RP clichés?

[Elephantom]

it´s the basis, because again, unless you have a plot that REQUIRES adults, it´s easier to make one with teens. Three reasons for it:
1.Teens are easier to gather, as they have schools and such things


2. Teens are the common accepted, it´s the first thing that pops into your mind if you want to have a closed age group


3. Teens are in the most suited time of their lives as far as psychological growth is when considering a character: Teens are finding their sense of identity and are beginning to explore the concept of sexuality. It´s perfect for RPs ,as they usually occur over short spans of time, and they need to have character growth and romance within that.


The last topic in particular, teens wouldn´t really be a cliché, as they haven´t lost meaning, it is still applied.

But it's actually quite the true fact that they've been over-used, a lot. It's an indisputable fact. Now, the point you're trying to clarify is a coming-of-the-age schematic, right? Okay, one, twice or even thrice at a time may seem real fine and dandy, but when the realistic or modern section is practically dominated by what you're describing, and has been so for last few month, since I've been here, then this can clearly be dubbed as an overused topic, which has certainly lost a clear meaning. I mean, you really don't explore the same thing over, over and over again, do you? Now, half the time this isn't even about sexuality or identity, it's all teenage angst. I've actually seen no RP, which explores this matter, or even tries to hold it as important, like how the person may have discovered his sexuality, and how frightening it can be. And how he's forged an identity for himself. It's a very difficult concept to visualize, or even masterfully, symbolise. Now, you may put your point as a 'secondary' or even 'passive' matter, but then again, what you're dictating can purely be achieved by a real focus. School role plays, what you're describing as 'easy gatherings', are an extremely overused topic, and as much as I'd say not, it really does deserve to be deemed a cliche.

I would actually say the opposite: Zombie plots have so much intriguide and tension that it degrades itself. More than rip-offs, zombie apolcalypses are practically replays in most cases. Disguised fandoms. I will agree they are a cliché, but you have to consider if realism and intriguide is really what is at heart in a zombie apocalypse story.

And originality, don't forget this matter. Zombie apocalypse can actually aspire to be something bigger, but it fails, primarily because it's stuck in itself. There's not tense plotline, just a bunch of survivors who deal with the hardships of surviving an apocalypse, and kill some dead men who also seem to be walking.

have you SEEN these "detailed meaningful plots"? Let me tell you the fantasy section is crawling up with worlds of clearly extensive content and very meaningful and detailed, but then loose themselves because they only appeal to a ninche.

You don't have to come up with a bunch of over-explained quantity-over-quality item for it to be declared a truly great example of literature. For it to be really meaningful, it has to craft a story that is bold, enduring and has a soul of its own, not just a bunch of words dedicated to a particular niche. I have been in fairly 'meaningful' RPs, but do take note that they died down, very quickly too, might I add. Plus, of the story itself isn't of a mature stature, then what is the real appeal of it?


Forgive the extremely long, and perhaps even dragged on, post, which may or may not have been more of a rant than a direct answer.

Oh my god, yes, this. I hate looking through ICs only to see that every topic starts with "[x amount] teens in their last year of school/on a cruise/in a vacation home doing [random edgy stuff]"

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about here. It's so overused and simplistic, you don't even have to create a detailed plotline for it.


Example: ____ teenagers in ____ doing _____.


I think I've summarized most plotlines which concern 'teenage angst' or whatever they call it nowadays.

 

[Idea]

But it's actually quite the true fact that they've been over-used, a lot. It's an indisputable fact. Now, the point you're trying to clarify is a coming-of-the-age schematic, right? Okay, one, twice or even thrice at a time may seem real fine and dandy, but when the realistic or modern section is practically dominated by what you're describing, and has been so for last few month, since I've been here, then this can clearly be dubbed as an overused topic, which has certainly lost a clear meaning. I mean, you really don't explore the same thing over, over and over again, do you? Now, half the time this isn't even about sexuality or identity, it's all teenage angst. I've actually seen no RP, which explores this matter, or even tries to hold it as important, like how the person may have discovered his sexuality, and how frightening it can be. And how he's forged an identity for himself. It's a very difficult concept to visualize, or even masterfully, symbolise. Now, you may put your point as a 'secondary' or even 'passive' matter, but then again, what you're dictating can purely be achieved by a real focus. School role plays, what you're describing as 'easy gatherings', are an extremely overused topic, and as much as I'd say not, it really does deserve to be deemed a cliche.

there is a lot to reply to there, but let´s start with clarifications.


1. What stated teens help do is carve a pathway for things that are otherwise much more complexe to deal with ESPECIALLY in a short amount of time, such as love, character growth, gathering characters, etc... Of course, these have other ways to be accomplished, but if you want the RP to have some sense, you have to consider at what point you can that a person not on their teens and changes personality over a week, twice, is "growing" or "progressing" or if they have some kind of personality disorder. In a sense, teens confer realism basic needs of an RP, while at the same time doing so in a way that allows you to focus on the more important aspects of the plot. Even if people are not aware of why they do it, this is still the purpose that it is given, and thus it has meaning and is not cliché.


2.I will now clarify that I can´t speak much for realistic RPs, considering I really don´t like that genre and indeed, teens in that context are quite possibly cliché, but that´s because the genre loses variety very quickly and is something that requires more freedom to explore the world that is locked and thus, roleplays with teens tend to focus much more on teen angst there.


3. On sexuality, when I mentioned it, the idea of exploring sexuality has to do with how easily characters fall into romance in roleplays. It makes much more sense as teens who don´t really have all that much judgment on the matter, at least not if compared to full adults.


4. Being overused alone doesn't make something cliché. That´s like saying having a main character in a story is cliché. It´s used virtually every single time, but each of those, the concept and nature of being a "main character" remain.


5. No, I don´t want to see the same thing over and over again, and that´s all the more reason to fill gaps with the familiar, so people can take time to focus on actually important plot and character aspects.

And originality, don't forget this matter. Zombie apocalypse can actually aspire to be something bigger, but it fails, primarily because it's stuck in itself. There's not tense plotline, just a bunch of survivors who deal with the hardships of surviving an apocalypse, and kill some dead men who also seem to be walking.

You´re kind of going into that boat dilema here.


If you have a boat of wood and you take one piece of it at a time, replacing it with a new one, at what point does it cease to be the same boat as the original? If you reassemble all the removed parts back into a boat, which one is the original?


You´re basically asking that, instead of building upon the core of the zombie apocalypse, people try deviating from the zombie apocalypse, to improve it. Isn´t that contradictory?

For it to be really meaningful, it has to craft a story that is bold, enduring and has a soul of its own, not just a bunch of words dedicated to a particular niche. I

beautiful words, I suppose, but you can´t really give a concrete description of what you´re looking for, and never will.


There are many kinds of depth, the two most proiminent you have already rejected:


*drama


*complexity


Beyond these two, justification, creativity and analogical themes are basically what else you have for depth. The problems remains, though, in any kind of depth, that the deeper you go the more people you turn away. You can´t appeal to everyone in a concrete piece of work. It will naturally become harder and harder to actually get anywhere. That is why I said it appeals only to a ninche.


As for "meaningful" that is even harder to determine and really depends on what you meant by it, however, a plot is usually meaningful upon execution rather than before. A simple premise does not make a plot inherently meaningless. If it is just a "bad boy x good girl" it can still be done well and meaningfully.


