Other Minimum post lengths

[Whisker]

It's ok, IRL comes first. So let me know if there is anything I am misunderstanding about your posts that results from your lack of availability when you produced them


I believe Bone2pick expressed my thoughts on this already


I've never seen these tl;drs in RPs I've been on, but I think I get the point you're trying to get across. That said, I would argue that still supports, or to say the least, doesn't contradict what I've been saying: That the problem isn't the posting requirements, it's people who don't grasp their implications. As in, a casual roleplayer overestimating themselves and attempting to do something in a style which doesn't fit them. Again, I am not saying either style, lenghty and detail or shorter and more to the point is better, but that they are fundamentally different styles with different demands and different goals and the point of posting requirements is the same idea as anything in the interest check, to see who wants to roleplay in that style. But many people who don't want to roleplay detailed, still end up going to roleplay detailed, usually (by my experience) driven by an interest in the topic of the roleplay while ignoring whether they can sustain following the roleplay's rules.

However, while you are right that quantity is different from quality and posting requirements are not the most efficient way towards the goal we want, fact remains that as far as many of us can see, it is the best option. If you want to adress the issue, and by all means that is quite a noble cause, then the first thing that should be accounted for is not why the issue is bad, but what merits the other position may have. Why, whether you agree or disagree with them, people would think short posts are bad or that adding details you consider "fluff" would be something other people want to do to the point of making a rule of it when one can see that such a rule can cause problems for the RP's lifespan?

I’m off from work today, so I can give you a better answer. I understand why minimum posting requirements exist. As I said on the first page, I’m even totally cool with them so long as they’re not unreasonable:

As long as the minimum posting requirements aren’t ridiculous, I don’t see the problem with them. There’s a huge difference between asking for at least a one to two paragraph response and demanding they write the paragraph equivalent to War and Peace.

The only major problem with minimum posting requirements that I see as a drawback (outside of the fact that it makes a few people uncomfortable) is that it encourages tons of superfluous detail and bad writing habits in general to compensate for length.

I understand they’re used to differentiate modes of storytelling and distinguishing stories that want a lot of detail as opposed to pacing and moving the plot along. I’ve done quite a few roleplays myself in this genre and enjoyed them.

That said, I just don’t believe they’re contributing positively to the culture of roleplaying. Some of it is like you said, people are ignoring the requirements of what it takes to write in the roleplay, thus they drop or write terrible posts that make it hard for the writer to respond. The other part – and the part that bothers me – is that minimum requirements have become touted in the roleplaying community as synonymous with skill because they are associated with those long-detailed roleplays. The more the minimum requirement, the more advanced the RP. I’m not saying that’s the fault of anyone here. It’s just something that is what it is.

To that effect, I’m seeing the pressure to write more even on casual RPs with no posting requirements. It doesn’t matter if the post itself has merit and is easy to respond to; they come into the OOC and apologize because it isn’t “long enough” or “detailed enough”. But for as long as I have been roleplaying, I have rarely seen the opposite discussed – where a post is too long and too detailed even in an advanced Detailed RP. I have been in RPs where people would post these massive posts and then at the bottom write tiny TLRs trying to sum up what they were writing about. It flabbergasts me as a writer why anyone would NOT want people to read what they have wrote since they spent all that time and effort putting it together. And when you actually sit down and READ what they have written, only a chunk of it is something you can respond to. Though a lot of people will joke about “Dude, tl;dr”, it isn’t treated with near the vehemence of short posts because it is long and meets the requirements even though it’s just basically a short post in disguise.

As Bone2pick said, you could associate this with beginning writers being beginning writers, but as far as I can see minimum posting requirements and the pressure to post long or have your work deemed “a waste of time” are now so commonplace in the community that it’s becoming harder to separate Detailed RPs and Casual RPs from one another. I don’t find that a very positive development.

To answer your final question, roleplaying is not a singular hobby. It’s not something you can do by yourself. When you do a roleplay, you’re writing to entertain a second reader (or more) directly. As long as they’re okay with doing it that way, even to the RP’s deteriment, that’s fine. It’s up to them.

