Other What's your biggest pet peeve within roleplays!?

[Aster]

I went through this thread a bit, and there were some points I felt the need to play defense for, moreso in respect for the dignity of those, like myself, who sometimes incurr in some of these pet peeves. I just want to clarify that I'm not trying argue here, your pet peeves are your own personal matter and you are free to have them. What annoys someone isn't always a logical calculated response, sometimes things just irk you. So all I want to say here is not "you should not have this or that pet peeve" but rather "this is why some people feel it is legitimate to do this" or clarifying a couple of misconceptions about the specific topics.


Hmm... I mean, you are of course entitled to your own opinion in the matter, but I do feel relevant pointing out that the few people I know who roleplay in first person generally don't demand their partner do the same, myself included. Again if you have a problem with first person, that's your right and your own business, but I did want to clarify that nobody's telling you to change into first person (that I'm aware of), some people just like playing from that POV.


Obviously I can't speak for everyone but I format because I like to format and look at the format. Sometimes I like it because I had an idea I thought was cool or because I thought I could create atmosphere or make something thematically interesting. There have even been times when I've hidden info about the character on the formatting symbolically. And there are times when I just did because I thought it looked nice and I wanted to make my posts look nice like that. There is nothing wrong with simple posts and I do use them just as much, but other than terrible generally unreadable formatting I don't think there is anything wrong with formatting posts either, and don't think it's right to write them all off as something as petty as "show offs".

Of course, regardless of that, your pet peeves are your own and as I will get to in a bit I do have my own pet peeves and not all of them are really fair.


I thought I might adress this topic with this quote, because it is an interesting aspect that often comes up when I talk about planning and structure. While I couldn't possibly name every reason why, here are a few:
1. A book does not have the interaction of discussing with the other person or engaging with their ideas and views
2. A book will not necessarily have someone to read it
3. A book's story tends to be less personal and less immersive for the author because they are not participating with their character, they are writing the whole thing and the character is just another face in the crowd of what they are writing.

For reasons like these, the writing and sharing of a book is not equivalent to full-planning writing. I would also like to express (though, yes, you already kinda pointed it out) but the idea that twists and turns and the unexpected are a fundamental part of roleplaying is common but not universal. Even the idea that they are a good thing necessarily is not universally accepted. There are people who are more interested in seeing a scene being fleshed out and in the quality of the writing rather than the surprise of the writing. People who appreciate atmosphere and seeing the puzzle pieces being beautifully put together rather than travelling a journey of unknown destination.

One could view this as a well-written mystery book. If a mystery book can only hook you because you didn't know the culprit then in the eyes of many, myself included, you might as well buy one of those boxes that come with random junk. A good mystery novel will be enhanced by knowing how it goes, and to those like myself so is a story you write yourself, be it a book or a roleplay.

Still, if you don't enjoy it or are even irked about it, like I've said plenty of times here, that's fine. You do you. Just wanted to shed a little light onto the thought process of people who do want to plan. That said, if someone tries to impose a plan you didn't agree to or want to work out onto you, then that's still an assholish thing to do.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm speaking of over-planning, where every little detail, including dialogue and reaction is listed out for every post. To be able to predict what's going to happen before you even read it makes reading, not just roleplaying, stale because you're reading things twice. Yes, it may be fleshed out in detail and different words are used to construct the post, but in the end, it's still the same outcome.

I'm not against planning in any sort of way. In fact, I encourage it in all my roleplays.

As for the books part, I'll have to politely refute. I've found a good deal of books which engage readers and flesh out character in such detail that it's practically roleplay, except with one's self. One example is Rick Riodan's Olympian series where he jumps from POV to POV, similarly and comparable to a roleplay where different character's perspectives are put into play. The only difference is that it's still one writer, but due to the character shift, there's a different air to how each character acts and reacts.