Now, if you say "oh, the conflict is too simplistic", that I´ll agree. On too many RPs, it´s good vs bad and people forget there´s always grey. However, in those cases, it´s usually a problem with characters rather than the plot.

Plus, of the story itself isn't of a mature stature, then what is the real appeal of it?

You´re uhm...kidding, right? Are you seriously telling me that any RPs that take things in a light mood or simply lack dark and complex themes are bad?

 

[Elephantom]

there is a lot to reply to there, but let´s start with clarifications.
1. What stated teens help do is carve a pathway for things that are otherwise much more complexe to deal with ESPECIALLY in a short amount of time, such as love, character growth, gathering characters, etc... Of course, these have other ways to be accomplished, but if you want the RP to have some sense, you have to consider at what point you can that a person not on their teens and changes personality over a week, twice, is "growing" or "progressing" or if they have some kind of personality disorder. In a sense, teens confer realism basic needs of an RP, while at the same time doing so in a way that allows you to focus on the more important aspects of the plot. Even if people are not aware of why they do it, this is still the purpose that it is given, and thus it has meaning and is not cliché.


2.I will now clarify that I can´t speak much for realistic RPs, considering I really don´t like that genre and indeed, teens in that context are quite possibly cliché, but that´s because the genre loses variety very quickly and is something that requires more freedom to explore the world that is locked and thus, roleplays with teens tend to focus much more on teen angst there.


3. On sexuality, when I mentioned it, the idea of exploring sexuality has to do with how easily characters fall into romance in roleplays. It makes much more sense as teens who don´t really have all that much judgment on the matter, at least not if compared to full adults.


4. Being overused alone doesn't make something cliché. That´s like saying having a main character in a story is cliché. It´s used virtually every single time, but each of those, the concept and nature of being a "main character" remain.


5. No, I don´t want to see the same thing over and over again, and that´s all the more reason to fill gaps with the familiar, so people can take time to focus on actually important plot and character aspects.

But, human emotions are actually a complex matter, and as such, it's better to develop their emotions slowly, even adult human beings are capable of real emotions, they're not robots.


The concept itself is only okay if the players itself want to change their character's personality for no damn reason, which is, of course, and extremely bad habit considering roleplays. It therefore clarifies that said person is incapable of building upon his character's emotions properly and he's unable to develop him further.


I'm using the term 'overused' to express the amount of simplistic teenage RPs that this site has garnered. It's practically filled with teenager RPs, upon dictating this to my brother, he was simply appalled and confused by this. As to why they would need so many teenagers. You don't need teenagers to make a fine story, you need skills, and you ain't gonna justify that with teenagers or whatever.


Yes, you agreed that yourself. You don't wanna see the same thing over and over again, nobody wants them. The matter slowly gets stressed, until it becomes a cliche. Which is exactly what I'm talking about here.

You´re kind of going into that boat dilema here.
If you have a boat of wood and you take one piece of it at a time, replacing it with a new one, at what point does it cease to be the same boat as the original? If you reassemble all the removed parts back into a boat, which one is the original?


You´re basically asking that, instead of building upon the core of the zombie apocalypse, people try deviating from the zombie apocalypse, to improve it. Isn´t that contradictory?

Are you trying to point out that said person is completely incapable of building a boat that does deviate from the unoriginal overused plotline, that is your generic zombie apocalypse. It's possible to build a very original setting and backstory behind the zombie apocalypse, and simply just try to not be a lazy-ass writer.

beautiful words, I suppose, but you can´t really give a concrete description of what you´re looking for, and never will.
There are many kinds of depth, the two most proiminent you have already rejected:


*drama


*complexity


Beyond these two, justification, creativity and analogical themes are basically what else you have for depth. The problems remains, though, in any kind of depth, that the deeper you go the more people you turn away. You can´t appeal to everyone in a concrete piece of work. It will naturally become harder and harder to actually get anywhere. That is why I said it appeals only to a ninche.


As for "meaningful" that is even harder to determine and really depends on what you meant by it, however, a plot is usually meaningful upon execution rather than before. A simple premise does not make a plot inherently meaningless. If it is just a "bad boy x good girl" it can still be done well and meaningfully.


Now, if you say "oh, the conflict is too simplistic", that I´ll agree. On too many RPs, it´s good vs bad and people forget there´s always grey. However, in those cases, it´s usually a problem with characters rather than the plot.

Ask any writer, and he'll definitely say that complexity isn't merely achieved by detailing every single possible thing. That's a bad thing to do, especially in terms of literary writing. If you wanna achieve the boredom of your readers, you can do so by detailing every single possible thing except for the primary atmosphere and the matter at hand. If you keep on talking about what every building looks like, than how are you going to perfectly develop your character and the setting itself? Ask any writer, go to any site lecturing on how to be a better writer, and they'll all give you basically the same answer. Keep your words concise yet containing a deeper meaning and the ability to perfectly express what is happening inside the fiction. By detailing too much, you're turning away most readers. The readers need to be compelled by the storyline, the need to continue further on, and excited about the very premise.


Said person who cannot afford to concentrate and appreciate a really good piece of work, has to be considered a minority. What do you think? Most good novels where achieved with a simplistic plot and without exploring our protagonist's inner conflicts? And the were plotlines only consisted of teenage angst and a basic zombie apocalypse?


A simple plot, by definition, should make the matter meaningless. For he basically has defined his premise to readers, a good X bad, people will be turned away from it, because it's a cliche. Mainly because good x bad isn't how the world works, there has to be an ulterior motive. Convictions. A conflict. It's also true that a writer needs to start from the middle, instead of spending too much time on the beginning, but only if you happen to nab a good, solid premise, is the point it you can really write the story tastefully or not. You don't just write two words and an alphabet into a piece of paper and call it a day. Whatever happens, it depends on the writer and his skills.

You´re uhm...kidding, right? Are you seriously telling me that any RPs that take things in a light mood or simply lack dark and complex themes are bad?

Maturity doesn't mean darkness or bad. Even light-hearted stories need a complex matter, or it isn't a role play that's really developing itself onto a good story. It simply isn't. While people may deviate from serious writing sometimes, usually just for laughs and a bit of fun, I'd say that overly simplistic stories aren't good ones.

 

[norway]

One of the greatest peeves of mine, which I've witnessed on multiple different sites, would be a personality that lacks consistency. It was vaguely mentioned in another comment here. While I do think everyone's got their general personalities and then defining quirks and differentiation, you can't be everything at once (to extreme degrees, anyways). But the cliche that goes hand in hand with that is:


"she's really friendly and loving, but super sarcastic, doesn't let anyone in and will fight for those she loves-"


Get's along with everyone, but will turn around and slice you with their tongue, understands what everyone's going through, but no one could ever get them. you don't get my story shoot me.


Also the abandoned/orphaned/abused child background. It's more apparent with certain genres or over used plot lines, but I believe using these backgrounds rather casually desensitizes people to the true emotional toll one undergoes with a history like this and thus deludes potential character development - also rarely captured are the thousands of souls that rise up from this and aren't defined by a tough past, it's often extremely over dramatic and so drowned in self pity I find it a turn off. It's romanticized - like vampires drawing blood and Stockholm syndrome - a pitiful past that someone swoons at the thought of the enduring character being swept away from, by a more privileged or understanding romantic interest.


