiful writing is what poetry is, not prose. So when I see "detailed" posts where a lot of what is written is filler meant to match a quota, it is really annoying. Sometimes the BEST way to respond to a post is with a concise and cutting line, while in another case the best thing to write could be a 10 paragraph opus. Setting a quota is asking to have filler put in posts. As the great American poet and member of the Wu Tang Clan, GZA the Genius said.

"Yo too many songs, weak rhymes that's mad long. Make it brief son, half short and twice strong".

So this is what I suggest, don't set a quota, just get writers that you trust to write appropriately. If that means a biting one liner, fine, if that means a massive post, fine. You keep saying to find exceptional people for a RP, well if they are exceptional as you say they should be, do they really need a quota to match every post?

Also, very long posts in dialogue or action scenes are absolutely stupid. You can only do one or two actions in a fight before essentially god modding other people, and you can only say so many lines before your character is just talking to themselves, dialogue in quota RPs is often cringeworthy, I'd like to write an example but it would likely damage my brain, suffice it to say that it generally devolves into a character talking to themselves.

PS that ninja edited copy pasted Latin debate term doe

 

[Idea]

You say that it's not a waste and that even if a RP dies fast it doesn't matter

I never said this. What I said is that one can make one's own posts SO that they they can have value on their own and thus one being able to move on without regret of having made them even if they don't go anywhere. Which, yes, is subjective, but it doesn't need to be anythig else, the important is that the person in those posts feels like their posts matter enoguh and have enough in them that they don't need a complete story to compensate for their lack of worth.

As far as post length, there is a narrative permeated by academia where length is equal to quality, where writing long is writing good, but in storytelling this proves false. Writing in storytelling is done to convey a story, the who, what, where, how and why. You don't write in prose, just to write. No matter how beautiful the writing is, if it accomplishes nothing then it is useless. Writing just to write for the sake of beautiful writing is what poetry is, not prose. So when I see "detailed" posts where a lot of what is written is filler meant to match a quota, it is really annoying. Sometimes the BEST way to respond to a post is with a concise and cutting line, while in another case the best thing to write could be a 10 paragraph opus. Setting a quota is asking to have filler put in posts. As the great American poet and member of the Wu Tang Clan, GZA the Genius said.

"Yo too many songs, weak rhymes that's mad long. Make it brief son, half short and twice strong".

So this is what I suggest, don't set a quota, just get writers that you trust to write appropriately. If that means a biting one liner, fine, if that means a massive post, fine. You keep saying to find exceptional people for a RP, well if they are exceptional as you say they should be, do they really need a quota to match every post?

Posting length is not a good measure, I give you that, but they are also the only viable measure. For all your talk about me being an idealist, your standard is pretty idealistic. You just hope that people will provide better content on their own and you're telling me that detailed roleplayers should hope to find other detailed roleplayers by hoping as well.

That train of thought doesn't mind apply anywhere else though. If I made a search thread and I wanted, say, space pirates, I couldn't just post an empty search thread and hope peple liking space pirates would flock to me. But if I do post about space pirates then I am saying "what I want here are people into space pirates, if you don' like that, don't come here". The same thing applies for post length, except in one aspect, that you can't just post "I am looking for detailed roleplayers for a group", you need to actually provide things like a plot and /or setting. And when you do, now you have detailed roleplayers into that plot or setting, but you also have non-detailed roleplayers into that plot or setting.

And the cherry on top of the cake is that it only takes a couple bad apples to ruin the whole basket (not that non-detailed roleplay is worse than detailed roleplay, but within the context of a detailed roleplay, it's natural which kind of roleplayer fits better). But I've already expained this so I'll refrain from repeating myself much more. It's pretty late here.

Also, very long posts in dialogue or action scenes are absolutely stupid. You can only do one or two actions in a fight before essentially god modding other people, and you can only say so many lines before your character is just talking to themselves, dialogue in quota RPs is often cringeworthy, I'd like to write an example but it would likely damage my brain, suffice it to say that it generally devolves into a character talking to themselves.