I’m just talking about abstract here, and noting what I’ve observed from the community over time: that longer posts even with “fluff” are still better (because of perceived effort) than shorter responses regardless of quality when minimum posts are involved (and even when they’re not).

 

[Idea]

To answer your final question, roleplaying is not a singular hobby. It’s not something you can do by yourself. When you do a roleplay, you’re writing to entertain a second reader (or more) directly. As long as they’re okay with doing it that way, even to the RP’s deteriment, that’s fine. It’s up to them.

I’m just talking about abstract here, and noting what I’ve observed from the community over time: that longer posts even with “fluff” are still better (because of perceived effort) than shorter responses regardless of quality when minimum posts are involved (and even when they’re not).

Could I ask for clarification regarding how this answer my final question?

 

[Whisker]

Could I ask for clarification regarding how this answer my final question?

Why, whether you agree or disagree with them, people would think short posts are bad or that adding details you consider "fluff" would be something other people want to do to the point of making a rule of it when one can see that such a rule can cause problems for the RP's lifespan?

And I answered it whether you think it is a good answer or not. There's no set rule how to roleplay. If people want to roleplay even to the point where "fluff" is good and short posts are bad even to the detriment of their own RP because they think they would enjoy it, that's their perogative. Just don't expect me and others to think that it's good either from a writing standpoint or a roleplaying perspective.

 

[Idea]

And I answered it whether you think it is a good answer or not. There's no set rule how to roleplay. If people want to roleplay even to the point where "fluff" is good and short posts are bad even to the detriment of their own RP because they think they would enjoy it, that's their prerogative. Just don't expect me and others to think that it's good either from a writing standpoint or a roleplaying perspective.

What's with the angry tone, I was just not following , jeez...


But that still leaves me a little confused. I thought you were, while not necessarily asking people to change, critiquing posting requirements?

 

[Whisker]

What's with the angry tone, I was just not following , jeez...


But that still leaves me a little confused. I thought you were, while not necessarily asking people to change, critiquing posting requirements?

I apologize if it came across as angry. I'm used to being to the point.

And I am critiquing them because I believe they're contributing to an aspect of roleplay that I dislike. Put simply, minimum requirements are an encouragement of length, an arbitrary quota. I understand they're not intended to be a measurement of skill but many perceive that it is because of how prevalent they are in upper-level roleplay. So because it's perceived as a measurement of skill, people want more all the time even when less can sometimes be more.

 

[Idea]

I apologize if it came across as angry. I'm used to being to the point.

And I am critiquing them because I believe they're contributing to an aspect of roleplay that I dislike. Put simply, minimum requirements are an encouragement of length, an arbitrary quota. I understand they're not intended to be a measurement of skill but many perceive that it is because of how prevalent they are in upper-level roleplay. So because it's perceived as a measurement of skill, people want more all the time even when less can sometimes be more.

What confuses me about that statement is the fact you're critiquing a pratice which is not the problem, and has benefits of it's own, as opposed to limiting yourself to critiquing the actual problem. It's like me asking for something at a restaurant and they instead bringing me nachos, then I if I started complaining about people liking nachos. No, the problem isn't people liking nachos, it's the incompetent waiter. Even if nachos are bad, I recognize their right to want them and that it's not them who are the reason the waiter is incompetent. Likewise, while in this case the posting minimums may influence the mentality a bit, the mentality rather than the posting requirements are the real issue, no?
Eliminating the requirements wouldn't solve the problem, if anything it would worsen it I'd say. Because then you have people who actually need those bigger posts going into casual roleplays getting annoyed or at the very least bored all the time.

 

[Whisker]

What confuses me about that statement is the fact you're critiquing a pratice which is not the problem, and has benefits of it's own, as opposed to limiting yourself to critiquing the actual problem. It's like me asking for something at a restaurant and they instead bringing me nachos, then I if I started complaining about people liking nachos. No, the problem isn't people liking nachos, it's the incompetent waiter. Even if nachos are bad, I recognize their right to want them and that it's not them who are the reason the waiter is incompetent. Likewise, while in this case the posting minimums may influence the mentality a bit, the mentality rather than the posting requirements are the real issue, no?
Eliminating the requirements wouldn't solve the problem, if anything it would worsen it I'd say. Because then you have people who actually need those bigger posts going into casual roleplays getting annoyed or at the very least bored all the time.