I absolutely think they're wonderful inspirations or definitive aspects for a character, just like illnesses, identity struggles, religion, etc. But when it starts to lose it's luster, written sorely for a fantasy most can't relate to but they want to live out their romances through a story, well... It just tramples all over the significance of an adventure, a struggle and potential development. Mind you I've said I believe this or the word often, I'm not deeming anything anything so the advocacy should be opinionated, not argumentative.


Would be nice if someone considered what their writing, though.

 

[Idea]

But, human emotions are actually a complex matter, and as such, it's better to develop their emotions slowly, even adult human beings are capable of real emotions, they're not robots.
The concept itself is only okay if the players itself want to change their character's personality for no damn reason, which is, of course, and extremely bad habit considering roleplays. It therefore clarifies that said person is incapable of building upon his character's emotions properly and he's unable to develop him further.

You do realize the amazingly slow pace (regarding time) in which many, if not most, RPs move, right? The problem isn´t adults not being able to feel emotions or grow, obviously they are, but that adults aren´t as fluctuating on that matter as teens, not by a long shot. It´s not building up emotions wrong, because they can still be very well build-up, but it IS building up emotions and growth with a degree of impact that you could never find in an adult in that span of time. Regarding, say, romance, an adult wouldn´t develop that kind of feelings over two/three days. However, sometimes that happens in RP. YOu have to remember two/three days can, in some RPs, be 2 pages and like four days of roleplaying, but in others it may be some 40 pages or more, with months of roleplaying , to the point where there NOT being any romance yet would be the weird version.

I'm using the term 'overused' to express the amount of simplistic teenage RPs that this site has garnered. It's practically filled with teenager RPs, upon dictating this to my brother, he was simply appalled and confused by this. As to why they would need so many teenagers. You don't need teenagers to make a fine story, you need skills, and you ain't gonna justify that with teenagers or whatever.

"You need skills" is too much of a demand, in case you haven´t noticed. Skills help you anywhere, I won´t deny that. But you can´t demand people have them. Roleplaying is, first and foremost, a hobby. Nobody in my awareness is making a job out of it and nobody is about to put it up in a museum. I don´t say we should discard everything for the sake of fun, that would be chaotic and dumb, but I am saying that you cannot expect something like "skills" in any form of large community, especially one dedicated to something that does not REQUIRE you to have skills. So, naturally the board would be filled up with people without it.


You may be wondering why I went into explaining that, when certainly people without skills continually using a given theme would make it cliché, since it would be poorly used, right? Well, not always, as this very case proves. A lot of people learn by imitation, in fact, all of us do. By taking that to RP, they´ll naturally want to copy and teens are actually one of the thing that represents the best copy, as it has NOT lost it´s meaning yet, even if that meaning is no longer consciously sought out. Without losing meaning, something is not a cliché, nomatter how much you use it.

Are you trying to point out that said person is completely incapable of building a boat that does deviate from the unoriginal overused plotline, that is your generic zombie apocalypse. It's possible to build a very original setting and backstory behind the zombie apocalypse, and simply just try to not be a lazy-ass writer.

You got me quite wrong there. I was trying to point out the fact that to improve something there are two strategies, either to build upon the core concepts that existed before or add new ones. You mostly seemed to be going for the second option, which faced the danger of ceasing to can really be considered a zombie apocalypse.

Ask any writer

*cough**cough*

Said person who cannot afford to concentrate and appreciate a really good piece of work, has to be considered a minority. What do you think? Most good novels where achieved with a simplistic plot and without exploring our protagonist's inner conflicts? And the were plotlines only consisted of teenage angst and a basic zombie apocalypse?

For starters, that "what do you think" question makes everything seem like a personal attack, even if it isn´t. Please choose your words better.


Second, please remember that us having this discussion would never have been possible if not just one but several basic zombie apocalypse and teenage angst stories hadn´t been enormously successful.


Third, I don´t know where you pulled that "person who cannot afford to concentrate and appreciate a really good piece of work" or why, since I know I didn´t bring up anything like that.


Fourth, yeah, most successful things in fact almost every piece of literature you actually find on shelves can be boiled down to incredibly simplistic premises. You can have all the depth you want it´s gonna be crap if you don´t know what to do with it. Execution is the important part, and some people do more things with their lives than that one roleplay they put up. Heck, even people who don´t STILL simplify some aspects in favor of others. Tolkien, for example, spent 20 years developing these amazing background and characters, and everything else we know as "Middle Earth" (not the Norsic mythology one). It´s an undeniably amazing work, and yet it´s plot is very, very simplistic, in fact, it´s the very example you made: Good vs Evil. And we´re talking a person who for one had full control of the writing and the other had 20 years rather than a few weeks (how long most roleplays last).


The point is, it´s not that a simplistic premise is inherently bad, sure it´s worse than a non-simplistic premise, but you have to consider what else is improved by it´s simplism. And if you say "nothing" , then you´re definitely thinking about people who would never be able to give you what you want anyway. There is a bare minimum of realism one must have when looking in forums.


Basically, you said it yourself:

Whatever happens, it depends on the writer and his skills.

on a sidenote, good vs evil is bad because people mix it with overdramatic situations and pull it up without thinking and without making proper use of it. Good Vs Bad was originally a symbolic thing, and at the loss of such symbolism it lost meaning and became a cliché. And THAT, my friend, is a prime example of a premise that is both very simplistic and for the longest time was extremely meaningful.

I'd say that overly simplistic stories aren't good ones.

That´s begging the question. To say that "overly" in anything, of course it leads to something that isn´t good, that´s what "overly" means.ANd if you mean to say a simplistic premise can´t be taken seriously, you´re laughably wrong.


Again, I am just playing the devil´s advocate here, trying to defend a cause that I don´t necessarily support. Overly simplistic or unoriginal things aren´t appealing to me either, but it´s still important to at least try to comprehend why they are there- and in this case, whether or not that makes them meanignless.

 

[SecretRock]

Not sure if this counts as a cliché but something I'm kind of sick of in RPs are characters having drawbacks like being blind or being in a wheelchair, the latter of which is rare anyway, but then they magically get fixed or magically hove some way of bypassing it like having some kind of magic that basically lets them see or they have wings that they always use. When people do this it's normally just something for their character to angst over, eg, 'I've never seen my mother's face.'


Another one is characters who've killed people in their past, and it's either all they talk about and they won't let anyone help with their guilt or it's immediately dismissed.


Again, not sure if these are clichés, but they are common, in my experience, and they are annoying.

 

[Muffinboi]

1. Most if not all the characters being late teens/young adults. It's even worse when it's mandatory.


2. A fantasy setting where the races are just Tolkien copies.

 

[SecretRock]

1. Most if not all the characters being late teens/young adults. It's even worse when it's mandatory.
2. A fantasy setting where the races are just Tolkien copies.

I know! I have this character I really like but I usually can't us him because he's a selkie and most fantasy threads are either humans with superpowers or elves and orcs.

 

[call me rae]

1. Most if not all the characters being late teens/young adults. It's even worse when it's mandatory.
2. A fantasy setting where the races are just Tolkien copies.

Same thing with urban fantasy. There is more to vampire and werewolves than brooding badboys or macho men to swoon over your delicate flower - slash crouching maiden hidden badass.

 

[call me rae]

Another cliche that I have seen a lot is


Male does XYZ to get Female to fall in love/slash notice him.

