Viewpoint Opinion: Are Length/Complexity Requirements Good/Bad? Why?

[A Sparkling Zombie]

The problem is the speed at which that destination arrives. And this is chiefly towards battle events or partnered team scenarios against a threat. Or that's how I use them at least. Situations in which speed or flow are at a premium. It is for the sake of others in the group, and that events such as a battle can be done within say a week or two, given all the actions for this tends to be handled inside of IC minutes to seconds. There is no reason to do them as one post at a time, *unless* those replies happen faster than once a week. I've seen way too many rp's die in that slog. Though I have also been known to give single replies when a lot is going on in said battle. I just find unfortunately most of them die during that. As the minutes turn into IRL weeks.

The implication I got from your #4 is that those shorter posts should be bundled into a collab because that makes it more pleasant to read. My point was that, if that's the motivation and nothing else, well, there's collaboration either way and the two methods produce the same outcome. In that case, I'd rather make the posts separately, because the interaction can still be resolved pretty quickly when a hang-up on post length is removed from the equation. However, yes, there are occasionally those players who will take their sweet time anyway, and especially in a group when timeliness is key, bundling the interaction is a solid approach then. But I'm also someone who prefers to keep IC exchanges IC. When I have to regularly discuss with someone how a single post will transpire, it starts feeling less like a roleplay to me and more like co-writing a novel. If two people find the co-writing approach enjoyable, more power to 'em of course, but if the primary motivation is because someone decided a post needs to meet a certain length, that seems silly to me, personally.

If I misunderstood your point, then mea culpa!

 

[RedArmyShogun]

The implication I got from your #4 is that those shorter posts should be bundled into a collab because that makes it more pleasant to read. My point was that, if that's the motivation and nothing else, well, there's collaboration either way and the two methods produce the same outcome. In that case, I'd rather make the posts separately, because the interaction can still be resolved pretty quickly when a hang-up on post length is removed from the equation. However, yes, there are occasionally those players who will take their sweet time anyway, and especially in a group when timeliness is key, bundling the interaction is a solid approach then. But I'm also someone who prefers to keep IC exchanges IC. When I have to regularly discuss with someone how a single post will transpire, it starts feeling less like a roleplay to me and more like co-writing a novel. If two people find the co-writing approach enjoyable, more power to 'em of course, but if the primary motivation is because someone decided a post needs to meet a certain length, that seems silly to me, personally.

If I misunderstood your point, then mea culpa!

No, no, that's fine, I should have added that to what I had before, it's a bit of both. I have practical and personal reasons for it, but it's often because of agency I guess is the best way to put it, so no worries.

 

[Hral]

To clarify what I mean by "value" in posts, I simply mean that I prefer it when posted content is service of something. Whether that's in service to a character's growth, a piece of worldbuilding, a plot or story beat, setup for some kind of reveal later, whatever. As long as the content posted isn't empty of purpose and has a reason to exist outside of just filling up space, I'm good.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I often come back to a basic tagline of "quality over quantity". I used to be someone who set a hard 2-3 paragraph minimum to avoid the issue of one-liner RPs that I found amateurish. But over the years I have made friends with RPers who can convey all that's needed for the scene in one concise paragraph, sometimes with only a line or two of actual dialogue.

You can wax lyrically for six paragraphs and it turns out to be a huge roadblock for the scene flow, or you can have a three sentence paragraph that fits wonderfully and does all it needs.
That said, I do find that the best RPers I've had the pleasure of writing with find it not particularly more difficult to write multiple paragraphs rather than one, and use the paragraphs to different ends. Using one paragraph to reply to previous dialogue and describe a physical action or reaction, then another paragraph to reveal the inner thoughts or feelings of the character as they speak. Multidimensionality is a good tool.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

• Do you feel that these terms are helpful or hurtful?

There will never be a context in which calling someone "non literate" when they can comprehend written text isn't hurtful to both the person you are calling non-literate and the real people you are grouping them with. It's been used as an insult in the context of roleplay far too often, and diverges from the dictionary definition of literacy in a way that doesn't make sense. It also seems that people who use these terms don't even agree on what they mean among themselves, with a lot of variation from circle to circle.

• Are there better words or phrases that you can think of?

