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

[RealisticFantasy]

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 curious!

 

[nerdy tangents]

Personally I have had the most success with just posting a roleplay sample and have people decide for themselves if they are compatible with me.

In my case it’s a link to my most recent roleplay to get past four posts. But other people will post specific examples of roleplay posts, I think either method can be helpful.

As having a specific visual cuts through the various glossary terms and allows you to meet people whose style of writing is going to work well with yours.

 

[RealisticFantasy]

Personally I have had the most success with just posting a roleplay sample and have people decide for themselves if they are compatible with me.

In my case it’s a link to my most recent roleplay to get past four posts. But other people will post specific examples of roleplay posts, I think either method can be helpful.

As having a specific visual cuts through the various glossary terms and allows you to meet people whose style of writing is going to work well with yours.

Do you feel that you find difficulty in finding partners? In my experience, the more complex your writing, the longer it takes to find an appropriate partner, which is understandable. But, I’m talking about weeks of bumping an interest check to sink just one or maybe two people. I struggle to maintain motivation when that’s the case.

 

[methodeeman]

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 curious!

To answer the first three bullet-questions:

• Very helpful when it comes to attracting a certain audience. I often set up a verification system for majority of my groups; roleplay samples are reviewed by staff team and if they meet the expectations, they are granted access to the group.
• There seems to be a misconception on the meaning of the term 'literate'. Some think it is simply coherent writing, and others recognize it as lengthy paragraph after paragraph. Better terms for me would be: "Single paragraph" or "Multi-paragraph".
• Yes, I keep it in mind when I go browsing in the boards for adverts or group checks. I can care as much as my partners do, and I tend to 'measure' their interest level by the length, effort, and thought put into their writing.

As for the last, I only prefer to use shorter replies when I am GMing or to have a fast-paced thread. Shorter replies for me would be a single paragraph or couple.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Do you feel that you find difficulty in finding partners? In my experience, the more complex your writing, the longer it takes to find an appropriate partner, which is understandable. But, I’m talking about weeks of bumping an interest check to sink just one or maybe two people. I struggle to maintain motivation when that’s the case.

As it kinda takes time for everyone to find partners and it rarely has anything to do with writing specifically.

In my case it’s because I have very niche interests that not everyone wants to write.

Sometimes people have incompatible post schedules (I got two partners who took months between posts in our roleplay which is fine for me but would have been a nightmare for others).

So I think the best advice I have is don’t look at it as “I’m not finding partners because X.”

Think of it as “I’m focusing on finding someone I really enjoy writing with and that is going to take time.”

I would see about finding something to do in the downtime. You can search through the active interest checks to see if anything catches your eye, take a break and watch some TV, etc.

 

[White Masquerade]

I prefer seeing short replies, if there is nothing really for a person or character to do. Now it’s going to be another case if there is a lot for a person or character to do. Let’s say they have to do several things, it’s going to be weird for that to only take one paragraph. That’s when it’s a problem.

However, there’s another scenario that needs to be discussed too. It’s when a person or a character takes 12 paragraphs to do something simple. That’s something I’ve seen since I’ve signed up here as well as now occasionally. And I do get where that comes from, but it slows the story down for no reason. And this is my personal opinion, but for something creative, like writing with others, who have different schedules, the quicker, the role-play goes the better for everybody. So, when you have replies that are wordy, but do not advance the story much that becomes a huge problem.

 

[gator]

Poor roleplayers. Do they think big meaning comes from big posts?

 

[Solivagante]

I agree with the prevailing theme of responses here, which I think can be accurately summarized as "quality over quantity". I'll write long posts when the scene/story calls for it, but my focus in RP is character interactions, and that is usually better-facilitated by shorter posts which allow for more back-and-forth between the writers involved. (This is also part of why I like formatting dialogue in bold, as it makes it easy to tell at a glance what other characters would be primarily reacting to, amidst all the introspection.)

I have not yet put out my own 1x1 search, but I know when browsing people's threads that people who brag on length or have bulky length requirements are less appealing to me, personally, as partners. This is a matter of taste! I know as a writer and a reader that I generally prefer 'windowpane prose', where my attention is focused on the scene and not on the writing itself; that style naturally leads to shorter posts.

Also, having spent too long on Gaia years ago, writing with people who put out long posts always makes me feel like I have to 'measure up'. I'm working on unlearning that, but it's a process and I'd rather not feel the pressure all the time.

 

[Steve Jobs]

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 curious!

We have this conversation every other month

Length requirements are a blunt tool, but somewhat useful for finding people that are stylistically more compatible with you. If you're looking for a Dickens, Joyce, or Tolkien then you're more likely to find them with a lengthier requirement. I don't consider it hurtful but I can see why some might feel like length is being conflated with "literacy."