 

[Elephantom]

You do realize the amazingly slow pace (regarding time) in which many, if not most, RPs move, right? The problem isn´t adults not being able to feel emotions or grow, obviously they are, but that adults aren´t as fluctuating on that matter as teens, not by a long shot. It´s not building up emotions wrong, because they can still be very well build-up, but it IS building up emotions and growth with a degree of impact that you could never find in an adult in that span of time. Regarding, say, romance, an adult wouldn´t develop that kind of feelings over two/three days. However, sometimes that happens in RP. YOu have to remember two/three days can, in some RPs, be 2 pages and like four days of roleplaying, but in others it may be some 40 pages or more, with months of roleplaying , to the point where there NOT being any romance yet would be the weird version.

Adults are, in fact, capable of romance, it's the prose and skills of the writer to handle it smoothly, will he finally be capable of executing a romantic relationship properly. Romance aren't like 'ooh, love in first sight, ooh', it's more of a compelling side plot, or to some extent, a primary one. If it happens instantaneously within four days or without any coherent explanation or conflict, the very concept of it would indicate a lack of productivity in the writer, thus the birth of the 'simple' section, which people should use instead of detailed ones, more on that later. Most great books I read actually contained adult characters, not hastily put up teenagers.

"You need skills" is too much of a demand, in case you haven´t noticed. Skills help you anywhere, I won´t deny that. But you can´t demand people have them. Roleplaying is, first and foremost, a hobby. Nobody in my awareness is making a job out of it and nobody is about to put it up in a museum. I don´t say we should discard everything for the sake of fun, that would be chaotic and dumb, but I am saying that you cannot expect something like "skills" in any form of large community, especially one dedicated to something that does not REQUIRE you to have skills. So, naturally the board would be filled up with people without it.
You may be wondering why I went into explaining that, when certainly people without skills continually using a given theme would make it cliché, since it would be poorly used, right? Well, not always, as this very case proves. A lot of people learn by imitation, in fact, all of us do. By taking that to RP, they´ll naturally want to copy and teens are actually one of the thing that represents the best copy, as it has NOT lost it´s meaning yet, even if that meaning is no longer consciously sought out. Without losing meaning, something is not a cliché, nomatter how much you use it.

I'm not demanding them, I'm constituting the fact that you can't write a good story without any skills. You need them. If the can't handle the heat of writing real good, even as a hobby, then they really shouldn't lobby the detailed section, which I believe, should not only contain prose, but depth of story and skilful character development. That is what you're talking about here, the 'simple' section, which roughly amounts to a certain amount of people who display no skill nor development in their posts. Detailed Roleplays need skilled writers to weave a compelling story from the narrative of a large amount of people, so that those who read and write feel excitement and a need to continue on.


Imitation, yes. Most of us do know that 99.9% of all Fics do contain a cliche or a trope, but it doesn't matter of they're there, it matters if the writer himself gracefully employs it. Teens have lost their meanings, lobby down to the realistic and modern section, and you'll see the horror itself. Thousands of teen and high school fantasies, is this a hobby? Or a nightmare? Befitting only the most iron-hearted veteran, who can handle all the rush of it, without growing a hate for it or turning mentally insane. The former of which I've adopted, when I've found myself unable to comprehend their incompatibility with real life, their inability to understand what's gone stale and what's not. It has lost its meaning, you're hopelessly clinging onto the belief that the teenage and high school concepts are still fresh. They aren't, they've gone stale. They've gone cliche.


Pardon my frankness here.


Teen and young adult RPs have gone stale, there's absolutely no reason to believe that. Ask any user, and there's a higher chance that he'll say that teen and high school fantasies are dime a dozen, there are a lot of them out there, with exactly the same plotline. That makes the very core of it cliche, at least here it is.


They should try to imitate more better stuff.

You got me quite wrong there. I was trying to point out the fact that to improve something there are two strategies, either to build upon the core concepts that existed before or add new ones. You mostly seemed to be going for the second option, which faced the danger of ceasing to can really be considered a zombie apocalypse.

But without fresh, new ones, it would all prove only to be the same old unoriginal item. It's like putting an attachment on a gun, that's already established itself, and trying to sell it as a different one. Zombie apocalypse, themselves, can try something different, original. Plain old facts.

For starters, that "what do you think" question makes everything seem like a personal attack, even if it isn´t. Please choose your words better.
Second, please remember that us having this discussion would never have been possible if not just one but several basic zombie apocalypse and teenage angst stories hadn´t been enormously successful.


Third, I don´t know where you pulled that "person who cannot afford to concentrate and appreciate a really good piece of work" or why, since I know I didn´t bring up anything like that.


Fourth, yeah, most successful things in fact almost every piece of literature you actually find on shelves can be boiled down to incredibly simplistic premises. You can have all the depth you want it´s gonna be crap if you don´t know what to do with it. Execution is the important part, and some people do more things with their lives than that one roleplay they put up. Heck, even people who don´t STILL simplify some aspects in favor of others. Tolkien, for example, spent 20 years developing these amazing background and characters, and everything else we know as "Middle Earth" (not the Norsic mythology one). It´s an undeniably amazing work, and yet it´s plot is very, very simplistic, in fact, it´s the very example you made: Good vs Evil. And we´re talking a person who for one had full control of the writing and the other had 20 years rather than a few weeks (how long most roleplays last).


The point is, it´s not that a simplistic premise is inherently bad, sure it´s worse than a non-simplistic premise, but you have to consider what else is improved by it´s simplism. And if you say "nothing" , then you´re definitely thinking about people who would never be able to give you what you want anyway. There is a bare minimum of realism one must have when looking in forums.

Your attack upon a word, offensive or otherwise, was distasteful, and of course, a last ditch attempt. An ad hominem, I'd say. Please, try to answer any questions, however they are, without pulling off a cheap attack.


Teenage Angst and zombie apocalypse stories with basic plotlines, are only commercially successful, not critically, of course, since following the same thematic over and over again with different characters and different settings, does automatically make it a good story. Most good stories I've read, focused more on the inner conflict in humans, and their agenda and whatnot, they simply don't focus themselves on 'teenage' angst. For God's sakes, anyone can experience angst, but that's off-topic. What in trying to say here is that teenage angst isn't a raw, fresh-off-the-hook idea here. It has been used for ages, and primarily in novels for people who lack taste and has nothing better to do. Even if the protagonist is a teenager, it shouldn't be a focal point. The story itself and his inner conflicts should be.


You did, people who cannot concentrate nor thoroughly appreciate anything good, will of course, almost always drag themselves to the teenage angst and high school thematic.


Someone who can write a compelling premise, can of course, pull of the execution too. Whatever you think about it, the good X bad idea was squeezed out of its juice a very long time ago. People tend to write their pieces more realistically. Yes, what you're saying here is quite true, but the premise itself needs to be coherent. The premise and the execution has to be good, lacking either would result in a crapsack pile of work. Tolkien was writing about fantasy, fantasies themselves happen to have 'unrealistic' plots, it's the basic idea of it. Heck, everybody knows that. What I was talking about was the more 'realistic and modern' settings, which have a more higher chance of ending up as a crapsack. C.R.A.P.S.A.C.K. It's a definition so vile, it's only used to describe only the most awful of stories, ones which possesses absolutely no effort in both the execution and the premise, this is a fact we can all agree upon.


I did say it myself, but the critique of the situation can differ according to the material and genre/theme of said material.

on a sidenote, good vs evil is bad because people mix it with overdramatic situations and pull it up without thinking and without making proper use of it. Good Vs Bad was originally a symbolic thing, and at the loss of such symbolism it lost meaning and became a cliché. And THAT, my friend, is a prime example of a premise that is both very simplistic and for the longest time was extremely meaningful.