IF that's your impression of a long post in dialogue or action scenes, then you've hardly if ever seen examples of competent writing of long posts. That or you're once again ignorign a very basic aspect of writing, which is individual actions and dialogue are not everything that matters. Again, characterization, foreshadowing, blocking, worldbuilding, immersiveness etc.... Maybe to YOU these things don't matter but there are various people, in this very thread in fact, to whom they do. A LOT.

PS that ninja edited copy pasted Latin debate term doe

Yeah, sure, it's not like, I'm passionate about philosophy or a economy student, and that little button up there to set text to italic doesn't exist in anyy capacity, oh no, certainly anyone capable of pointing out a falacy must have copy pasted it

 

[Uncultured]

Idea

If you do five different actions (for example) in a fight scene without allowing other people to interject (this happens in long posts) you're god modding other characters by preventing them from doing anything. Yes they can write that they did things simultaneously, but now posts are no longer happening in chronological order which can make action scenes confusing. Also there are times where it straight up prevents other people from doing things. If you hit an enemy five times and take them out, for example, you prevent everyone else from getting their own hits in.That's why short posts work, because it allows people to do things at roughly the same time and it gives everyone a chance to shine.

Long dialogue posts are insane. Not only are they unrealistic as fuck (because, you know, conversations are two way things) but they also pigeonhole other people into writing insane dialogue. If you say eight sentences in dialogue, every time, now I need to reply in kind like I'm addressing a bullet point list of things. I shouldn't have to compromise my own writing skills by writing stupidly long monologues in response to other stupidly long monologues. They also effectively god mod because dialogue takes a measurable amount of time unlike observations which can be instantaneous in the mind. By having your character speak for five minutes, you have effectively robbed my ability to do anything for that period of time, I also can no longer reply realistically to anything, I have to go through what was said like addressing talking points instead of having my character respond naturally. People do not speak in monologues unless telling a story or venting emotionally, they don't just ramble on and on in the face of silence from another person. This isn't 19th century France, people do not speak like that.

I'm done with this though, mainly because you're not someone that can be argued with effectively. You clearly hate conceding anything, even when you agree with what I'm saying you reply with stuff like "Well usually you're right but here is how you're very wrong" look, guy, if I'm right about 95% of occurrences, don't bring up the 5% that I'm wrong about. "Exception to the rule" is a thing big fella.

"Most teachers are not drug dealers" said HunterJJ

"But that my cousin knew a guy who's teacher sold weed" replied Idea

Doesn't change the fact that in most cases I'm right. I'm sure there is a latin term for this somewhere, but my lobes aren't woke enough for that.

 

[Idea]

If you do five different actions (for example) in a fight scene without allowing other people to interject (this happens in long posts) you're god modding other characters by preventing them from doing anything. Yes they can write that they did things simultaneously, but now posts are no longer happening in chronological order which can make action scenes confusing. Also there are times where it straight up prevents other people from doing things. If you hit an enemy five times and take them out, for example, you prevent everyone else from getting their own hits in.That's why short posts work, because it allows people to do things at roughly the same time and it gives everyone a chance to shine.

Long dialogue posts are insane. Not only are they unrealistic as fuck (because, you know, conversations are two way things) but they also pigeonhole other people into writing insane dialogue. If you say eight sentences in dialogue, every time, now I need to reply in kind like I'm addressing a bullet point list of things. I shouldn't have to compromise my own writing skills by writing stupidly long monologues in response to other stupidly long monologues. They also effectively god mod because dialogue takes a measurable amount of time unlike observations which can be instantaneous in the mind. By having your character speak for five minutes, you have effectively robbed my ability to do anything for that period of time, I also can no longer reply realistically to anything, I have to go through what was said like addressing talking points instead of having my character respond naturally. People do not speak in monologues unless telling a story or venting emotionally, they don't just ramble on and on in the face of silence from another person. This isn't 19th century France, people do not speak like that.

I won't even bother repeating what I JUST SAID:

IF that's your impression of a long post in dialogue or action scenes, then you've hardly if ever seen examples of competent writing of long posts. That or you're once again ignorign a very basic aspect of writing, which is individual actions and dialogue are not everything that matters. Again, characterization, foreshadowing, blocking, worldbuilding, immersiveness etc.... Maybe to YOU these things don't matter but there are various people, in this very thread in fact, to whom they do. A LOT.

