It's happening again. I have been visited by a soviet mad scientist, a king, a penguin prince of darkness, a house plant god thing, a mystical ancient member, a tired reaper (thank god) + a greeting.
6
likes
6 yrs ago
For the same reason Rome 2 was attacked by thousands of players who don't know what they're talking about. lleeeeeeemmmmings
This gives me an even worse headache than playing a fictional character that's relatively well known with hundreds of theories and quirks I could possibly use to get into their heads. I distinguish playing existing characters into categories, and playing real people goes right alongside playing someone's invested small-scale original character. I cannot and will not do that.
I've only seen this in contexts where literacy and/or plot quality is stunningly lacking. Otherwise, though, to get into a head like that requires a level of intimate knowledge that I simply don't want to have with any particular person. The only people I would know to that extent are such close family that they have no purpose in a roleplay of mine.
To play it at the literacy and knowledge required to simply not care of the many presentation flaws on both sides is to do something I would be highly unwilling to humor. To play at the literacy and knowledge required for accurate representation strikes me as creepy, unnecessary for my reading, and too much time just to get to this point.
As for 'why', I'd imagine it's a self insert fantasy and/or "I want to see this" fantasy with few roots in plot and character most of the time, and simply a relief for one's desire to see that scenario happen in one of the only ways that it possibly could. Most of the times this does end up being smutty, but it doesn't have to be this way either.
While I wouldn't say 'Roo was quite my "pocket mod" for getting things done, He is a few other things in my estimation. - One of the last of a 'generation' of staff from a time where I think staff were at their best. This is from when he was active, mind you, before dropping and then returning. - An approachable fellow with a fair personality and appropriate temperament to be a mod. Lax, but not necessarily passive, which is a key distinction I look for. - a fairly good meme
And yep. Can't say more, as we never really did anything but have the once in a blue moon chat.
I think you've misunderstood a great deal of what I'm arguing, and what I merely believe to be possibilities. Possibilities which, to be perfectly clear, I don't identify with, as evident by my earlier commentary.
Then that is fine. I tried to cover as many bases as possible and didn't expect all or most of the comments to be applicable. Pick what makes sense, base the conversation around that and we'll be on our way to a decent conclusion.
To which your response has been, by-in-large, anecdotal. Which, if we're to treat this as a legitimate argument, and not a general discussion, makes all of our current points moot. The majority of your responses have been anecdotal, in actuality, as have most of my own comments.
And this is why I expect we'll end up at an agree to disagree point. Our experiences clearly differ. What we see and expect clearly differ. Without detailing every anecdote that we can possibly concieve, I don't think that can be reconciled in the end. It would be nice to get something established, but for this reason that you mention, I think we're just throwing out words because we've little better to do. And hey, that's fine too.
If there's any argument to be had here, it would reference contention on the point that I've quoted above. Although I've offered a fairly general anecdotal argument myself to begin with,
P1. Character creation is fun/fulfilling; P2. Creating a character sheet is less difficult than creating multiple posts; C1 ∴Character creation is relatively easy P3. There are a myriad of examples on this website where people put a great deal of effort into their sheets, but drop out of role plays regardless; P4. Lazier individuals are more prone to taking on easier tasks; P5. Humans are generally self-serving P6. There are hundreds of failed roleplays, but thousands of completed character sheets; C2 ∴ Writers on this site are likely to be more invested in content that they create, than they are in content that others have created; C3 ∴ Once an individual has completed the easiest self-invested task required to enter a role-play, further investment is not related to the initial character creation. P7. Without further investment, people will abandon RPs. C4 ∴ Due to the ease of character creation, and the comparative difficulty of writing posts consistently, players are more likely to create a plethora of characters, rather than remain dedicated to a single RP.
Now, from here, there are several points of contention.
If you agree with premises 1 & 2, as they are subjective, then you cannot realistically disagree with conclusion 1. The closest point of contention here, is what scope 'relatively' involves. This however, argues nothing but semantics. If we can agree that 'relatively' refers to the comparison between creating a character, and posting regularly with that character, we can move on from here. If not, then further premises are required to support the first conclusion.
No in regards to premise 3, my sample size is in fact, anecdotal and unclear. Unless I were to scan the entire forum, and bring up multiple citations, you can't take this statement at face value. However, if we can both agree that it is common for players to put effort into characters, and bail on role plays despite this, then I believe that's enough support to affirm this premise.
Premises 4, 5 & 6 are just statements of fact.
The second conclusion may be a major point of contention despite the dependent clauses offering a fair amount of support. This is where the discussion should be complicated, otherwise we'll just end up breaking off into uncoordinated tangents.
Conclusion 3 is, again, fully supported, I feel.
Premise 7 seems factual, but some people remain dedicated, even without investment. Still, I feel they are outliers.
Conclusion 4 is essentially my argument, in a nutshell.
Ah, the meat of the argument.