My writing style tends to reflect the mindset of the character I am playing so more introspective and observant characters will have more to say than snappier, present minded ones. An artistic character will have more flourish in their post than an objective minded one.

I hate that "quality over quantity" has become a subtle way to admonishing lengthier writing styles (typically exaggerating the level of "purple prose" or the motivations behind the people who make them). A good writer will make every word count. If it a post feels padded out then then that's a them issue, not an issue with lengthier requirements/styles in general.

Personally I don't care about length so long as what the other people are posting furthers the plot and gives me insight on that character. Two paragraphs? Ten paragraphs? Give me all of it.

 

[Daisie]

Some people like longer posts! Some people like shorter posts. Some (like myself) largely don't care, so long as they like the other person's style and investment in the plot.

They're good for people in which post length is a deal breaker. Which, if that is a deal breaker for you, then that's alright, and please politely ignore those who talk down to you about it. You don't need to make excuses for what you do or don't prefer in your private hobbies.

 

[RealisticFantasy]

Gee, I didn’t realize asking a question with genuine curiosity would get me some flack just wanted to talk a little bit about different preferences and perspectives

 

[Daisie]

Gee, I didn’t realize asking a question with genuine curiosity would get me some flack just wanted to talk a little bit about different preferences and perspectives

Aw I don't think anyone's giving anyone flak! We're just a spirited sort with many opinions You're all good

 

[Len Auphydas]

I mean they're quite necessary for some people. If someone is making ridiculously long posts then someone who tends to make shorter ones probably wont enjoy it. People who are adaptable and can manage a range of stuff just don't put requirements, and that works just fine for them.

Basically, however many requirements someone might put on their post is justified in my view. Whatever they prefer to have in a partner is good to keep in their LFRP so that people they won't click with won't have to get their hopes up. No one is mandated to RP with anyone else after all. Even in the rare few cases where I might judge someone for their requirements, I'm still grateful that they have them; It just means I would know exactly what kind of RP-er they are and that I wouldn't get along too well with them.

 

[GrumpySwallow]

Post word/length requirements make me nervous so I don't implement them into my RP and I avoid RPs with those requirements. Give me something I can respond to, and I'm good.

 

[Walliver]

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 curious!

1. I don’t feel that these terms are hurtful, necessarily, but being called “semi-literate” when I have the full capability to read and write can be a little disconcerting.
2. A better word or phrase would probably be something like “low effort” for less words or “advanced/high effort” for more words.
3. I don’t really use the “literate” qualifiers. I would say either “relaxed” or “advanced.” I care about the length and complexity of replies, but not at the expense of genuine, good writing.

Honestly, when I see a qualifier like “advanced lit” or “novella,” I do get discouraged. Mostly because these people can be a little pretentious about literature, from what I have seen and experienced. Also, 5k per post is not always possible, and people who have the more advanced qualifiers do not seem to appreciate this fact.

But that’s just what I’ve seen and my experience. I wouldn’t mind writing in a “advanced lit” rp, but if the person running it/my partner is being a literature jerk, it doesn’t matter if the rp is 500 words or 10k, I’m quitting.

Rant over lol.

 

[starrynight06line]

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 curious!

I honestly think these terms can be very helpful! It gives potential roleplay partners an idea of what they can expect from you, and from that they can make some decisions accordingly. Some people may find advanced literate replies a bit too overwhelming, while others may not consider semi-literate replies interesting enough to build a long-term roleplay over them.

I do recognize tho, that the definitions of these terms can slightly differ from one person to another, hence I think it can be beneficial to put a range between two levels or write directly a sample for others to be able to identify better your roleplay style.

I personally always try to match the length/complexity of my roleplay partner, but I do tend to enjoy more a roleplay when the other person has good grammar and is able to infuse their replies with a good amount of detail and introspection. :3

 

[Jannah]

I'm a quality over quantity type of person so I don't typically find length requirements very useful. Some of the most profound writing I've ever seen in RP's has only been in the 100-200 word range while some longer posts have simply been a mess. I think it's more useful to look at potential partner's writing samples beforehand to get a feel for their writing style and whether it will mesh with yours.

 

[GojiBean]

Hoyo!

If I'm being 100% honest, I think a better phrasing for this thread's central premise would be "Are length/complexity requirements your preference? Why, or why not?"

Reason being is because length and complexity are just that: Preferences.

More specifically, they're preferences which are born as byproducts of your personal writing style.

They are not elements of storytelling.

And I feel this distinction is important. I've met some folks who seem to think that post length/complexity are elements of good storytelling, and I'm here to confirm that the opposite is true. Good storytelling can be a catalyst for longer and more complex written material. But it isn't always.