Regarding interaction, there are many books such as "Choose Your Own Adventure" books which allow readers to interact with the author. And like books, not all roleplays are necessarily read as well. In fact, the statistic of someone reading a roleplay is comparatively lower to one reading a book.

That's just my two cents and to clarify any misunderstanding regarding my personal pet peeve.

 

[Clance]

Romance as a default premise to any roleplay, characters who are always conventionally pretty, when a RP partner is only passive/reactive but shares no initiative or agency in furthering a plot, 'looking for this gender only' types of players aaaaaand god-modding of any kind. the standard annoyance.

 

[Idea]

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm speaking of over-planning, where every little detail, including dialogue and reaction is listed out for every post. To be able to predict what's going to happen before you even read it makes reading, not just roleplaying, stale because you're reading things twice. Yes, it may be fleshed out in detail and different words are used to construct the post, but in the end, it's still the same outcome.

I suppose yeah, that is a bit excessive. I did misunderstand your point and I apologize for any potential misrepresentation.

As for the books part, I'll have to politely refute.

By all means

. I've found a good deal of books which engage readers and flesh out character in such detail that it's practically roleplay, except with one's self.

Well, I wasn't referring to the reader being engaged, so much as the author. My evidence for claiming what I do is a phenomenon that occurs on the simple transition within a tabletop RPG group, from player to DM/GM. It often happens that someone will feel like they have a lesser personal investment or presence in the story because they are not using a character of their own- even though they get to make the world, the NPCs and to some extent, the story even. In a perhaps paradoxical but very real manner, writing with a personal character, even if with a lessened influence on the environment the character is placed in, is a feeling that makes one more included than to have that more extensive control.

Regarding interaction, there are many books such as "Choose Your Own Adventure" books which allow readers to interact with the author.

They are called "interactive" books, but surely you are not suggesting that a conversation and sharing of ideas between two or more human beings on relatively equal footing, is the equivalent to solving a multiple choice written maze, as far as interaction goes?

And like books, not all roleplays are necessarily read as well. In fact, the statistic of someone reading a roleplay is comparatively lower to one reading a book.

Hum... no, in a roleplay you're expected to read the other person's posts. If your partners aren't reading your posts then no offense but they're pretty shitty partners.

That's just my two cents and to clarify any misunderstanding regarding my personal pet peeve.

Thank you for the polite response and clarification!

 

[Aster]

I suppose yeah, that is a bit excessive. I did misunderstand your point and I apologize for any potential misrepresentation.


By all means


Well, I wasn't referring to the reader being engaged, so much as the author. My evidence for claiming what I do is a phenomenon that occurs on the simple transition within a tabletop RPG group, from player to DM/GM. It often happens that someone will feel like they have a lesser personal investment or presence in the story because they are not using a character of their own- even though they get to make the world, the NPCs and to some extent, the story even. In a perhaps paradoxical but very real manner, writing with a personal character, even if with a lessened influence on the environment the character is placed in, is a feeling that makes one more included than to have that more extensive control.


They are called "interactive" books, but surely you are not suggesting that a conversation and sharing of ideas between two or more human beings on relatively equal footing, is the equivalent to solving a multiple choice written maze, as far as interaction goes?


Hum... no, in a roleplay you're expected to read the other person's posts. If your partners aren't reading your posts then no offense but they're pretty shitty partners.


Thank you for the polite response and clarification!

Ah, in a D&D context, I can see where you're coming from. Although, I suppose D&D can be considered a genre of roleplaying on its own, considering how most of the story is driven by the dungeon master. (Unless I'm mistaken on this. I've only played twice.)

In regards to the interactive books, no. That wasn't what I meant. I was just referring to interaction between reader and author, and not so much on the creating a story together with the author.

I may have misunderstood your reading point. I thought you were referring to readers outside the writers involved in the roleplay LOL. I have a few readers who check out my roleplays so I thought you were referring to people who do read roleplays the way they would read a book. That's my bad.