Except that I've never once said to eliminate minimum requirements. I just said that there is a negative drawback to them which is the mentality which does encourage superfluous and bad writing.

The point Hunter is trying to make is in line with the OP's original intention of making this thread.



The fact of the matter is that too many people in the RP community believe arbitrary measures of skill such as post length and word count are more important than the writer’s ability to weave an immersive story. I have personally written posts that are upwards of 50 paragraphs and as few as two or three sentences. My beef isn’t with Detailed RPs and those who enjoy writing long posts – it’s when they hop on the train that longer is always better.

That those who write short responses are inferior.

That shorter responses must reflect a lack of effort or creativity on the part of the writer even if the post contains all the necessary parts of a quality response (reaction and driving action of the plot).

It’s when they don’t consider that the idea they’re trying to get across could be negatively impacted by too much detail. (Note: Tone, pacing, characterization can be carried by short snappy responses – particularly in fights or situations where things are fast and confused – just as well as long ones.)

Say what you want about it boiling down to “personal preference”, but don’t expect to be free from criticism about it’s negative aspects either.

 

[Progdor]

This is mostly just my two cents as a veteran or 'old school' RPer, but I tend to prefer two or three max really really well-written paragraphs per post. There are two reasons behind this idea. The first and most obvious being that I see too many roleplayers filling paragraphs with fluff just to hit their required word count. The second is that I find it tends to flow better the more interactions there are, and shorter posts allow for more interactions. That being said, I am also a fan of 'my character is alone so here is essentially an entire chapter of what that looks like' kind of posts. I understand that these don't do much other than inform everyone at least OOCly about what your character has been up to, and it helps set the tone and build a base for future interactions.

EDIT:

The only major problem with minimum posting requirements that I see as a drawback (outside of the fact that it makes a few people uncomfortable) is that it encourages tons of superfluous detail and bad writing habits in general to compensate for length.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't say bad writing habits. But excessive use of fluff does become a problem in those cases.

 

[rae2nerdy]

But the writing rule let's the players know what they are aiming for, and that there is an actual goal other than just pleasing the GM

I suppose I'm just looking at it from the GM's side of things where there isn't really that big of a difference from requesting previous examples and asking for a specific kind of writing in your roleplay. Both ways it's a request that is about pleasing the GM. I guess you could just argue the rule is a subtler way of going about it?

Which fair enough.

 

[Killigrew]

And I did indicate that lack of communication was your actual problem in my post. I mean maybe I was a little too subtle or I didn't make myself perfectly clear so I'll repeat it below.

Your problem was not a post minimum. Whether or not you make a roleplay with a post minimum is not going to fix the problem you are describing in your replies.

That problem is - people don't understand what the GM wants them to write and think that they should focus on writing/pretty posts/characters/ and not the story.

That is because you as the GM were not clear in what you wanted from them. The solution to this is to specifically state in your rules what you want and also to communicate directly with your roleplayers.

Do i really have to post the rules for the RP too?
When I said miscommunication, I meant that it was all things communicable about 'good writing' or 'raised standards,' namely, a lot of well-written lore so that the players can write more comfortable about the world, long posts so we have more opportunities to interact and show characterization, and a strong thematic flavor. Long posts being emphasized as included. In other words, I communicated with my post that I had a good idea for where I wanted the RP to go, and the players therefore were waiting for that to happen. The length of the post and the movement in the post was due to my opinion on concise writing (Flowers to give it flavor, concision to give it movement), and I wanted the same. I did my best to outright tell them, but there was still miscommunication, and I really hope this gets across: thing is, RPing at least on this site suggests that long posts and characterization far outweigh action and movement. However, in short posting RPs, action and movement build a momentum and the GM fans the flames. I want a little of both, so I want flexible RPers. That only happens when they aren't caught up in this 'detailed' vs 'casual' false dichotomy and can think freely about what they actually want to post, rather than meet a standard that proves nothing about their capabilities.