It depends. If you can't live without a certain word count, just say so. If you want or don't want complex clauses, say so. If you want grammar to be a certain way, say so. But anyone engaging in text-based rp is guaranteed to be literate by the actual definition.
But also, I think it's important to list which preferences are flexible and which are deal breakers, or if you have no preferences at all. I might as well copy-paste my most important question when responding to an interest check: "Do you have any preferences or requirements for style, formatting, or length?"
I'm always sad when an rp doesn't list these preferences from the beginning, and then once I've asked about them have found out that I can't participate due to a conflict between their requirements and my abilities.

• Do you use these qualifiers? Or do you not care about length/complexity of your partners replies?

I'd never use these qualifiers, because I've seen how hurtful they can be. As for length and complexity of the replies, I actually do have a preference: that the text in the reply serves a purpose, and that it's not a strain on my partner to write.

• For those that prefer shorter replies, why? I'm curious!

I don't prefer shorter replies per se, but I do believe they have more of a place than many others think.

 

[Nu Epiq]

As a chronic "detailed" / "literate" RPer, I feel like I've noticed a trend toward shorter RP replies since I first joined RPN. I'm interested to see if other people feel that way!

While I don't particularly love the specific language we've adopted (we are all legitimately literate here, you wouldn't be here if you weren't), I do find some something of qualifier useful. I prefer partners that write long replies and having language to communicate that concisely is important to me. However, I still do believe quality over quantity always.

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this. Some question to stimulate discussion:

• Do you feel that these terms are helpful or hurtful?
• Are there better words or phrases that you can think of?
• Do you use these qualifiers? Or do you not care about length/complexity of your partners replies?
• For those that prefer shorter replies, why? I'm

I've heard these terms before but I honestly think it is ridiculous to describe roleplay because if someone didn't have the ability to read or write, they probably wouldn't be doing so. Not knocking anyone that uses those, I just don't particularly find it useful is all.

I think the best way to see how someone writes is a writing sample. I have plenty stored away that if a potential partner should ask for one, I can hand it over and sometimes I might ask for one myself. Purely from a point of seeing whether our styles match. I would hate for someone not to enjoy themselves writing with me because I prefer longer posts. As I don't want to feel like I don't have enough to work with with something shorter than I'm used to. Nothing wrong with shorter posts, I just prefer a bit more added with some quality.

 

[Jet]

Length requirements punish good writers. I've put many years into improvement and as I've gotten better, I convey more meaning with less words. I don't have redundant descriptions and I value implication as much as description, like with dialogue for example.

You can often imply tone with a character's word choice. There's no reason to have a description after every piece of dialogue.

I digress.

The point is, bad writers require more words than good writers. If you have length requirements then you're not selecting for quality. You're selecting for immaturity, as mature writers recognize time and place. There are times when shorter is better and the inverse is equally true, and good writers know when to write more and when to write less, based on the context of a scene.

If you want to select for quality then select for quality, ask for a writing sample and be done with it.

Also, to intercept this counter before it comes, longer does not mean more detailed, a pro writer can describe more in 500 words than an amateur in 1000.

Edit

I also detest length descriptions such as semi-literate, literate and advanced literate, and I reject them completely. There's an element of elitism baked into the terminology, as if a rambling amateur is more articulate than Ernest Hemmingway. It's insulting to those who value concise elegance.

We can easily replace those terms with: long, medium, short and micro. That erases the nonsense of length equaling quality... I mean seriously, that's the logic of ninth grade English classes.

 

[Abyss]

I preferred when we used the labels Simple, Moderate, Detailed, Novella, etc. I feel liked those were more descriptive than what we're currently using.


Do you use these qualifiers? Or do you not care about length/complexity of your partners replies?

I use them and I look for them when determining if I want to reach out to an individual or join a group RP. I'm not a stickler for post length, because I believe in being flexible in response to the scene, but I do feel that if all parties involved both have similar goals for post-requirements that it helps a lot with engagement. I love worldbuilding and getting to know the characters involved, so I want to read posts that are more detailed, and to work with other writers who feel the same way. That's not to say there's anything wrong with enjoying shorter posts, just that it helps if everyone involved is on the same page when it comes to what to expect from the RP itself.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

We can easily replace those terms with: long, medium, short and micro. That erases the nonsense of length equaling quality...

If RPN were to collectively decide to change the nomenclature, I do think this is the best of the ideas offered. There would still be people who would be inclined to turn it into a dick-measuring contest, but I think it's the most neutral in a system that's rooted in length.