 

[Idea]

Ah, in a D&D context, I can see where you're coming from. Although, I suppose D&D can be considered a genre of roleplaying on its own, considering how most of the story is driven by the dungeon master. (Unless I'm mistaken on this. I've only played twice.)

In regards to the interactive books, no. That wasn't what I meant. I was just referring to interaction between reader and author, and not so much on the creating a story together with the author.

I may have misunderstood your reading point. I thought you were referring to readers outside the writers involved in the roleplay LOL. I have a few readers who check out my roleplays so I thought you were referring to people who do read roleplays the way they would read a book. That's my bad.

It's perfectly alright. I will reply to these three points at once because the same misunderstanding was generally, for lack of a better expression "in the air", and that is that I was ever referring to a reader of a book or the outside reader of a roleplay.

My defense was to the statement "why not write a book" for the most part, the differences between intensive planning in a roleplay and just writing a book, specifically a few reasons why someone might favor the latter. D&D was the example I used to show that it is a real thing, but the difference between playing a character and just plain wrtiting a story is actually pretty massive for some people, regardless of playing D&D or any other form of roleplaying.

I also mentioned interaction, because human interaction, direct feedback and just the formation of friendships aren't really things you through a book beign written, but it is something that can be done through a roleplay, even if intensely planned.

Lastly, you have a guarantee of someone who will be at least minimally invested in reading.

These were the sample of reasons I presented to the question "why not write a book".

 

[Aster]

It's perfectly alright. I will reply to these three points at once because the same misunderstanding was generally, for lack of a better expression "in the air", and that is that I was ever referring to a reader of a book or the outside reader of a roleplay.

My defense was to the statement "why not write a book" for the most part, the differences between intensive planning in a roleplay and just writing a book, specifically a few reasons why someone might favor the latter. D&D was the example I used to show that it is a real thing, but the difference between playing a character and just plain wrtiting a story is actually pretty massive for some people, regardless of playing D&D or any other form of roleplaying.

I also mentioned interaction, because human interaction, direct feedback and just the formation of friendships aren't really things you through a book beign written, but it is something that can be done through a roleplay, even if intensely planned.

Lastly, you have a guarantee of someone who will be at least minimally invested in reading.

These were the sample of reasons I presented to the question "why not write a book".

I see where you're coming from, but in my defense. In regards to the context I was referring to (excessive planning, to the point where even your characters are taken into account on how they should react and what not), that comment is a sarcastic lash because a sole roleplayer is micro-controlling the roleplay, which can actually be quite restricting.

It's basically ghost-writing a book except your client is your RP partner. Yeah, friendships are made and all the pros aside, I still find it a rather rude move and would much prefer if said-partner would write their own book instead of dragging someone along the ride in a "roleplay" if they're going to plan out everything to happen.

I am aware that there are people who may prefer this style of roleplay, but it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Idea]

Now, for fairness if nothing else, my own primary pet peeves in roleplay:

1.Lackluster CS Info
I hate chaos. I don't work well with it, it drives me nuts worried that everything I worked for will turn into a castle of cards within a hurricane. I hate not knowing. Ihave a curious predesposition that tugs me to want to know. I hate contrived or forceful story elements.

Now addd to the mixture that I've seen many, many cases of people who simply make up their character as they go instead of actually coming up with them and just not revealing everything. Now add that I don't believe you can develop what doesn't already exist.

This all forms into a deep hatred for expressions like "I'll reveal it in roleplay", minimum-effort CSs and things of that sort.


2.Demons
Demons are a pet peeve of mine that isn't all that rational. The thing is, I don't necessarily hate demons in stories. They can make for great antagonists, representations etc... However, the concept of a demon is a very simple one, yet also one people seem to persistently get wrong. A demon is a being of pure evil. That's it. A demon is a being that can stare at all that is good in the eye and say "I reject all of this". Whatever shape or form, whatever strings attached or means it uses, all of those are irrelevant. The only relevant thing about a demon is that it is pure evil.