Case in point:

Some of the most famous stories in the world are fewer than 100 pages long, and are written in such a simple style that children can understand them. A good example is the story of The Tortoise and the Hare, which is around 40 pages long (mostly because it's a picture book, and without the pictures it would probably be fewer than 10 pages in length), and is written with such a simple and straightforward style of writing that 3 year olds can understand it. And yet it remains one of the most successful and well-known stories of all time (with a message about hubris and humility to boot).

Contrarily, the Twilight saga, which is so complex it trips over its own lore half the time, is a series of novels, each several hundred pages in length, which are almost universally despised by serious readers as some of the worst vampire fiction, or fiction in general, ever put to paper (or our poor television screens, cue the SpongeBob "MY EYES" meme).

So, yeah. I think whether or not length and complexity are the individual's preference is the more appropriate way to phrase the question.

BUT!!

For the sake of discussion, and because I'm a GojiBean who's known for his opinionated and often times overly blunt responses to threads like this one, I'll go into more detail about my stance on the original questions posed about whether I think length/complexity requirements are "good" or "bad."

You have been warned...

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

Personally, I find them more hurtful than helpful for two reasons:

• One, length/complexity requirements blatantly ignore the fact that good storytelling, and "literate" writing, are not reliant upon, nor directly related to the presence of either term as a variable
  
  
• Two, length/complexity requirements do not in any way guarantee that value is provided which benefits either the user, nor the other participants

Let it be known that I don't have anything against anyone who prefers longer posts. I adapt my post length to fit the needs of the moment. Sometimes I need to write very short and concise posts. Sometimes I need to write a novella post. I'm flexible that way, and equally comfortable writing both. Lol.

Anyway, what do I mean with the two bullet point statements above?

As said in the first bullet point, good storytelling (and "literate" writing) is not reliant upon, nor directly related to length or complexity. It's the other way around. Good storytelling can serve as a catalyst for longer and more complex written material. But it doesn't always. Still, more often than not the stronger your writing skills are the more easily both will come to you. The weaker a writer you are, the harder both will come to you.

But it always comes down to good storytelling first. If you don't have a strong grasp of proper storytelling technique, or any of the elements therein, it doesn't matter how long or "complex" you try to make your posts. They're going to be fluff and filler-laden bore fests that everyone dreads having to skim through to find the important stuff so they can actually find something worth responding to. In short, role players are looking for something of value to respond to.

What is value in terms of roleplaying?

Value refers to information, details, dialogue, actions, or interactions which actually serve a purpose greater than existing purely for the sake of existing.

For example, let's say the GM wants to set the scene in a big city and the main cast is going to go inside a specific building, after which a big event and fight will happen, and then they'll hit the road immediately after to a new location.

Let's also say the GM spends 6 paragraphs describing all the intricate details of the building's exterior because they really wanted to sell the luxurious nature of the building and the folks who own/manage it compared to the slums most of the main cast comes from. How much of those 6 paragraphs are actually meaningful to what's about to happen?

... None of them.

Not a single one.

Why? Because the entire scene is going to take place inside the building. Given that we know we're going to be moving on after this and will likely never see this building again, all those paragraphs describing the building's exterior could instead have been better spent describing the initial impression the building gave off as they entered, and then focus on and describe all of the most important details, items/objects, and people inside who would factor in to the big event and fight that's about to happen.

Point being: If you're going to info dump, at least do it right and make sure the details actually matter and will feature at some point in the future.

If a particular person inside is going to turn out to be one of the main bad guys, spend an extra sentence or two describing their features so their image is burned into our minds. If a particular statue is going to be the instrument of impaling one of the bad guys later on, describe that statue in a sentence or two so we know its relative position, size, and what about it will let us impale someone later. You get the point.

If you can't tell, I've come to absolutely despise unnecessary details. For example, if we're outside and it's a sunny, cloudless day... Leave it at that, please. I know what the sun looks like. I know what a cloudless day looks like. I know how blue the sky is. I know what birds look like when they're flapping about overhead. I know what the wind sounds and feels like. And I don't need anyone trying to give me two 7-sentence long paragraphs describing something so mundane as the cloudless sky before giving me two more 7-sentence paragraphs describing the grass beneath my feet, or two more 7-sentence paragraphs describing the forest outside the city limits, etc.

So, I repeat. If you're going to info dump and give us a bunch of information and "detail," at least make sure that detail has meaning and will in some way be important. If it's not important, or you know it will not feature at any point near or far in the timeline of the RP, don't include it. If you include any meaningless details or information you'll be wasting everyone's time, including your own.

