[h3]Disclaimer[/h3]

Firstly, I'd like to aknolwedge that this thread is not about a people liking to roleplay in an advanced format, indeed it is (to my understanding) more about the name 'advanced' and the perceived idea of people thinking that such a format is inherently superior or even elitist. To this, I partially agree and disagree. I personally also have a problem with several of the names given to this style of roleplay, such as advanced, novella, literate, etc... because I feel like they don't properly describe the point and create misconceptions about it. On the other hand, however, I know for a fact that such misconceptions are just that - misconceptions- and that people roleplaying in the advanced format or even beyond, aren't in fact the kind of elitist, gaslighting purple prose writers that they are all too often accused of being. Yes, there are some bad apples, but those exist in any kind of sufficiently large group. 

With this out of the way, a bit on my stance on the 'advanced' format (which from here on out I'll be referring to as 'detailed'), and on length requirements. 

[h3]1: The Point of Length (people don't ask for length just because)[/h3]

One word that often comes up when talking about length requirements is 'arbitrary'. While there is some truth to this, as legnth requirements aren't exactly measured with lab equipment, it also isn't really correct. It is not actually common for a length requirement to be born out of thin air, and if you think about it, it wouldn't make sense to add them just because. Any additional requirement you add will make you miss out on players who don't want those requirements, so no player with a shred of experience would ask for length requirements for no purpose.

On the other hand, there isn't a direct benefit for length by itself. If I just jam "stuff" (as in the word stuff) and repeat it over and over again until it is two pages long, that is not going to be satisfying to anyone. 

This is all leading up to the conclusion that length requirements are not the point, but the means. No one that I know of actually likes length requirements, we simply find them necessary to ensure we get something else. The particular length associated with the requirement will, therefore, reflect (better or worse) these needs.

[h3]2: My History With Length Requirements (What I tried besides them and why I came to this)[/h3]

When I first began as a roleplayer I was a casual roleplayer. After moving sites a couple of times, I ended up trying out the 'simple' style roleplaying (AKA 'free' ), and just spent my time writing one liners. It was fun, but the longer it went the more boring and pointless it felt. I experimented a lot in the time since, in many styles of different length, formatting, story elements (characters, genres etc...), chat RP, tabletop RP, forum Rp... and as I tried more and gained more experience, and learned more about myself, I grew to understand better the kind of stories and style of RP that I liked.

By the time I ran an RP as a GM for the first time, I really didn't like length requirements. In my first few RPs (that I ran) I began using what I called a 'content minimum'. Basically, nomatter how short your post, as long as you had the things on that list in your post there was no problem. It was the simplest and most direct way of getting from posts exactly what I wanted from them. However, I quickly came to realize there were two problems with it:

*They took too long to look over and in practice the requirements were to vague to easily tell in a post whether something was present or not.
*Even if they were present, there was often a minimalist approach to the writing of those elements, which felt almost dismissive. 

The other available solution that was proposed to me, the writing sample, never seemed right. After all, if you tell someone "go pick up one of your past tests of your choice, and we'll assume you'll do just as well as that one test" this is bound to lead to people rigging th thing, and doesn't account for people changing or even exceptional circumstances of the sample, nor the biases of the person reading the sample.

Length requirements never [i]felt[/i] like the right solution, only because quantity is ≠ from quality. That is absolutely true. However, for my particular criteria for quality, for what I wanted out of posts and roleplays, I realized that they produced quantity as a biproduct. What I came to realize was that, much like "democracy is the worst form of government except for all others", length requirements are the worst criteria/requirement in terms of ensuring what I wanted out of detailed roleplay except for all others. Because in the end of the day, for all their faults, length requirements are just [u]practical[/u].

Anyone would take a better method for ensuring those things we want are still present, we just haven't found a more suitable one than these requirements yet.