That, of course, makes them terrible as characters. In other words, to me you are either being ignorant at best about the concept when you use demons or you are putting an invariably evil character into the roleplay. This makes it very hard to ever make anything demonic right and unsurprisingly they often aren't done right.

Now, I do understand that the use and abuse of the concept has diluted it so much that people will not use even demons to be edgy, they'll just use them for whatever reason happens to fall on their lap, and they make characters who aren't actual demons, they're just called demons and sometimes have allusions to hell or religion which is specifically irritating but I want to keep this relatively short so I will not rant on that. Still, we're talking about a concept that to me personally is really important yet is treated with about as much regard or thought as McDonalds has for personal health.

My general action to avoid going nuts is to altogether ban demons in any RP I manage, and it's not like there aren't good exceptions and I know I am not totally in the right here and mostly being paranoid, but it's still a big pet peeve of mine.



3.Arbitrary Discrimination of Styles or Ideas (and people)

Put simply, when no reason, an assonine reason or an understandable but still invalid reason to reject a player, character or other idea is brought up and used to shut down someone who genuinely wants to participate/contribute or worse, to throw out someone's hard work. This is perhaps my actual biggest pet peeve about roleplay. It's annoying, a disservice to everyone, it punishes uniqueness and creativity and simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

The most common examples I experience of this are in regards to child characters and first person roleplaying. The reason usually boils down to "I and/or others feel uncomfortable with it, therefore I can't have you using that character/playing in that style". This is usually the best case scenario and I have to say as a reason it's very lacking, as it constitutes a blatant example of other people deciding what I get to play or how without it being in the rules in any way or conflicting with anything relevant. If a roleplay for a highschool roleplay then I normally wouldn't play a child for instance, because highschoolers are by definition older than that. That's a legitimate reason. "I don't like feel right having a child in the roleplay" when your character is going around stabbing people and breaking arms and necks is something I find merely hypocritical. (note: yes, some would say they don't want to show violence to a kid, but if that's the case, don't have your character acting in that way with the kid around, it's no excuse for it to affect my character).

Another proiminent case is with 18+ requests. For clarity, I've stopped being affect by this matter for what is now about half of my time here on RPN, me being 19. So I'm not saying "Oh they won't let me roleplay", no I am saying I have reached and passed that phase and I still don't find it justifiable. There is no guarantee nor a real reason to think a 16-17 year old is any less capable of being mature than an 18 year old or even a 20 year old, it's a matter of individuals not age groups. And if you feel uncomfortable about it, again, what I said before: It's understandable but it's not something I can find to be anywhere close to a valid reason.

I find it absolutley tyricannical when a GM has limited roles and decides to hide the criteria by which characters will be judged too. While I generally try to avoid these RPs, I think transperancy should be a promoted aspect of any selection process, otherwise success will be determined by dumb luck or biases, which I find insulting towards anyone who puts thought and hard work into their character sheets or other applications.

Now, I respect and approve of the right for GMs to choose who they approve or accept into their roleplays, as I respect and approve the right for players to choose to accept or deny partners and ideas. They can and should be allowed to continue doing so. However, I still wish there was a bit more rationality to things like this.



4."Middle of the road" Responders

I was wondering whether I should title this topic "responders" or "responses", but I realized after a bit of thought that what I have a problem with is a bit of both. I get quite irked whenever I ask someone "So do you prefer lighter, more comedic types of roleplays or more dark and gritty or dramatic ones?" and they answer "I like to have both."

Forgive my language, but NO SHIT! Having both is a staple of decent writing. The ups and down, the rise and fall of tension is how one does basic story telling with narrative stakes. What I was asking was your preference.

Then people say stuff like "I enjoy romance, but only when it forms naturally, I don't like forced romance (...)". This is a bit better as a response, as at least it answers the question that was asked (what's your stance on romance? Normally), but I'm just a little tired fo seeing it over and over again like it isn't the default. Again, a naturally non-forced romance is a staple of any good romance, nobody is expecting to try anything else unless they or you specificlaly ask the other to.