... Phew... Take a breath, Goji...

Told ya I have a tendency to be opinionated and overly blunt.

Anyway...

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

Yes.

"Are length/complexity requirements your preference? Why, or why not?"

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

No.

I adapt my post length to include as much meaningful details and information as possible. Sometimes it's a shorter post. Sometimes it's a longer post. If I can get away with having my character use a single word to convey their thoughts and feelings, I won't waste time trying to have them go on a long-winded rant about how they feel.

Do I care about the length of replies from others? No.

Do I care about the complexity of replies from others? No.

What I care about is whether or not my writing partners are able to return my efforts to include relevant information and detail so that when I make my response, I don't accidentally respond to something that's unimportant and which may as well have never been included in the first place.

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

I'll defer to those who prefer short posts since my post length varies.


Cheers!

 

[Idea]

Do you feel that these terms are helpful or hurtful?

I mean.... hurtful is a strong word for this, but I guess it fits. I guess some people "get it" when it comes to using terms like literate, but I think the term doesn't make any sense if you use it literally and if you don't use it literally it's so vague everyone is going to have their own interpretations - which can be wildly different with no anchor on what could be considered a reasonable interpretation or not. One person may be talking about the verbosity another about length, one about paragraph cure in raw terms another only paragraphs of a certain size, and what even counts as a paragraph besides that, does dialogue, is it only description?... Further the vagueness is emphasized by the misuse of the term by people using the term not as a real descriptor but to try to sound better.

And course in literate and its variants specifically it's a type of terminology which seems to actively invite animosity.

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?

I just say what I mean, I think that's the most succinct way I can put it. After many tries, what I've landed on is word count as the most reliable metric for me. It will still vary depending on the exact kind of roleplay, the leeway I have for my pickiness and simply from time to time, but since I began using it it's consistently brought me the kinds of results I want, improved results in partner matching. Adding to that it's very easy to understand and practical to assess, from both my side and whomever I might be working with - the later being no doubt part of the reason for its success. If I say "I want X words" and that's not how much you're comfortable writing consistently then you know I'm not the best partner for you. You can avoid spending a whole lot of time with me and finding a partner who will enjoy what you can provide them. Meanwhile if you are comfortable writing that much, then to you I might as well not have written it, because it's what you provide anyways, and you know I will appreciate and reciprocate that kind of writing. Seeking out people whose habitual/natural style and/or preference is the one that matches that minimum is precisely what length minimums are about.

Three things to make clear:

• Length is not an end in itself. Length is an indicator, a proxy for a style of writing, which in turn (I believe) is partially a result of a way of thinking and a sense of values when it comes to writing. Yes there will be exceptions. But most people are not exceptions, that's what makes them exceptions. Length isn't the most accurate metric, but it is, as far as I've seen, by far the one that maximizes the mix of practicality and accuracy.
• I am not stating or implying in any part of this that length = skill or length=quality. Nor have I encountered a person who does, just lots of people who believe others do. Regardless, I think different styles call for a different approach, and quality is a function that exists within those categories rather than as a comparison between them.
• Having a minimum makes one more rigid but does not make one completely inflexible. I can give my partners a lot of flexibility but that should be used sparingly when a scene really calls for it that much or if for some week you're not feeling well and still want to post or any other such exceptional cases. A stricter minimum is something for early on in the roleplay when one is still making sure that the partner will keep providing what is expected. For a good partner, counting at all stops early.

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

While I myself prefer longer replies, I do have a pet theory on the matter I tend to go on and on about whenever a thread on this topic comes up. I already mentioned it too - I think writing length and detail largely stems from mindset in writing (combined with skill of course, but skill is less important for what I'm talking about right now) which in turn comes from one's sense of values in writing. The shorter the posts a prefers the narrower their point of focus and the things they care about are in roleplay and writing for roleplay. People writing one-liners will tend to just be happy to have their characters show up in a void and talk or interact for a bit, if a narrative is or forms around it is a secondary concern. What was referred to as the 'casual' approach (which does seem to represent most RPers) focuses on what is happening, the plot, the character dynamics, what is being done, where everyone is going, interactions and such. The events and to an extent the characters are the point of focus here. The rest of the details do matter, but mostly in the sense that they serve the former aspects of plot and character. 'Detailed' writing (again, using some old terminology here) has added care for the process, for exploring the why of things, for worldbuilding outside of what matters for the narrative action, introspection, atmosphere...