Bone2pick
I didn't want to have to prove my point, but I'll say in simple terms that I used 'why are we all here' to describe what makes RP unique from reading, writing, video games, movies, and all other genres of creation and literature. If we don't agree on that, I can entirely understand why we want something different from RPin, but having carefully thought it out, I cannot see it as being a reasonable answer if it does not include suspense and collaboration.

EDIT:

Not super relevant to the overall back and forth WWI trench warfare of minimum post counts

Wow, that is a truly accurate analogy, haha.

 

[Bone2pick]

I didn't want to have to prove my point, but I'll say in simple terms that I used 'why are we all here' to describe what makes RP unique from reading, writing, video games, movies, and all other genres of creation and literature. If we don't agree on that, I can entirely understand why we want something different from RPin, but having carefully thought it out, I cannot see it as being a reasonable answer if it does not include suspense and collaboration.

There are multiple elements that make roleplaying unique from other storytelling mediums. You didn't cover them all. I'm doubtful if I could either.

I'm not sure how you're using suspense but I agree on collaboration. The issue here is collaborative storytelling runs a vast spectrum of possibilities, some of which place little value on frequent back and forth interactions.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Do i really have to post the rules for the RP too?
When I said miscommunication, I meant that it was all things communicable about 'good writing' or 'raised standards,' namely, a lot of well-written lore so that the players can write more comfortable about the world, long posts so we have more opportunities to interact and show characterization, and a strong thematic flavor. Long posts being emphasized as included. In other words, I communicated with my post that I had a good idea for where I wanted the RP to go, and the players therefore were waiting for that to happen. The length of the post and the movement in the post was due to my opinion on concise writing (Flowers to give it flavor, concision to give it movement), and I wanted the same. I did my best to outright tell them, but there was still miscommunication, and I really hope this gets across: thing is, RPing at least on this site suggests that long posts and characterization far outweigh action and movement. However, in short posting RPs, action and movement build a momentum and the GM fans the flames. I want a little of both, so I want flexible RPers. That only happens when they aren't caught up in this 'detailed' vs 'casual' false dichotomy and can think freely about what they actually want to post, rather than meet a standard that proves nothing about their capabilities.

Bone2pick
I didn't want to have to prove my point, but I'll say in simple terms that I used 'why are we all here' to describe what makes RP unique from reading, writing, video games, movies, and all other genres of creation and literature. If we don't agree on that, I can entirely understand why we want something different from RPin, but having carefully thought it out, I cannot see it as being a reasonable answer if it does not include suspense and collaboration.

EDIT:

Wow, that is a truly accurate analogy, haha.

And again I think this is not a problem with post requirements but rather your understanding of post requirements. You seem to see post requirements as code for "elitist gatekeeping" or where a person is so caught up in proving how much better they are as a writer than you that they write a whole lot of crap that has nothing to do with anything.

That is not a post requirement. That is an attitude of a specific subsect of roleplayers.

They are not the same thing.

That's like saying dogs are canines so therefore all canines are dogs.

Someone who focuses on padding their post to the exclusion of all else is a roleplayer who has bad habits.

That is an individual ( or a group of individuals ) that roleplay in a manner you deem ineffective

But the thing is even if you DIDN'T have post requirements these people would still have their bad habits and still roleplay the same way because that is how they write. It has nothing to do with asking them to hit a specific word count. They'd do that anyway.

So saying that asking for a specific word / post count is automatically going to turn everyone into the kind of person who uses these bad roleplaying habits is ridiculous.

Not everyone has bad roleplaying habits. Not everyone is going to look at a post minimum and use it as an excuse to write five paragraphs about their characters outfit.

And here's the thing those bad habits absolutely exist outside of post requirements. I've done 1x1 roleplays with people who still write long posts filled with useless information without me requesting they hit a specific word count at all. Because that's a bad habit they have as roleplayers and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ask for them to always write a specific number of paragraphs.

 

[Idea]

Except that I've never once said to eliminate minimum requirements. I just said that there is a negative drawback to them which is the mentality which does encourage superfluous and bad writing.

Let me pose this then: Are minimum requirements really what creates that mentality? Or are they merely encouraging a particular form of it?

A few years ago if I'm remembering correctly there was this story of a man who got severe sunburns after going to the beach and it was reported this man claimed that he was following the advice of a particular football player who had in turn claimed water was all one needed to resist the sun, never solar protection.