Beyond individual responses there are people who say yes to everyhting or always go for whatever is the most "middle" response and never seem to have any opinions or ideas of their own... This is a behavior that really annoys me though I CAN understand it. Up until less than a year ago, I was pretty shy about what I wanted too. I was trying to conform more and wanted to always avoid upsetting anyone or making anything awkward by bringing up some suggestion they might not like. I didn't want to force myself too much on my partners either (well, I still don't "too much", but I've learned to be more straightfoward and outspoken).

Still, while I understand the behavior it still annoys me.


5."Science" know-it-alls
There is nothing wrong with liking realism or liking to share and use your vast knowledge of science, be it physics, biology etc... But excuse me if I don't want to have to take a major of one of those areas to use a concept as a justification for a SUPERPOWER. When people start using science, especially speculative "science" to nitpick on a fictional character or setting, especially when the mistake is a minor technicality on a barely understood concept of physics I find that behavior is simply irritating and unwarranted.



There are more pet peeves I'd like to put here, but I'm pretty tired of writing this now and I got stuff to do...maybe I will come and edit it later or something...

 

[Idea]

I see where you're coming from, but in my defense. In regards to the context I was referring to (excessive planning, to the point where even your characters are taken into account on how they should react and what not), that comment is a sarcastic lash because a sole roleplayer is micro-controlling the roleplay, which can actually be quite restricting.

It's basically ghost-writing a book except your client is your RP partner. Yeah, friendships are made and all the pros aside, I still find it a rather rude move and would much prefer if said-partner would write their own book instead of dragging someone along the ride in a "roleplay" if they're going to plan out everything to happen.

I am aware that there are people who may prefer this style of roleplay, but it's just not my cup of tea.

Indeed, indeed. Naturally, you don't have to like it, heck you can hate it. It's not my place to tell you otherwise and I wouldn't. I just wanted to defend a bit my (and that of some others) position as a planner.

 

[Aster]

Indeed, indeed. Naturally, you don't have to like it, heck you can hate it. It's not my place to tell you otherwise and I wouldn't. I just wanted to defend a bit my (and that of some others) position as a planner.

Just to clear any lingering misunderstandings: I am not against planners, being one myself, so there's no need to defend it. Unless you're making a stance for excessive planners like what I've clarified.

 

[Idea]

Just to clear any lingering misunderstandings: I am not against planners, being one myself, so there's no need to defend it. Unless you're making a stance for excessive planners like what I've clarified.

No, no. But for one thing, in my original post I did think your problems was with intensive planners in general and for two sometimes I don't comment simply for the original poster, but to give a second perspective to any others who happen to read the discussion thread.

 

[permutera]

When you're in a 1x1, and your partner doesn't give you any material to work with for your reply, but you really don't want your RP to die, so you conjure things out from nothing just to make it work and produce a good reply.

 

[Catori]

I have a problem with writing a lot in present tense. When a book is written in present tense it just irks me.

 

[Shifty Powers]

Offering nothing but "Sure" and "I'm all ears" when trying to plan an RP. Contribute.

 

[Sleek]

Obtrusive GM preferences or favoritism (I.e. they prefer characters of a certain archetype and favor someone with X, Y, and Z but not allowing someone else to have X)

 

[Pride_Revelation]

Not knowing how to use the core knowledge of proper grammar.

 

[The Mechanist]

Not knowing how to use the core knowledge of proper grammar.

I mean to be fair not everyone here is a native English speaker, so go easy on them.

 

[The Mechanist]

Another one of my pet peeves is when the rp is moving too freaking slow. There is this one rp I’m thinking about leaving cuz it’s been weeks now and it’s barely progressed at all. It’s stale, boring, and I’ve just pretty much given up on it.