If you care about a certain kind of detail you'll think of that kind of thing (and of including it) more easily. You think more of what you're interested in, and it'll make more sense to you to include it instead of discarding it. You'll also feel its absence. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to see how this simple difference in what one finds valuable would lead to drastically different lengths. If everything you care about is that one character is talking to the other, then the subtle air of wealth in the room, the little frightened gestures that hint at a fear of the imposing nature of said wealth upon the character that isn't relevant for the surrounding scenes, the overly long description of a chair being pulled to accentuate the state of mind and focus on the object... these are all things you can freely discard. After all, none of them are the thing that matters, that "greetings, I am -". But to someone who values those details that were discarded, discarding for a trim is out of the question.

I hate that "quality over quantity" has become a subtle way to admonishing lengthier writing styles (typically exaggerating the level of "purple prose" or the motivations behind the people who make them). A good writer will make every word count. If it a post feels padded out then then that's a them issue, not an issue with lengthier requirements/styles in general.

YES, I feel this in my soul. People keep throwing around that phrase like there's some marauding group of elitists going around who still claim length is equal to quality.

Personally, I feel there's a trilemma of length, quality and pace of writing. You can pick any two at a time, though at the sacrifice of a third. I've met very few people who can pull all three with any consistency.

People who are adaptable and can manage a range of stuff just don't put requirements, and that works just fine for them.

I will say, I do take some issue with this. I can and have on no short amount of occasions tried other styles, yet I use requirements. The phrasing you used here seems to imply you're thinking it's a matter of the ability to adapt to lower/higher lengths, but taste and ability are scarcely related.

• One, length/complexity requirements blatantly ignore the fact that good storytelling, and "literate" writing, are not reliant upon, nor directly related to the presence of either term as a variable
  
  
• Two, length/complexity requirements do not in any way guarantee that value is provided which benefits either the user, nor the other participants

I think you're making a very mistaken assumption here: That length requirements are a pursuit of quality in the first place. Don't get me wrong, length requirements are not against the pursuit of quality. And yet, just as they don't guarantee nor is good storytelling reliant upon them, neither is it excluded from them.

We have discussed and disagreed on this topic before in other threads in this nature, but at the risk of going round and round in the wheel, I just find that length requirements are a good indicator for writing style. Not in all cases, but in the majority of them, and by writing style you also get the mindset/approach to writing and sense of values, which are the real goal. The objective of the requirements is to find a matching partner in terms of preferences. The search for quality is not their purpose, nor are you rescinded from finding it. If the only quality is in a style you can't enjoy, then you can't enjoy it even if it's that good.

Value refers to information, details, dialogue, actions, or interactions which actually serve a purpose greater than existing purely for the sake of existing.

The thing is, I don't know if I disagree with your notion of value here, because your definition is inconsistent with your application of it.

You define value as things serving a greater purpose than just existing. Fair enough. However, you then proceed to narrow that purpose into just "serving a purpose in the narrative" (not a quote, just putting it in airquotes to outline the summary). Style, atmosphere, process, worldbuilding... yes, you know what a sunny, cloudless sky looks like, but this doesn't preclude someone to describe it for contrast with the interior, or simply to set a certain mood. What of worldbuilding, can't I take some time to something nice, a good reference for those who will catch on to what was set up before without having to make the entire world revolve around this one adventure just to include it? Some introspection to show an aspect of the character their exterior actions wouldn't allow me to communicate, perhaps made lengthier by using a stylistic approach instead of just telling people what the character is feeling? ....

You might answer all of those have an external purpose, a purpose which I mentioned in the very description. Indeed, I would agree they do. However, unless I am mistaken you're taking more of a Chekov's gun approach here, a focus specifically on what is important for the plot or the character's actions or development. The narrative purpose, not the appreciation of the scene and the writing in of themselves as a finished product.

Which is not to mention the fact that unlike when writing a book, extraneous details are borderline inevitable by the fact you can't actually predict let alone control what will happen. Even as a GM in a group RP, unless you're completely railroading the group you won't get the level of control you'd get for a medium like a book.

Long story shot, I think you're working with a faulty assumption regarding length requirements and also while I very much agree that everything you put in should be have purpose and meaning, I cannot agree on the seeming implication of so much of that potential meaning and purpose being disregarded, not at a universal level, and certainly not in what concerns people like myself who use length requirements.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

Do you feel that these terms are helpful or hurtful?

I think they do more harm than good, primarily because the implication is that "semi-lit" is worse than "adv lit." It encourages treating short posts and their writers as being inferior, which isn't true - they're just different styles. Someone who writes a single-paragraph on average can be just as brilliant as someone who writes 500+ words. Encouraging someone to improve a skill can be great, but not if it potentially leads them to kicking down on others.

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

I don't care enough about having a classification scheme to go through the thought exercise.

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

I prefer to see samples. Just because someone can write x number of words doesn't automatically mean I'm going to like how they roleplay or the way they develop or portray their characters.