Thing is, why would the man with sunburns ever have believed the football player about that? Well, he's far from alone. In fact it's common pratice to use celebrities to advertise products which they often don't even have anything to do wiht, much less expertise to make a qualified recommendation.

But that's not all. It's actually pretty common for fanbases of just about anything to start looking down on people outside of those fanbases. Or for brands to develop out of a particular celebrity's favoring, with users then using those brands as symbols of status.

The whole point of this being that even if minimum requirements are indeed fommenting that mentality towards a specific kind of roleplay that doesn't match quality, this kind of thinking, while flawed, is almost human nature. This seeming confusion of what quality is would happen with or without the minimum requirements. I'd say, then, that at least they are offering somehting productive to that, even if it remains a problem.

 

[Killigrew]

And again I think this is not a problem with post requirements but rather your understanding of post requirements. You seem to see post requirements as code for "elitist gatekeeping" or where a person is so caught up in proving how much better they are as a writer than you that they write a whole lot of crap that has nothing to do with anything.

That is not a post requirement. That is an attitude of a specific subsect of roleplayers.

They are not the same thing.

That's like saying dogs are canines so therefore all canines are dogs.

Someone who focuses on padding their post to the exclusion of all else is a roleplayer who has bad habits.

That is an individual ( or a group of individuals ) that roleplay in a manner you deem ineffective

But the thing is even if you DIDN'T have post requirements these people would still have their bad habits and still roleplay the same way because that is how they write. It has nothing to do with asking them to hit a specific word count. They'd do that anyway.

So saying that asking for a specific word / post count is automatically going to turn everyone into the kind of person who uses these bad roleplaying habits is ridiculous.

Not everyone has bad roleplaying habits. Not everyone is going to look at a post minimum and use it as an excuse to write five paragraphs about their characters outfit.

And here's the thing those bad habits absolutely exist outside of post requirements. I've done 1x1 roleplays with people who still write long posts filled with useless information without me requesting they hit a specific word count at all. Because that's a bad habit they have as roleplayers and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ask for them to always write a specific number of paragraphs.

I think you're in danger of making a straw man right now. Maybe you're just filling the gaps of my attempted explanation. Nowhere did I accuse my RPers in my RP of padding or fluff -- I only said there was inaction and by that I meant superfluous action. I'm speaking generally, sure, but honestly, you and others in this thread drew the relationship between detailed posts and long minimum post length yourselves, as though they go hand-in-hand. Part of my argument is to deny this statement of causation, and call it correlation.
I'll be replying to Idea's post tonight or tomorrow and hopefully establish some common ground and clarifying explanations.
But, man, this is really a pain ahhhaha why am I doing this. I guess it's sorta fun, especially to read Idea's breakdown of his posts. Props to you, m8 Idea

Bone2pick
I was only covering those that were relevant to the discussion and to my epiphany of post quotas, so I did not mean to imply I had deluded myself into believing myself all-knowing about RPing, but that there are certain essential elements that were absolutely relevant to my epiphany.
By suspense I meant what Idea described as #2 in his shebang post analysis post: other players' participation bringing the element of the unexpected. Glad we agree on collaborative storytelling.

 

[Idea]

shebang post analysis post

?

 

[Idea]

Also I'm sorry if I'm a little agressive today or something, it's really hard to focus while in agony (teeth hurt like f*ck)

 

[Killigrew]

?

Also I'm sorry if I'm a little agressive today or something, it's really hard to focus while in agony (teeth hurt like f*ck)

Not at all, reading the post where you analyze your own posts (that's the shebang post analysis post) and their replies was quite the joy. I just wish I had the time to sit down and reply as best as I am able.

 

[Whisker]

This is mostly just my two cents as a veteran or 'old school' RPer, but I tend to prefer two or three max really really well-written paragraphs per post. There are two reasons behind this idea. The first and most obvious being that I see too many roleplayers filling paragraphs with fluff just to hit their required word count. The second is that I find it tends to flow better the more interactions there are, and shorter posts allow for more interactions. That being said, I am also a fan of 'my character is alone so here is essentially an entire chapter of what that looks like' kind of posts. I understand that these don't do much other than inform everyone at least OOCly about what your character has been up to, and it helps set the tone and build a base for future interactions.