 

[Pride_Revelation]

I mean to be fair not everyone here is a native English speaker, so go easy on them.

Yes, with that one exception. Thank-you for illuminating me on that fact. I completely forgot about the non-English natives.

 

[Tove]

I don't like telling people up front my posting schedule, them saying it's fine, and after a couple of hours asking when I'll post again.

Something else that's not even a peeve in roleplay but when people don't get timely responses on their request thread they are ready to throw in the towel about roleplay and even use status updates to talk about leaving the site. Is it really that serious?

 

[Pride_Revelation]

I don't like telling people up front my posting schedule, them saying it's fine, and after a couple of hours asking when I'll post again.

Something else that's not even a peeve in roleplay but when people don't get timely responses on their request thread they are ready to throw in the towel about roleplay and even use status updates to talk about leaving the site. Is it really that serious?

Oh my god yes! Say it louder for the people in the back.

 

[Lina Inverse]

The only relevant thing about a demon is that it is pure evil.

Doesn't that kind of depend on what kind of demon you're talking about? I mean, yeah demons in Christianity tends to be nothing but pure evil but that isn't necessarily true in every culture. Look at the Oni, that's technically a demon and they're far from being pure evil.

 

[Idea]

Doesn't that kind of depend on what kind of demon you're talking about? I mean, yeah demons in Christianity tends to be nothing but pure evil but that isn't necessarily true in every culture. Look at the Oni, that's technically a demon and they're far from being pure evil.

Other cultures don't have, for the most part, demons. At most they have things that we ended up calling demons specifically for lack of a better word. What we now know as chemistry for instance , was once part of what was known as alchemy, which was considered a form of magic. The problem with asking what about other types of demons is that there are none. There are onus but onis are at most translated as "demons".

Still, you might ask if that doesn't itself change the concept if demon. And I must concede that. That's why I acknowledge this is a bias of mine. For reasons I will not get into here, I feel as though this rash association of the word to a new concept, without the proper separation of the original concept from that new meaning (AKA the understanding that what can be said of the new concept does not translate to the old one and shouldn't borrow the weight of that other one), creates a strawman of the previous concept. To word it In a simpler manner, the abuse of the word demon can paint a false picture of it's meaning in the original context.

Still, even that isn't the last drop for me. I can enjoy media, and frequently do, where the concept of demon is butchered or frequently misused. No, the thing that annoys me is having to treat that misconception, something which I think is just wrong (no, Onis are not demons, for instance), and have to acknowledge them in some way (by writing with someone who uses a "good demon" character, I effectively have to aknowldge the concept of "a good demon", I have to personally validate a concept I find ranges from ignorant to downright insulting or slanderous). That is where I can't go along with it anymore. It pisses me off to see the term misused, but it pisses me more off when someone wants to make me do it.

 

[eunoia]

Don’t want to come off as too harsh, and can understand why this happens, but as someone who has a disability, and knows many people with disabilities I hate it when someone centres their entire character around a disability/disorder.

Of course disabled people should be represented in rp’s and everyone’s free to play disabled characters but a disability shouldn’t define your character!

 

[Idea]

Don’t want to come off as too harsh, and can understand why this happens, but as someone who has a disability, and knows many people with disabilities I hate it when someone centres their entire character around a disability/disorder.

Of course disabled people should be represented in rp’s and everyone’s free to play disabled characters but a disability shouldn’t define your character!

Well said! As an matter of fact, if I may add, you should never base the character on a single trait. Nor should you describe who your characters or yourself are as a person by things like disabilities or other factors that may contribute but are not part of it.

 

[smallnscrappy]

When the character’s personality doesn’t match their role.

For example: kind bully, softie soldier, rude assistant, etc.

I actually really like the challenges of a-typical personalities. Not every soldier who marches into war WANTS to be there.

Lack of commitment and blatant clichés in plot or character choice! Brooding vampire man, naive damsel, Rambo soldier. Spoiler! They were dead the whole time!