But I don't care about length, either. I've enjoyed games where people, on average, wrote 1-2 paragraphs, and others where the posts were longer.

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

"Shorter" is ambiguous, but I will say that I want a natural flow above all else, especially in scenes that are heavy in dialogue or action. When I have to juggle multiple conversations in a single post, or in general when responding starts to feel like a laundry list, I stop having fun.

 

[GojiBean]

Idea

Hoyo!

Apologies for taking so long to respond here!

Goji's got ADHD and gets distracted easily.

Anywho! On to my reply!

And, by the by, you don't have to answer any of my questions or statements. They're mostly food for thought. And I don't want to take over this thread. XD


You say that you use length requirements to get an indication of writing style, and one's mindset/approach to writing, as well as values.

However, can you not get that same information by engaging someone in DM's and asking them direct questions about their style, mindset/approach, and values? It would seem to me that it's not only faster and more convenient, but a better way to get upfront responses before an RP begins. After all, I'd rather know and be able to say "yay" or "nay" to someone before they go through the trouble of creating a character and getting in some posts before then being politely told to find a new RP because they're not measuring up to my standards. Hopefully that makes sense.

Also, what happens if someone's style matches your own except for one detail: Length?

What happens if they've matched you 99% in everything else, but they normally don't write anywhere near as much content as you do? Will you turn them away because of that one mismatched preference? Or will you give them a chance to step outside their comfort zone and meet your standards? Because if you do give them that chance, can you honestly say you're seeing their true style, mindset/approach, and values? After all, if they're stepping outside their comfort zone to match your standards they're no longer writing in their own style or to their own preferences. They're writing to yours, which isn't the same, is it?

Food for thought.


I originally had a GIANT post to respond to all your points, but after review I felt it probably was better to keep it simple.

I'm going to say that it feels like you and I don't necessary disagree so much as we're not properly understanding one another. I don't know if English is your first language (sometimes it seems like it is, sometimes it seems like it isn't). If it's not, then I think it's definitely a language barrier more than an outright disagreement.

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.

To clarify my stance on stylistic writing and giving expanded details, I don't mind it when it happens. I simply made the observation that when you put more detail than otherwise would be needed to get the point across, you're most likely introducing empty content which holds no value. Does it mean you are doing that? No. Just that it might be happening.

For example, if the scene is set in a grassy field under a cloudless sky with a dirt road nearby leading towards a town in the distance, this much detail could easily be seen as good enough information for any reader. If you want to go deeper than that and write about the specific shade of blue that the sky is today, and describe how there are no clouds from horizon to horizon, and that white birds stand out without the clouds to hide them, and that the gentle breeze remains invisible to the eyes without the clouds to give the speed some context but are still discernable thanks to the gentle caress they give your face, and that there's a few visible little dust tornadoes a few feet tall here and there along the dirt road which leads to a town that's just barely visible on the distance, and that there's horse hoofprints in the dirt going back about 50 feet before one's eyes can't make them out anymore, and that the grass is around 5 inches in height, and that-... Okay, you get the idea.

Long story short, I'm a guy who prefers the streamlined example. Can you write more? Absolutely. Is it needed, or should it be "required" to go that extra mile? Personally, I feel the answer is "no" to both.

Personal preference.

Chekhov's Gun can kiss my ass. I do believe in giving everything value. But not to the extent that everything is basically going to break your story if you remove so much as a single sentence. That would drive me insane.

To extraneous details, yes. They're inevitable to some degree. However, in my personal experience they're less likely to show up when people aren't being forced to write a certain volume of content to satisfy the GM's standards. In years past I used length requirements for much the same reason you do regarding how I looked for compatible writing partners. But, over time, I relaxed my preferences and my world as a role player opened up tremendously. And I was fortunate enough to meet a group of people who are, hands down, the best writers I've ever met on any roleplay website, RPN included (sorry RpNation, Admins and my fellow Mods, please don't disown me! ). Anyway! Outside of collab posts where we went back and forth on the content and then one person posted all of it at once, none of these individuals wrote more than about two paragraphs with any level of consistency. It took some getting used to at first. But eventually I learned how to appreciate the depth and quality that good writers could bring with less content versus forcing everyone to write more. And that became my preference. And, after encountering a few GM's who were less than friendly with the way they implemented length requirements, I learned to really not care for them.

Personal preference, and some confirmation bias might be included.

Aaaaaaaand that's about it!

Cheers!

 

[Idea]

Edit: 1, no worries about the delayed response. I'm fine waiting for quality content

2, I'll respond anyway. Just who I am, up to a point. That being said if you want to respond to me and you're concerned about us "taking over the thread", feel free to hit my PMs!