And that's how the very simplistic nature of it led to its own ruins, due to how people can really mess its symbolism up, or use it a bit too thoroughly. But we're on common grounds on the fact that GXB was indeed, one of the most meaningful plotlines which stayed fresh for the longest time. I'm quite certain, that somewhere in the distant future, people will dig this premise up, for it will, at some point, lose its cliche status.

That´s begging the question. To say that "overly" in anything, of course it leads to something that isn´t good, that´s what "overly" means.ANd if you mean to say a simplistic premise can´t be taken seriously, you´re laughably wrong.
Again, I am just playing the devil´s advocate here, trying to defend a cause that I don´t necessarily support. Overly simplistic or unoriginal things aren´t appealing to me either, but it´s still important to at least try to comprehend why they are there- and in this case, whether or not that makes them meanignless.

A overly simplistic premise will not make any sense, if it contains absolutely no meaning. Now, most simplistic plots will deviate to a cliche status, simply because the idea itself can lead to many situations, and most people can't handle the heat properly.


Again, that's real weird. Trying to support unoriginality, and extremely simplification, both of them, especially the former, have a very high chance of losing their structure, and ending up as a bad RP/Story.


...


Damn it, I just realized that I'm spending way too much time on this debate.

 

[Elephantom]

Another cliche that I have seen a lot is
Male does XYZ to get Female to fall in love/slash notice him.

And there's a high chance that said male and female are teenagers or young adults.

 

[LegoLad659]

to get Female to fall in love/slash notice him.

You forgot to add "Senpai" to the end of that ( )

 

[Idea]

Adults are, in fact, capable of romance, it's the prose and skills of the writer to handle it smoothly, will he finally be capable of executing a romantic relationship properly. Romance aren't like 'ooh, love in first sight, ooh', it's more of a compelling side plot, or to some extent, a primary one. If it happens instantaneously within four days or without any coherent explanation or conflict, the very concept of it would indicate a lack of productivity in the writer, thus the birth of the 'simple' section, which people should use instead of detailed ones, more on that later. Most great books I read actually contained adult characters, not hastily put up teenagers.

and thus, ignoring the example I gave you of what I meant led to the complete disregard for my point. You are right, we are spending way too much time on this, so I´ll do my best to stick to topics:


1. Yes, for heaven´s sake, I did not at any point express that adults are any less capable of expressing love or growing than teens. No, I don´t think romance at first sight is a good idea.


2. It´s, and I apologize for the language or for any offense this may bring, frankly STUPID to demand that all romances in RP are like real life. This is where my example comes in: In RP you can be in the same day for weeks, in extreme cases, months, group RPs in particular. If you´re in an RP that can involve romance for almost year and nothing of the sort has happened yet, 90% of the time, that´s weird, not good. Just awkward. There comes a point in realism where it is unreasonable to demand it.

I'm not demanding them, I'm constituting the fact that you can't write a good story without any skills.

which by nature implies that any story without a given level of skill is bad, and judging from the rest of it, that's a pretty high level. That´s demanding skills.

If the can't handle the heat of writing real good, even as a hobby, then they really shouldn't lobby the detailed section, which I believe, should not only contain prose, but depth of story and skilful character development. That is what you're talking about here, the 'simple' section, which roughly amounts to a certain amount of people who display no skill nor development in their posts. Detailed Roleplays need skilled writers to weave a compelling story from the narrative of a large amount of people, so that those who read and write feel excitement and a need to continue on.

1. The detailed section isn´t defined that way by RPnation nor by general consensus. It´s your opinion of how the detailed section should be like, not how it is. If you have given expectations for the simple and detailed sections that defer from the two sides I mentioned (RPnation and general consensus), then that´s all there is to it: You´re just expecting. I can expect a chicken to come falling from the sky, but it won´t happen, nor does it need to happen just because I expect it.


2. On that note, I am a detailed writer and I don´t need a skilled partner. I need a cooperative one. I won´t dive deeper into this, since that would be an entirely different topic.

Imitation, yes. Most of us do know that 99.9% of all Fics do contain a cliche or a trope, but it doesn't matter of they're there, it matters if the writer himself gracefully employs it. Teens have lost their meanings, lobby down to the realistic and modern section, and you'll see the horror itself. Thousands of teen and high school fantasies, is this a hobby? Or a nightmare? Befitting only the most iron-hearted veteran, who can handle all the rush of it, without growing a hate for it or turning mentally insane. The former of which I've adopted, when I've found myself unable to comprehend their incompatibility with real life, their inability to understand what's gone stale and what's not. It has lost its meaning, you're hopelessly clinging onto the belief that the teenage and high school concepts are still fresh. They aren't, they've gone stale. They've gone cliche.

1. I didn´t say they were fresh, in fact I agreed with the fact they´re overused. Nor did I say it was a good thing.


2. You keep saying they don´t have any meaning, but you haven´t actually addressed the fact that I presented you with one. It doesn´t matter if it´s a bad meaning, if there is ANY meaning to it, then it´s not a cliché by definition.


3. Again, I can´t speak much for the realistic section, and frankly, it´s not a good sample, by any principle of logic, It does not have enough size, it is not representative and you omit facts of relevance.


4. If a writer employs a cliché or trope gracefully it no longer can be a cliché, not in that work anyway.

Teen and young adult RPs have gone stale, there's absolutely no reason to believe that. Ask any user, and there's a higher chance that he'll say that teen and high school fantasies are dime a dozen, there are a lot of them out there, with exactly the same plotline. That makes the very core of it cliche, at least here it is.

No it doesn´t. For starters, you are forgetting that teen and highschool fantasies constitute a major part of the roleplays. That IN ITSELF implies it has more variety than you can swallow. And for somewhat who advocates adding variety to stale genres, such as the zombie apocalypse, it sure is a contradictory thing to say.


And polls with the wrong question will obviously get you wrong answers. It´s like someone saying they want an animal and you give them a crocodile, or someone lying and saying it´s fine because their friends may be watching and think they´re cowards. People keep making RPs like those and there are reasons behind that.

But without fresh, new ones, it would all prove only to be the same old unoriginal item. It's like putting an attachment on a gun, that's already established itself, and trying to sell it as a different one. Zombie apocalypse, themselves, can try something different, original. Plain old facts.

I will refrain from commenting on this one, since I really don´t see how that analogy explains in any way the statement you just said are "plain old facts".

Your attack upon a word, offensive or otherwise, was distasteful, and of course, a last ditch attempt. An ad hominem, I'd say. Please, try to answer any questions, however they are, without pulling off a cheap attack.

Except I didn´t "attack" anything, nor was it ad hominem. Ad hominem would imply I was trying to undermine the discussion by pretending to attack your thesis while actually only attacking you. Which I didn´t do. My statement was only that you should be careful, because you were putting things in a "distasteful" way, if you want to call it that. It was precisely so it wouldn´t let it get the better of my reasoning that I expressed my discomtempt.

Teenage Angst and zombie apocalypse stories with basic plotlines, are only commercially successful, not critically, of course, since following the same thematic over and over again with different characters and different settings, does automatically make it a good story. Most good stories I've read, focused more on the inner conflict in humans, and their agenda and whatnot, they simply don't focus themselves on 'teenage' angst. For God's sakes, anyone can experience angst, but that's off-topic. What in trying to say here is that teenage angst isn't a raw, fresh-off-the-hook idea here. It has been used for ages, and primarily in novels for people who lack taste and has nothing better to do. Even if the protagonist is a teenager, it shouldn't be a focal point. The story itself and his inner conflicts should be.