[h3]3: My Methods of Easing the Demands[/h3]

I sometimes see "post quantity" and "post quality" posed as a dilema, but I disagree, I believe there is a trilema at play, with the third element being "post pacing". At the same time that I realized that to my enjoyment of the roleplay I needed bigger, more detailed posts that retained quality, I realized something I definitely didn't need: more posts all the time. Indeed, to me it can actually be better to not get as many posts, thus allowing me to do other things while I wait. I can more freely ask for bigger posts with good quality because I don't mind if my partners take a month for it, which can give them more time to properly write such a post at their own pace.

Another method I use for easing is that I never ask for bigger posts than those I myself can provide. For instance, I tend to measure my posts in full lines (a line that goes from the left margin of the post to the right margin of the post, without coding), 15 of them, and so I tend to demand about 12 lines minimum from roleplayers in groups that I run. The philosophy is simple, if I cannot provide a certain amount consistently, then it isn't fair to demand it of other people (although fairness isn't a big issue, since excessive remains will have the effect of market forces/ Natural selection upon such roleplays).

[h3]4: The Detailed, Simple and Casual Mindsets[/h3]

I'll keep the explanation more limited here, but this a thought that occurred to me some time ago, and I ended up expanding upon it as it just made a lot of sense to me. The basic idea is as follows: The different roleplay styles (Simple AKA Free, Casual, and Detailed AKA Advanced) are born not out of different skill levels, and not just out of different tastes, but out of different values in roleplay. Essentially, if one tends to think about or appreciate a certain narrative element then they will notice it's presence or absence more in a post, and will more easily come up with it as they are writing. Likewise, if one wants a particular thing out of their writing, then they will tend to gravitate more easily towards a style that better provides what they value (a detailed roleplayer tends to value more the richness and completeness of a scene, whereas a casual roleplayer tends to have more of a focus on that scene's contribution to the plot, and a simple roleplayer tends to appreciate more the very fact that the scene is happening than any context to it).

By nature, these mindsets aren't really boxes one perfectly fits into, but more a spectrum that depending on one's tastes and values they tend to fall more on one side or the other, but hardly ever squarely in one type. There also isn't a distinction of skill, as the different mindsets have different ideas about what 'quality' even is.

Simple roleplayers tend to focus more on the 'who' of a scene, they tend to be concerned with either the fact that they are roleplaying in of itself, they just want to roleplay and anything extending beyond that tends to be more of a bonus than a need, or they are concerned with showing their character, be it OC or cannon, and just getting to play that character, again not much of a concern beyond that. Where either of the other two styles may find a lot more restrictions in the same of 'making sense' or things that [i]need[/i] to be there, a simple roleplayer prefers a style that just lets players do what they like when they like.

Casual roleplayers tend to focus more on the 'what' of a scene. What is happening, who is doing it, what are the consequences... They tend to care more about what could be seen from a cinematic perspective, and about the narrative itself. A casual roleplayer tends to appreciate constant motion of plot and characters, and "I appreciate it, but I won't demand it of you" is pretty much their motto. Where the simple roleplayer will stop because they never had a direction to begin with and the detailed roleplayer will stop to watch every part of the view they can, the casual roleplayer will watch the view from the moving train or at least without stopping their stroll.

Detailed roleplayers tend to focus on the 'why' of a scene. A detailed roleplayer tends to care more about getting the most out of every individual scene, exploring each aspect of the narrative, world, characters etc... at every possible opportunity. Context, immersion, and the connecting of the dots are key features for a detailed roleplayer. It's not just that the detailed player will appreciate the inner monologue where the character resolves to face their fear or shows how they came to their misunderstanding, it's that if it isn't there the detailed roleplayer may notice its absense, and the post may feel lacking with such an absense. The beef may be edible raw for a simple roleplayer or simply cooked for a casual roleplayer, but a detailed roleplayer simply isn't satisfied without properly tempering the stake, even if it takes more time and effort and they may end up starving for a bit while it is being prepared.

These are simplified explanations, but hopefully they are clear on the concept at least. Maybe I'll repost the full thing in a new thread on this site.

[hr]