You say that you use length requirements to get an indication of writing style, and one's mindset/approach to writing, as well as values.

However, can you not get that same information by engaging someone in DM's and asking them direct questions about their style, mindset/approach, and values? It would seem to me that it's not only faster and more convenient, but a better way to get upfront responses before an RP begins. After all, I'd rather know and be able to say "yay" or "nay" to someone before they go through the trouble of creating a character and getting in some posts before then being politely told to find a new RP because they're not measuring up to my standards. Hopefully that makes sense.

I'm afraid this question is only even posed at all if you assume that my standards are not put upfront. You seem, at least in this question, to assume I would begin the RP and then inform the other person of the length requirements. I'm not gonna say nobody ever did that because I have personally experienced GMs doing it a couple of times, and I do find that kind of behavior rude to say the least.

But as you may imagine, that assumption is actually incorrect. I am in fact clear and upfront about my length requirements, just as I am about any other requirement and concern I think I might need to clear. Logistics, boring though they may be at times, are always the first thing I try to address, precisely because addressing anything else before I do that is a risk of wasting both mine and the other player's time.

Why not ask them directly? Well, there's several reasons for that. One, people can and do lie, and more are simply lacking in self-awareness and overestimate what they can pull off (no small amount of ghosting cases is caused by entirely predictable cases of 'being busy' for example, and available time is one of those things that factors into what you can afford to promise). That applies whether we're talking length or preferred writing style of course, but not only is length considerably easier to be on the same page about (as in interpreting what the words mean) but also considerably easier to verify. For another thing, people may not be able to put into words exactly what they mean, or understand the intent behind the words of others. Again, there is a big advantage in the simplicity of length requirements because that simplicity is direct and easier to understand. It's practicality as a filter is in part due to that.

Asking directly, from my experience at least and considering the fact that I put right upfront what I want, is not faster, more convenient, nor as effective. There might be cases where someone slips through that doesn't keep up - but if that's case the then one of two things is true by definition. Either this person normally can meet the length requirements and is having a bad spell, in which case hopefully they can recover from it soon and I'll wait patiently or let them have an exception due to the external circumstances , or this person is not actually able to keep up in which case they lied or weren't even aware they were speaking untruthuly.

Also, what happens if someone's style matches your own except for one detail: Length?

Sees here's my reason: When I link length to mindset, this is due to the consequences values produces on mindset, mindset on style and style on length. That last part is important to this question - the entire point of filtering through length is because the style will tend to necessitate length. Caring more about certain details is going to make more content for the posts and all else constant more content means more length.

Now, I do not entirely rule out the possibility that somewhere out there is a rare gem who makes the perfect posts for me style-wise but just doesn't want length the way I do - maybe they even prefer shorter posts. But that one rare gem is not worth all the other people I would have to go through just to inevitably get disappointed.

What happens if they've matched you 99% in everything else, but they normally don't write anywhere near as much content as you do? Will you turn them away because of that one mismatched preference? Or will you give them a chance to step outside their comfort zone and meet your standards? Because if you do give them that chance, can you honestly say you're seeing their true style, mindset/approach, and values? After all, if they're stepping outside their comfort zone to match your standards they're no longer writing in their own style or to their own preferences. They're writing to yours, which isn't the same, is it?

I agree, it is true that if someone is forcing themselves to meet my style then this is them forcing themselves and not a reflection. And this is frankly why I don't like it when people say "I'll mirror you", because much like the "I'll roleplay anything" it does not born of the extremely, extremely unlikely scenario of someone actually having no preference, and more than likely betrays the lack of awareness (or expression) of said preference. But that's a whole other topic.

(Also very small note, to be clear I'm not proposing I can do anything as arrogant as to say I fully understand someone's mindset, values etc... just from writing style or even entirely what pertains to it. My contention is merely that length hints at these things and thus far to my experience has shown both logical and empirical consistency)

That being said, my answer to whether I'd give such a person a chance is complicated, because I do know for a fact someone's style can change, and quite quickly at that. One of my favorite partners did exactly that, working straight past my cynicism, which to this day is a feat I'm quite impressed by.

I'm going to say that it feels like you and I don't necessary disagree so much as we're not properly understanding one another. I don't know if English is your first language (sometimes it seems like it is, sometimes it seems like it isn't). If it's not, then I think it's definitely a language barrier more than an outright disagreement.

My first language is Portuguese, but I speak English quite fluently. It's still possible there is a miscommunication of course, but if there is it might be more on the use/interpretation of terms or something similar to that.