EDIT:



Strictly speaking, I wouldn't say bad writing habits. But excessive use of fluff does become a problem in those cases.

We seem to be on the same page about what we have seen and experienced. I think some of that boils down to methods of roleplaying and their unwritten rules.

What you have listed here is what I have come to label in my head as “indirect” vs “direct” roleplaying. Indirect roleplaying is where your character(s) are alone and maybe even separated from the rest of the characters in the RP by setting, choice, or otherwise. They will do actions, react to certain NPCs, and move the plot forward without engaging any of the other players but still move the story along.

Direct roleplaying is all about interaction and engagement between each of the players in the story. Their posts are going to be (and should be) shorter by nature. Since interactivity is the key, spotlighting and too much overloading with detail where it isn’t appropriate is problematic since it removes some of the freedom from what the partner does.

That being said, I am more of a direct rper. I do engage in indirect roleplaying when I must, but I much prefer direct since I get to interact with my partner more. I don’t think one is inherently better than the other, yet I have been given the impression that people believe that they should be subject to the same rules.

That’s sort of what I’m talking about I guess. In my opinion, the two methods don’t mesh well together, and a lot of problems in RP come about when two players who prefer a different method cross.

Let me pose this then: Are minimum requirements really what creates that mentality? Or are they merely encouraging a particular form of it?

A few years ago if I'm remembering correctly there was this story of a man who got severe sunburns after going to the beach and it was reported this man claimed that he was following the advice of a particular football player who had in turn claimed water was all one needed to resist the sun, never solar protection.

Thing is, why would the man with sunburns ever have believed the football player about that? Well, he's far from alone. In fact it's common pratice to use celebrities to advertise products which they often don't even have anything to do wiht, much less expertise to make a qualified recommendation.

But that's not all. It's actually pretty common for fanbases of just about anything to start looking down on people outside of those fanbases. Or for brands to develop out of a particular celebrity's favoring, with users then using those brands as symbols of status.

The whole point of this being that even if minimum requirements are indeed fommenting that mentality towards a specific kind of roleplay that doesn't match quality, this kind of thinking, while flawed, is almost human nature. This seeming confusion of what quality is would happen with or without the minimum requirements. I'd say, then, that at least they are offering somehting productive to that, even if it remains a problem.

I don’t think anyone is actively preaching that long posts are better so much as short replies are trash. There have been instances in this same thread where people have actively stated that they like minimum requirements because they don’t want to deal with short replies in response to their long ones. It’s that sort of thing that I think contributes to the mentality problem even if it might be misunderstood.

 

[Killigrew]

What you have listed here is what I have come to label in my head as “indirect” vs “direct” roleplaying.

I think this is very apt, especially the definitions thereof. Perhaps that is part of what is behind my argument... Thanks, I certainly appreciate the new vocabulary.

 

[Bone2pick]

What you have listed here is what I have come to label in my head as “indirect” vs “direct” roleplaying. Indirect roleplaying is where your character(s) are alone and maybe even separated from the rest of the characters in the RP by setting, choice, or otherwise. They will do actions, react to certain NPCs, and move the plot forward without engaging any of the other players but still move the story along.

Direct roleplaying is all about interaction and engagement between each of the players in the story. Their posts are going to be (and should be) shorter by nature. Since interactivity is the key, spotlighting and too much overloading with detail where it isn’t appropriate is problematic since it removes some of the freedom from what the partner does.

Excellent analysis Whisker. I greatly prefer indirect roleplaying, which is why I'm drawn to open world and detailed nation builder RPs. I hope this distinction catches on here, it could do a lot of good.

 

[Uncultured]

You know it surprises me that someone who understands pacing in writing like that doesn't see the value in minimum post lengths because a lot of the techniques you covered aren't nearly as effective when you hand over to someone else after a few sentences, hell even the visual elements of the forum get in the way if you're using positioning and the shape your writing for effect.

I think in general tone and pacing don't really carry across multiple posts that well, people use different formatting conventions and they often have to go back to something a few posts ago in order to have their characters react to something important, they can't flow smoothly on from what you put down and when you start writing again you'll be faced with the same problems.