1. I feel like it´s about time I say this, but stop putting words in my mouth and actually try reading what I wrote. I said it happened. That they were successful. That nobody would be doing this over and over again if it hadn´t happened that at some point they were successful enough to earn that.


2. "Good story" is a subjective matter, in case you didn´t know. If you like inner conflict and hidden agendas and whatnot, that´s all fine and good, but it doesn´t mean you get to claim it´s a bad thing if people disagree.


3. Never did I state zombie apocalypses or teenage angst were currently fresh.


4. "Even if the protagonist is a teenager, it shouldn´t be your focal point" is a sentence that contradicts everything else you said in so many ways I won´t even bother here, since my computer is already starting to block from the extension of this reply.

You did, people who cannot concentrate nor thoroughly appreciate anything good, will of course, almost always drag themselves to the teenage angst and high school thematic.

if you don´t like something it doesn´t automatically make it bad either. "thoroughly appreciate something good" there is incredibly narcissistic thing to say, since YOU definitely don´t get to dictate what´s good or not. If you were at least being objective in the arguments you use, yes, you could imply something was probably better or worse, but as I´ll get back to later, you aren´t.

Someone who can write a compelling premise, can of course, pull of the execution too.

This is a blantant lie. The whole concept of editors exists because that is not true. Do you think that thing in back of the books is written by the authors? No. It´s usually the editor. Do you think editors could write those books themselves? They wouldn´t need authors if they could. The thing in the back of the book is no less than a premise.


Just like there, in RPs, some people are better at pitching things than others. Some people have this great ideas but don´t know how to manage them. Some people are great at managing and horrible at the other two, and so forth...sure SOME people are capable of pulling it all off themselves, but that´s an EXCEPTION.

Tolkien was writing about fantasy, fantasies themselves happen to have 'unrealistic' plots, it's the basic idea of it. Heck, everybody knows that. What I was talking about was the more 'realistic and modern' settings, which have a more higher chance of ending up as a crapsack. C.R.A.P.S.A.C.K. It's a definition so vile, it's only used to describe only the most awful of stories, ones which possesses absolutely no effort in both the execution and the premise, this is a fact we can all agree upon.
I did say it myself, but the critique of the situation can differ according to the material and genre/theme of said material.

1. This shows the effect that expectation has. Things will naturally be a lot crappier if you hold your bar too high, but that´s because it is bad, it´s because YOU think yourself too good for it. The blame can rest, in great amount even if not in the most part, in your attitude.


2. As I mentioned, "realistic" plots are not my area of expertise, but neither are they valuable samples for the general case. They constitute but an infamous fraction of RPs.


3. The realistic genre is one that naturally limits your options vs the other genres. Of course there´d be a limit in variety and that plots would revolve around similar things. In the end, we can´t explore in RP things we don´t know, and knowing always involves categorizing. Of course there´d only be so many slots to fill and that the best ones would get more crowded.

A overly simplistic premise will not make any sense, if it contains absolutely no meaning. Now, most simplistic plots will deviate to a cliche status, simply because the idea itself can lead to many situations, and most people can't handle the heat properly.

Overly= so much that it becomes bad. That´s always true. Your argument here is meaningless, because it has this structure:


A is B


Therefore B is A.


Sure, it´s true, but it´s not valid. You can´t precise "overly" either.

Again, that's real weird. Trying to support unoriginality, and extremely simplification, both of them, especially the former, have a very high chance of losing their structure, and ending up as a bad RP/Story.

That´s not what I´m doing. What I´m trying to do is clean the bias. And here,is the place where I tell you why I think you were not being objective and this is exactly it. Your arguments are COMPLETELY one sided. You don´t even attempt to understand the other side of the issue, that things happen for a reason. Good vs bad ended out of lack of correspondence to the real world, then think about it. People don´t just go for teen angst or unoriginal plots because they re bad RPers or writers, there are other reasons. And THOSE reasons make those things not cliché, as they remain with meaning.


"those that don´t dwell on history are bound to repeat it". If you don´t look into what EXACTLY are the mistakes rather than blaming something as bad when it isn´t inhenrently bad, then you are bound to make the same mistakes.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

-characters with Japanese names, or names inspired by Japan. While there is nothing wrong with this, it can seem out of place in a Western-inspired setting.

Like Ryu the Native American Ginger...

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

-characters that use Japanese weapons. It seems like everyone and their mother uses a katana nowadays. When was the last time you saw someone use a longsword? A halberd? Their fists? Whats worse is that over half of these katana users have magical katanas.

Don't forget everyone's a master of some form of Martial Arts... because Style is more important than Wit I suppose...

 

[Elephantom]

and thus, ignoring the example I gave you of what I meant led to the complete disregard for my point. You are right, we are spending way too much time on this, so I´ll do my best to stick to topics:
1. Yes, for heaven´s sake, I did not at any point express that adults are any less capable of expressing love or growing than teens. No, I don´t think romance at first sight is a good idea.


2. It´s, and I apologize for the language or for any offense this may bring, frankly STUPID to demand that all romances in RP are like real life. This is where my example comes in: In RP you can be in the same day for weeks, in extreme cases, months, group RPs in particular. If you´re in an RP that can involve romance for almost year and nothing of the sort has happened yet, 90% of the time, that´s weird, not good. Just awkward. There comes a point in realism where it is unreasonable to demand it.

But there's a reason they call it the realistic or modern section, cause it has to be realistic, or it'll end up being silly or humorous. It's either a mature romance, or one that's immature. That being said, it isn't always necessary for the romance to span over a couple of years. But it shouldn't just be a declaration of love in, like four to three days. That's not romantic. That's creepy. You possibly don't even know said person more properly. Or the acquaintance could be interpreted as more one-sided, which can make things look like a stalker-esque RP. I, and many others, don't find appeal in repeating a very similar plotline over and over again, which is quick teenage romance, angst or high school oriented RPs, I mean, Schools are only supposed to be some kind of backdrop, or just a place students study at. Take Harry Potter for example, sure there's a school over there, and it's important too, but it's not the primary focus of our protagonists and the narrative, the main focal point is them accomplishing certain objectives, and defeating evil or something, even though the one thing that made no sense, is that they never bothered to call a more higher-up who's certainly more skilled than him, but that's not the point.

This is a blantant lie. The whole concept of editors exists because that is not true. Do you think that thing in back of the books is written by the authors? No. It´s usually the editor. Do you think editors could write those books themselves? They wouldn´t need authors if they could. The thing in the back of the book is no less than a premise.
Just like there, in RPs, some people are better at pitching things than others. Some people have this great ideas but don´t know how to manage them. Some people are great at managing and horrible at the other two, and so forth...sure SOME people are capable of pulling it all off themselves, but that´s an EXCEPTION.

Stamping a summary on the back of a book doesn't make it a story. By premise, I mean the whole basic storyline, and to some extent the themes and the setting, which is compiled by the author who's the guy who writes stuff. There are many incredible self-published books, which has been edited and whatnot by the author himself. And that does make your point invalid. The thing in the back is a summary, a small compilation of what happens, and what could happen. An author has to write something, he needs to have an idea of what he's going to write something, it's not that the editor just pastes something in the back of the book and he writes according to it, no that ain't how it works. He's got to write the stuff, whether he likes it or not.