After reading through the rest of the post - nope, I don't think it was even that. I would need to read your previous post again to check, and it's getting late as is for me, but I think what happened here is I took what you probably intended to be non-comprehensive examples as a much more definitive list. I took what they all seemed to be pointing to and possibly read more into an unintentional pattern than was meant to be there.

As for your larger post, I think on most things about it, others are personal preference. The one point I would object to is that length requirements aren't about forcing anyone to meet a certain standard. They are about finding people who meet that standard without having to be consistently forced to do it. People's who's values/mindset/writing style naturally leads to writing that kind of longer post.

I think one thing that might illustrate my point is using long strings of dialogue (assume in this case that the person has the bare minimum competence to not go to the kind of strawman extremes some would mention) compared to back and forth dialogue. I will ignore exceptions such as temporary lifting of the requirements or doing a collaborative post, which are potential solutions. Back and forth dialogue may at times require shorter posts, because too little is happening and even external description and scene externalities like flashbacks can only do so much. It's also more organic, and if you know what you're doing, more natural-sounding dialogue. But if someone doesn't value the more organic nature and better flow of that kind of dialogue and cares more for what you can pack into the longer dialogue, be it a build-up of emotions, a lot of set-up or even just efficiency, then:

-they are less likely to enter scenes that are just back and forth dialogue in the first place
-they probably won't miss the back and forth dialogue scenes much
-even if they do engage in such a scene, they are still likely to try to veer to the other style a bit or at least be more descriptive than otherwise
-they will tend to write lengthier dialogue with more in mind those other narrative benefits

In short, they will tend to write at least something approximating the longer, more artificial kind of dialogue. There's definitely a trade-off, but it's like buying something: You trade in the money because whatever you're getting is worth more to you. Like everyone and their grandmother said: It's a matter of preference. I'm just expressing that preference in the form of a requirement that should be little barrier to those that share that preference. Being succint or lengthy isn't actually what matters to me. But what does matter to me, will often show in length - and the success of the filter for me I think goes a long way in demonstrating that.


In any case thank you for taking the time for the response GojiBean

 

[RedArmyShogun]

I don't have much to say that Idea already hasn't. I agree with most of if not almost all of what they said. My response will not be nearly as long or detailed for the fact Idea has put it very well, but here we go;

• 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 curious!

1. No. The terms are very useful and short of "stalking" the account and post history of another, these terms help you find players that you would likely, like or could tolerate being around. Its like when I see a short interest check. All it really tells me is that the creator doesn't care about the project enough to fully explain themselves or would likely be a GM in which my time would be wasted with. Unfortunately, as you get older having time wasted can get to be angering as its the one resource you can't get back or buy more of.

2. Nope, what we have works, the definitions could be expanded upon with clear cut examples, however. And players should not be afraid to aspire to a higher, or in some cases lower tier. In regard to what they are comfortable with. I for example would *hate* doing any sort of one liner RP as that low effort and a waste, a boring waste. At the same time, I actually want to RP and not engage in a novel writing session, nor to wait for one reply a month.

3. Yes I do use them. It gives me some idea as if I can rp with this player, if their efforts and style are ones that mesh with my own. If this player will actually put in a lot of effort, or if they are too... hmm... pretentious for me to deal with? My typical replies are 3 paragraphs or more, but never to "chapter" length I would say and I can push out posts at a regular rate.

4. I don't. If you want some back-and-forth dialogue, which is understandable. It is also the purpose of collabs, and do try and keep them as a collab. I've seen waaaaaaaay too many people over the years turning a collab interaction into a 30+ page ordeal. Short replies have a purpose, but they should be incorporated into something more pleasing to read.

In closing, I typically take this hobby a bit serious, because it costs the most precious of resources. Time.

 

[A Sparkling Zombie]

If you want some back-and-forth dialogue, which is understandable. It is also the purpose of collabs[...]

My perspective on this, as someone who doesn't place much importance on length, is that roleplay is already a collaborative endeavor. There can be etiquette reasons for bundling back-and-forths in group games. There can also be practical motivations, such as moving past one-response exchanges, or because timeliness is a concern and the other participant will be more responsive OOC. Outside of those reasons, personally, I'd rather post as normal. Both methods require a back-and-forth between me and the other person. They lead to the same destination and the content will be virtually the same.

 

[RedArmyShogun]

My perspective on this, as someone who doesn't place much importance on length, is that roleplay is already a collaborative endeavor. There can be etiquette reasons for bundling back-and-forths in group games. There can also be practical motivations, such as moving past one-response exchanges, or because timeliness is a concern and the other participant will be more responsive OOC. Outside of those reasons, personally, I'd rather post as normal. Both methods require a back-and-forth between me and the other person. They lead to the same destination and the content will be virtually the same.

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.