Even in a situation where you want to preserve an urgent pace, to my mind the solution would be to collaborate with the people in the scene on a joint post with something like google docs or titan pad, allowing everyone involved to establish a unified tone or pace for the scene.

Because minimum post length = four paragraph action and dialogue posts in cases where two sentences might be a better decision.

One size fits all is the death of common sense.

 

[Uncultured]

Idea you intentionally miss points, abuse semantics based argument

"I said control not influence"

ok lmao

Strawman =/= an example. I made an example, you called it a strawman. Misuse of the term, period.

The Illiad? THE ILLIAD? THEEEEE ILLIAD? LOL WHAT.

This guy, next time just reference the epic of Gilgamesh ffs. Also the ILLIAD was short as fuck and barebones, so your point really falters there.

Want to see a strawman?

Idea said

"Plus for someone who advocated removing entire chunks of detail for the sake of being more on point"

Never did I say this. I said that OVER DETAILING was harmful.

What constitutes over DETAILING? You'd never know, because you don't concede anything. Details in writing are essential, BUT SO IS other things like pacing, believability and reader interest being catered to. Its a CAREFUL BALANCE of ingrediants based on CONTEXT.

Look at this shit

Idea said

"Plus, setting aside the whole matter that if the villain is obviously evil by some standards you probably aren't making such a great villain"

It's a generic example of some generic bad guy destroying a generic city, it's an example and you dissect it, the fuck is wrong with you. Same thing with the one liner, just a generic ass statement dog, you're roght though, that was a poor choice of one liner, but certainly no death knell to my argument. As usual, your only real point impacts my argument, not the concept behind it.

The point is that in this example, the villain has been tearing shut up. The hero is seeing this and goes into the fight.

Disclaimer... pre fight, the writer has had time to build the hero's emotions and desires, through the use of contextually acceptable detailed posts.

The point of all the internal monologues, observations, and emotions that you convey to the reader is that you need the reader to connect with the character. You want them to connect so that, in tense moment like this fight, the reader gives a shit. Because they give a shot, you can focus on just the action, because the characters have been developed already. If you try and character dev mid fight you end up blue balling the reader like Kishimoto did at the end of the war arc (If you've watched Naruto) where mid fight, people are getting flashbacks when they should be whipping each others asses. When characters are built right, action scenes are like the peaks of mountains, small, sharp and breathtaking.

Also lol to this.

"bringing this pseudo-intellectual pacing by word count into the fray doesn't help your case"

O rly, go ask some world class writers about sentence size. Also, in the spirit of mockery, Imma do what you do.

That's a strawman statement, clearly you didn't read my example clearly. It's about syllable count, not word count.

And look at this shit, deny deny deny goal post movement etc. You love to lie about what you said.

Idea said

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

(Then my quote)

So you're telling me that two characters saying 10 lines of dialogue back and forth to each other in monologue form, replying to things in a bullet format, doesn't subtract from realism or immersion?"

-

Buddy, I said before that 8 lines of dialogue per post was unrealistic and damaged immersion and pacing.

You replied saying that it is realistic and doesn't damage immersion at all.

Thats not a fucking strawman lol you're a moron. Unless youre going to bust out the semantic bazooka and claim that the increase from 8 to 10 makes it a strawman statement.

My other "strawman" was a fucking EXAMPLE that I made, never said that it was your argument.

 

[Whisker]

Excellent analysis Whisker. I greatly prefer indirect roleplaying, which is why I'm drawn to open world and detailed nation builder RPs. I hope this distinction catches on here, it could do a lot of good.

It was actually Nation Builder that gave me the impression that this is what is occurring. Nation Builder pretty much has Indirect Roleplay as a requirement. The lines aren't so clear in the other forums, so you get a mixture of Indirect roleplayers and Direct roleplayers.

My idealized version is a mixture of both. I've been in a roleplay with a partner that's lasted almost a year and half at this point. We'll start of doing Indirect roleplay and then switch over to Direct anytime our characters come into contact with each other.