People may be worse at what he's doing at first, but by trying it over and over again, he can achieve some level of practice and experience, and thus can accomplish most of the at once, but that all depends if you're taking about newly branded writers or experienced, veteran ones.

1. This shows the effect that expectation has. Things will naturally be a lot crappier if you hold your bar too high, but that´s because it is bad, it´s because YOU think yourself too good for it. The blame can rest, in great amount even if not in the most part, in your attitude.
2. As I mentioned, "realistic" plots are not my area of expertise, but neither are they valuable samples for the general case. They constitute but an infamous fraction of RPs.


3. The realistic genre is one that naturally limits your options vs the other genres. Of course there´d be a limit in variety and that plots would revolve around similar things. In the end, we can´t explore in RP things we don´t know, and knowing always involves categorizing. Of course there´d only be so many slots to fill and that the best ones would get more crowded.

But what if I just pick a book, without any expectations? There's a reason the word 'bad' exists. It's not because I'm too 'good' for it, no. Because the story isn't compelling, interesting, or anything, and the reason I'm going to be frustrated about it, is because I paid for it. It's natural, there's a loss at hand here. If the majority of critiques label a book as bad and generic, should they all be considered as holding a bar too high? Or is it because you think it's a good book, and others should appreciate it?


Infamous? They're the most intriguing, I'd say. The infamous one at hand would as well be the futuristic area. Although might I say that much could be accomplished by playing by futurism rules, I find this section to be quite innovative. Nevertheless, fantasy isn't really my forte, and that's my respective opinion. They're actually valuable samples, as fantasy does manage to break rules often, which most debates questionable.


The limitations are what makes it best. Mainly because you can focus on the more smaller yet important details such as the human psyche, and other similar things.

Overly= so much that it becomes bad. That´s always true. Your argument here is meaningless, because it has this structure:
A is B


Therefore B is A.


Sure, it´s true, but it´s not valid. You can´t precise "overly" either.

Because the term itself isn't plausible, which you've forced me to skew, by taking matters to the extreme, said topic at hand. You're advocating this, extremist simplification. What I mentioned at first, the fact being learned from many sources, was you've to make your idea's points concise and simple, yet not too much to the point of using only three words: Good X Bad. That's not a plot. That's symbolism. That's three freaking words. That's the point, you're making your premise 'concise' mainly because you want your readers to understand the complex meaning behind it. And also create a compelling atmosphere.

That´s not what I´m doing. What I´m trying to do is clean the bias. And here,is the place where I tell you why I think you were not being objective and this is exactly it. Your arguments are COMPLETELY one sided. You don´t even attempt to understand the other side of the issue, that things happen for a reason. Good vs bad ended out of lack of correspondence to the real world, then think about it. People don´t just go for teen angst or unoriginal plots because they re bad RPers or writers, there are other reasons. And THOSE reasons make those things not cliché, as they remain with meaning.
"those that don´t dwell on history are bound to repeat it". If you don´t look into what EXACTLY are the mistakes rather than blaming something as bad when it isn´t inhenrently bad, then you are bound to make the same mistakes.

They're going for Teen Angst and unoriginality because they're not thinking up of any creative, fresh ideas. This automatically renders them bad writers, whose focal points consist of creativity. They're trying to copy other people, who're imitating the most easiest possibly answer to them: teen angst. There ain't meaning in there, people are doing it all over and over again. Again and again. Again and again. There's way too many agains, it's an entire cycle, man. Unoriginality is the mistake. They don't deviate from the unoriginal, overused plotline. Same thing over and over again. It's like a teen angst hive mind, and the swarm theory doesn't apply here. You gotta prove how they aren't a cliche or not unoriginal, or overused.

 

[Idea]

But there's a reason they call it the realistic or modern section, cause it has to be realistic, or it'll end up being silly or humorous. It's either a mature romance, or one that's immature. That being said, it isn't always necessary for the romance to span over a couple of years. But it shouldn't just be a declaration of love in, like four to three days. That's not romantic. That's creepy. You possibly don't even know said person more properly. Or the acquaintance could be interpreted as more one-sided, which can make things look like a stalker-esque RP. I, and many others, don't find appeal in repeating a very similar plotline over and over again, which is quick teenage romance, angst or high school oriented RPs, I mean, Schools are only supposed to be some kind of backdrop, or just a place students study at. Take Harry Potter for example, sure there's a school over there, and it's important too, but it's not the primary focus of our protagonists and the narrative, the main focal point is them accomplishing certain objectives, and defeating evil or something, even though the one thing that made no sense, is that they never bothered to call a more higher-up who's certainly more skilled than him, but that's not the point

so much too say...


1. Being silly or humorous constitutes the genre of "comedy". Not that every roleplay should be one or that everything that is humorous or silly is a comedy, but it goes without saying that humor and silliness are not constituents of bad writing.


2. STOP being unreasonable! If you disagree with me, I have no quarrels, but at least try addressing the issue at hand, and that is not whether or not it is realistic to fall in love over three-four days, it´s whether or not an RP can handle it. It´s like saying that a book is worse because it didn´t have that awesome action scene from the movie. Their different mediums, different things. Nomatter how realistic you WANT them to be, there is a limit where it gets borderline ridiculous to ask for more, and you´re crossing it. Allow me to ask have you ever been in any RPs that lasted for years? I have. I can tell you if things don´t move, it´s the end of it. Several RPs die because they can´t get to the point. You cannot ask people to go into that, RPs aren´t a book, they require collaboration, and that takes a lot more time than a book. In RP, you aren´t being selective about what´s the right scenes to show the passage of time and progress of a relationship, in RP your control over the flow of time is limited, in RP you can´t have the whole experience of life stucked into those frames we call posts. It´s about time to realize that.


3. That example actually supports me. Yeah, school isn´t the main focus, so what? In case you haven´t noticed what I´ve been telling you, teens and schools and that aren´t a matter that solely constitutes the plot, their a matter for convenience. They have meaning and purpose that allows you to shift purpose and attention to more relevant things, like the character´s inner conflicts and all those things you keep mentioning. It´s BECAUSE a lot of these RPs are not trying to deviate too much from the concept of a school and the age group of teens that you can get so much variety, and that people can focus on the actually relevant and amazing ideas that you´ll miss if your only mindset is "oh, another highschool story".


4. The fact romance is not that way in real life makes my argument that much stronger: Teens in RP provide that extra ounce of realism, because their hormones are much more active and situations that would be inconceivable with adults may actually be possible with teens.

Stamping a summary on the back of a book doesn't make it a story. By premise, I mean the whole basic storyline, and to some extent the themes and the setting, which is compiled by the author who's the guy who writes stuff. There are many incredible self-published books, which has been edited and whatnot by the author himself. And that does make your point invalid. The thing in the back is a summary, a small compilation of what happens, and what could happen. An author has to write something, he needs to have an idea of what he's going to write something, it's not that the editor just pastes something in the back of the book and he writes according to it, no that ain't how it works. He's got to write the stuff, whether he likes it or not.

1. It does not invalidate my point because obviously that was not the premise I was talking about, that is not general consensus for premise, and you didn´t explain that in any clear way before.


2. as I said, there ARE exceptions, But you cannot take the exceptions and assume they apply to the general case.