I'm done with this though, mainly because you're not someone that can be argued with effectively. You clearly hate conceding anything, even when you agree with what I'm saying you reply with stuff like "Well usually you're right but here is how you're very wrong" look, guy, if I'm right about 95% of occurrences, don't bring up the 5% that I'm wrong about. "Exception to the rule" is a thing big fella.

"Most teachers are not drug dealers" said HunterJJ

"But that my cousin knew a guy who's teacher sold weed" replied Idea

Doesn't change the fact that in most cases I'm right. I'm sure there is a latin term for this somewhere, but my lobes aren't woke enough for that.

I did adopt a line of reasoning that says yes but, yet I did not do it because those are exceptions, but because the facts you are pointing out, when you do point facts are either the minority or are outright irrelevant to the point, which after the conjuntion I proceed to explain why and affirm what you're missing or what should fit in the square in which you're trying to place a cube


Edit: also, I do believe that the fact I am willing to concede certain points and that I actually have opened to the possibility of my mind being changed by what Killigrew could have showed me may speak lengths about my willingness to be argued with and convinced.

 

[Uncultured]

Idea

Bro, I said the entire time was that high detail RPs are very difficult and have a high rate of failure which makes them prohibitive. You then say "No you're wrong, it can be done with the right cast of writers" which is in line with what I said.

Then you thrown in completely subjective stuff like how you find satisfaction from the process of making individual posts, which is fine, but isn't an argument against what I said (that I and many others find satisfaction by world and story building, making the failure rate of detail heavy, quota RPs prohibitive).

Also just saying that it can be done by good writers is not proof of the statement. I disagree with you. I believe that 3.5 paragraphs of random observation is detrimental in an action post that's purpose is to convey action to the reader. Pacing is huge in writing and clogging up an ACTION post with the subtleties of life and observations about the celestial plane while waxing about the meaning of life (kidding but also not kidding, I've seen it) is detrimental to the pacing that makes action scenes interesting.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Idea I think your fighting an uphill battle dear, I'm not sure Hunter is much interested in other viewpoints.

Although I think he is trying to bring up an interesting point with his idea of judging on quality versus word length. It works fine in 1x1s, although that is mostly because it's easy to offer feedback for posts when it's just two people.

I think for groups you make an interesting point about giving people like an objective goal to strive for.

Maybe something like

GM Post Rules
1. All posts should be readable and contain your best efforts at grammar/spelling
2. I would like X number of posts every Y days.
3. No double posting
4. Each post must include characters name, location, and action and a reaction
5. It is preferred if posts are at least four sentences in length but as long as the other three rules are met there might be exceptions.

Something like this maybe? With five and two maybe being added on after the fact. Those would be the things I can see forgetting or not thinking about until you realize that one person is posting like six times in the span of an hour and throwing off everyone else's response. And some people being cute with like a sentence long response that contains an action and a reaction.

 

[Idea]

Idea

Bro, I said the entire time was that high detail RPs are very difficult and have a high rate of failure which makes them prohibitive. You then say "No you're wrong, it can be done with the right cast of writers" which is in line with what I said.

Also just saying that it can be done by good writers is not proof of the statement. I disagree with you. I believe that 3.5 paragraphs of random observation is detrimental in an action post that's purpose is to convey action to the reader. Pacing is huge in writing and clogging up an ACTION post with the subtleties of life and observations about the celestial plane while waxing about the meaning of life (kidding but also not kidding, I've seen it) is detrimental to the pacing that makes action scenes interesting.

You're wrong. I agreed that high detail RPs are prohibitive (assuming I'm understanding that word correctly) and difficult. Once. Again, the difference between our positions is that you proposed the problem is with the length/detail required in those RPs whereas I suggested instead that the problem is not inherent to those RPs and is instead caused by misguided players. Why that is relevant in spite of in practice roleplays of that kind having a low success rate either way is that post minimums are not the issue and removing doesn't solve the issue it jus creates a different kind of problem.


Pacing is not everything in an action scene, this is not a movie or show, it's writing. Emotional investment in the scene and understanding what's going on is important too. The strategic element and emotional stakes of each action, the character's position towards the fight and fighting itself, the immersion created by the description of each of the symptoms of an exhaustive battle, all of those things are relevant and more than enough to fit just about any writing requirement.