But then we've discussed this subject before so it isn't exactly new phenomena to us. I just don't know if it's widely talked about in general. I can see some misunderstandings happening if a roleplayer who is used to getting his post length "mirrored" by his partner suddenly encounters a short post seemingly from out of the blue.

 

[Idea]

Idea you intentionally miss points, abuse semantics based argument

"I said control not influence"

ok lmao

Strawman =/= an example. I made an example, you called it a strawman. Misuse of the term, period.

The Illiad? THE ILLIAD? THEEEEE ILLIAD? LOL WHAT.

This guy, next time just reference the epic of Gilgamesh ffs. Also the ILLIAD was short as fuck and barebones, so your point really falters there.

Want to see a strawman?

Idea said

"Plus for someone who advocated removing entire chunks of detail for the sake of being more on point"

Never did I say this. I said that OVER DETAILING was harmful.

What constitutes over DETAILING? You'd never know, because you don't concede anything. Details in writing are essential, BUT SO IS other things like pacing, believability and reader interest being catered to. Its a CAREFUL BALANCE of ingrediants based on CONTEXT.

Look at this shit

Idea said

"Plus, setting aside the whole matter that if the villain is obviously evil by some standards you probably aren't making such a great villain"

It's a generic example of some generic bad guy destroying a generic city, it's an example and you dissect it, the fuck is wrong with you. Same thing with the one liner, just a generic ass statement dog, you're roght though, that was a poor choice of one liner, but certainly no death knell to my argument. As usual, your only real point impacts my argument, not the concept behind it.

The point is that in this example, the villain has been tearing shut up. The hero is seeing this and goes into the fight.

Disclaimer... pre fight, the writer has had time to build the hero's emotions and desires, through the use of contextually acceptable detailed posts.

The point of all the internal monologues, observations, and emotions that you convey to the reader is that you need the reader to connect with the character. You want them to connect so that, in tense moment like this fight, the reader gives a shit. Because they give a shot, you can focus on just the action, because the characters have been developed already. If you try and character dev mid fight you end up blue balling the reader like Kishimoto did at the end of the war arc (If you've watched Naruto) where mid fight, people are getting flashbacks when they should be whipping each others asses. When characters are built right, action scenes are like the peaks of mountains, small, sharp and breathtaking.

Also lol to this.

"bringing this pseudo-intellectual pacing by word count into the fray doesn't help your case"

O rly, go ask some world class writers about sentence size. Also, in the spirit of mockery, Imma do what you do.

That's a strawman statement, clearly you didn't read my example clearly. It's about syllable count, not word count.

And look at this shit, deny deny deny goal post movement etc. You love to lie about what you said.

Idea said

"The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

(Then my quote)

So you're telling me that two characters saying 10 lines of dialogue back and forth to each other in monologue form, replying to things in a bullet format, doesn't subtract from realism or immersion?"

-

Buddy, I said before that 8 lines of dialogue per post was unrealistic and damaged immersion and pacing.

You replied saying that it is realistic and doesn't damage immersion at all.

Thats not a fucking strawman lol you're a moron. Unless youre going to bust out the semantic bazooka and claim that the increase from 8 to 10 makes it a strawman statement.

My other "strawman" was a fucking EXAMPLE that I made, never said that it was your argument.

Wow... I don't know why I started arguing with you again, but this pile of BS right here was definitely why I said I would stop.

 

[Uncultured]

Wow... I don't know why I started arguing with you again, but this pile of BS right here was definitely why I said I would stop.

I just think it's funny that you will go to the grave thinking that one must post 4 paragraphs or more for the post to be good. You really think that writing short has no place.

You'd fit in really well in the r/IamVerySmart subreddit.

I've given your argument a lot of credit, but I don't think I'd get credit unless I said

"You're right Idea , writing must never deviate from superflously detailed, stuffed, second by second writing. There is no place for anything consice"

The words "Good point and "I agree" do not seem to exist in your universe.

Despite how crass and disrespectful I am, nothing I said there was incorrect. I don't feel like showing respect to someone who is this dense and condescending at the same time.

I know you won't go back and read (neither would I), but my only argument is that everything is contextual, that writing short and long both have a place in storytelling. Because that's really the only thing I'm arguing here, I think it's funny when people take such a hard stance against me.