3. My point with the book covers and the contents of the book, was that they are two separate things, not necessarily connected skills, and THUS neither is the premise for an RP towards it´s actual contents.

People may be worse at what he's doing at first, but by trying it over and over again, he can achieve some level of practice and experience, and thus can accomplish most of the at once, but that all depends if you're taking about newly branded writers or experienced, veteran ones.

Is being new a bad thing? Are you bad because you´re not experienced? If that is true, then there could be no such thing as innovation.

But what if I just pick a book, without any expectations?

You may have not understood yet, but that´s the case I am trying to advocate here. THAT and THAT only. An objective gaze, which is not what you´re having. If you went with no expectations, you wouldn´t be saying the things you are saying right now. You could still think of it as cliché, I don´t read the future, and even my own gaze has some form of bias, all of them do. But it is clear here that you are jumping to conclusion on things that may be present at the same time, but are not necessarily related. Because you are ignoring the stance on the other side of the issue, rather than weighting both and seeing who weights more.

There's a reason the word 'bad' exists. It's not because I'm too 'good' for it, no. Because the story isn't compelling, interesting, or anything, and the reason I'm going to be frustrated about it, is because I paid for it. It's natural, there's a loss at hand here. If the majority of critiques label a book as bad and generic, should they all be considered as holding a bar too high? Or is it because you think it's a good book, and others should appreciate it?

1. All criticism is a generalization. A sample. You take this many people and see if they liked something and they generalize that for everyone else. The thing a good critic has, however, is the thing that separates it from a five-year-old´s comment: Objective reasoning, explaining the why behind what they like and don´t like. A good movie critique looks at something and says "I like it or don´t like and that may have to do with this technical aspect". When something has to do with such a general thing as a whole genre or even a given theme, then it can longer be reviewed under those standards. It becomes just an opinion, no good, no bad, only like or not like.


2. The matter here that you´re forgetting is that "compelling, interesting or anything" is different from "compelling, interesting or anything TO YOU". Just because you don´t find it compelling that doesn´t mean it isn't compelling, just that you in particular, you singular case that is definitely not enough to represent the whole, you weren't compelled by it. And your mood, as your predisposition, will, inevitably affect your judgement and appreciation of such things.

Infamous? They're the most intriguing, I'd say. The infamous one at hand would as well be the futuristic area. Although might I say that much could be accomplished by playing by futurism rules, I find this section to be quite innovative. Nevertheless, fantasy isn't really my forte, and that's my respective opinion. They're actually valuable samples, as fantasy does manage to break rules often, which most debates questionable.

By this point, I won´t even bother telling you AGAIN why they are not valuable samples. If you want, it´s in my previous posts, pointing out everything that is missing from them to be good samples. My reference? Logic. Like, literally logic has rules for what a valid sample is, and the sample of " realistic RPs only" breaks every one of them.

The limitations are what makes it best. Mainly because you can focus on the more smaller yet important details such as the human psyche, and other similar things.

So, focus IS important, right? Yet again, you are valuing things that you might not get yours hands on if people were too worried about "Oh, but the age group..." to focus on it. It´s better to have a standard.

You're advocating this, extremist simplification

FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING LIKE THAT!!!

What I mentioned at first, the fact being learned from many sources, was you've to make your idea's points concise and simple, yet not too much to the point of using only three words: Good X Bad. That's not a plot. That's symbolism. That's three freaking words. That's the point, you're making your premise 'concise' mainly because you want your readers to understand the complex meaning behind it. And also create a compelling atmosphere.

why three words? is four okay? Is five?


the only reason why you can specify "three words" is because we had this example at hand. You have no actual reason behind it, all you can tell me is that the premise shouldn´t be too concise but should still concise, simple but not overly so, which is the same as saying NOTHING If ask you how many seconds there are in a minute, me telling you that it´s more than -1 is irrelevant and meaningless, because that is logically mandatory given the type of question.

They're going for Teen Angst and unoriginality because they're not thinking up of any creative, fresh ideas

Really? How can you tell? Do you read minds now? Can you see the future? Cause I can neither, and you kinda need to have such abilities to make that kind of statement.

This automatically renders them bad writers, whose focal points consist of creativity.

Creativity certainly plays a role, but it is frankly absurd to say it is the focal point of writing. From it´s origins, to readapatations, and even in original work itself, the way of writing, for example, often takes much more proiminence.

They're trying to copy other people, who're imitating the most easiest possibly answer to them: teen angst

Yes. Yes they are. And taht´s the freaking point. Because there are other things people may want to explore. Or because some people get in their heads that they should reject people over them "not having skills", and thus these people are forced to go create shitty work because they have no where to try things out.

There ain't meaning in there, people are doing it all over and over again. Again and again. Again and again. There's way too many agains, it's an entire cycle, man. Unoriginality is the mistake. They don't deviate from the unoriginal, overused plotline. Same thing over and over again. It's like a teen angst hive mind, and the swarm theory doesn't apply here. You gotta prove how they aren't a cliche or not unoriginal, or overused.

I HAVE proven they have meaning, and thus that they are not cliché. You are just not adressing key aspects, then re-state what you have before and call it a day.


We are not salesman and client here. We are too clients, you are saying "this smells of peach therefore it´s a bad apple because it must taste like peach". And I´m replying "this smells like peach because it IS a peach, not an apple.". I am saying "buy the peach" because you may not like peaches, but I am simply saying that it definitely isn´t a "bad apple."

 

[DemetrioMachete]

.... ;~;


I'm scared.

 

[Idea]

.... ;~;
I'm scared.

Why?

 

[Sibylline Oracle]

Shapeshifters. Sometimes of the "can turn into anything" variety, but usually of the "can turn from animal/beast/dragon into human and back" variety. It's less annoying than most of the examples listed in this thread though.


Melodrama fits the definition of cliche too, though it's sort of filled by the "teens with angst issues" bit. I've encountered this far too often with adult characters too, and I fear I may be occasionally guilty of it myself without intending to be. This goes hand-in-hand with "manufactured conflict", when characters act like there's a problem, but there really isn't.


There are some other things I consider cliche, but most don't. I guess it's a tribute to how much those genres "touch" the average human being, but pure Romance or Good-vs-Evil-Action plots are so very common. Come up with a plot that forces player characters into difficult ethical dilemmas with no perfect answers, and you may be in a niche! xP

 

[DemetrioMachete]

@Idea


No reason I guess.. Maybe just the huge paragraphs?

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

@Idea
No reason I guess.. Maybe just the huge paragraphs?

One of the reasons why I hate Detailed RPs... They're full of Fluff text that really don't add anything except a word count

 

[SecretRock]

There are some other things I consider cliche, but most don't. I guess it's a tribute to how much those genres "touch" the average human being, but pure Romance or Good-vs-Evil-Action plots are so very common. Come up with a plot that forces player characters into difficult ethical dilemmas with no perfect answers, and you may be in a niche! xP

Good vs Evil plots really annoy me. If they're done well and there are shades of grey they're pretty fun, but normally the GM doesn't even put thought into why the 'evil' characters are being evil. It's like they just made to contrast the 'good' guys so they're indisputably good.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

Good vs Evil plots really annoy me. If they're done well and there are shades of grey they're pretty fun, but normally the GM doesn't even put thought into why the 'evil' characters are being evil. It's like they just made to contrast the 'good' guys so they're indisputably good.

some times a simple good vs. evil plot can be fun as long as you know what you're doing when writing it.