1 and 2 I can agree with in many circumstances, but not all. It's not always particularly fulfilling or fun, but it is more often than not. The effort in a CS can exceed the effort of multiple posts, but that depends on the roleplay and circumstances. For the sake of argument, I'll slap an easy 'yes' on both, and simply speak for myself to say that I consider character creation relatively easy.
P3 I'll attribute an easy 'sure', as it fits my experience as well. Note that at this stage, I think it's simplifying a large issue into a funnel. A huge part of the funnel that I think is missing is the element of interest. I make no argument that a minimal investment is a sure chance of success in a roleplay. I only consider it a small modifier that can result in more success than games that simply provide characters for you. There are no stats to back me up on this, and you'd probably disagree, so if that's where it ends, then I guess that is where this conversation can end. Otherwise, I'll move on, and say that I think what the true killer of roleplays is not preliminary investment, but in longer term interest. Simply put, I believe people join many roleplays, actually invest in few of them, realize that life catches up or that they have a new whim next week, and go off to pursue that thing.
In other words, I think people are just flat out whimsical when joining roleplays. That is the core reason I attribute to game failure. I believe that investment is partially an issue that can more often than not be remedied by people actually making something, but I also believe it's a small bean compared to the above. Moving on, P4, P5, P6 are obvious.
C2, in fact, I feel to be a perfectly reasonable and completely evident conclusion. It's exactly why I think making characters yourself is more viable of an investment than filling shoes already made for you. We have a huge logical breach between us somewhere if this semi-paragraph doesn't fit together.
C3 is reasonable, and yet, this is where I introduce the concept of lingering investment. It clearly doesn't work with everyone, and it is easily dismantled by interest apathy later on (as per the above), but I believe it is a small factor that is better present than not. There is not a need or a logical grounds for further investment here - it's just based on my own style of thinking that once you do something for something, it's a shame to simply leave it unused. If you make something, without using it, would there not be a sense of wasted time resulting from that investment actually going nowhere?
P7 is fair, except I don't think it's just about investment, it's also about interest in the core concepts involved, and ideally some sort of motivation to keep posting, be that momentum from the first posts (quite reliable at the start, until it starts to die because there's no push from anyone to keep it going and things slow to nothing) and/or activity OOC where people are given semi-frequent reminders that yes, the roleplay does exist - which, hopefully, might just tie into the idea of lingering investment that I mentioned above. The idea that you made something to do something, and you might as well continue. Of course not everyone will subscribe to it. I like to think in my own games, I try to avoid the people that totally dismiss it.
Despite ^, I do fully support C4. Interest burns red hot throughout the character creation stage most of the time. It often carries through the first page of posting. And then the momentum simply vanishes. Not all roleplays die right after character creation, by any means. They often die later, or at different points, when collective interest is lost from lack of motivation. So yes, there is a high chance of characters being created, and there is a low chance of lingering dedication. For the sake of continuing with your format, I will introduce P8, P9, and P10, which go towards C4, and my logic for treating investment as a small variable that is not disproved by the fact that roleplays fail despite it. By itself, it will assuredly fall. But that does not mean it can't help, and if I'm being bold, can't help more often than not. P8: Player motivation is built on the obligation to continue (getting a ping, GM poking you, OOC chatter to jog your memory). It is slightly dependent on investment to keep it fueled, but in far greater part, it depends on interest. P9: Interest, what I believe to be the most critical piece of roleplay success and failure, is something that is easily gained and easily lost. It is only reliable after reflecting for a while and making a thought out decision if you really want to do something in the long term (not a decision you can reasonably make on day 1, in my opinion). If such reflection isn't done (from what I see? It almost literally never is) then the interest is frequently proven to burn out, and the resulting lack of interest (the thing that built the roleplay's core in the first place) makes the rest of the variables collapse like a house of cards. P10: Lingering investment, which I just brought up. It's situational to be sure, not everyone has it (and again, I try to avoid those that simply don't, because I think that makes people less dependable in general). Alongside motivation, it's the idea that you've just done something, and so you should ideally see it to the end. It's a very small factor, sure, but I think it's a relevant one to keep in mind.
Going back to the source argument, I think actually making a character results in a little bit of those minor factors being indulged (if interest is catered to as well is another thing entirely and so subjective that we probably shouldn't go there). Does the roleplay hinge on them? Not really. Can they help? I think so. Character sheets clearly don't determine if a roleplay can live or die, but if you play your cards right, I think they're a small bonus to a long journey as compared to having prebuilt characters that end up lacking in those little boosts. You could argue not having to write more is a boost of its own kind, but I'm going to abandon the pretense of good argument and just say that I don't like that kind of boost and I'd prefer not to indulge it in the first place.
Two things cannot be mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive at the same time. Unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology, which I'm fairly sure isn't the case, this seems redundant.
The main point I'm trying to drive at is that saying 'it's not mutually inclusive' is frivolous. I don't believe it's exclusive. You don't think it's inclusive. Ultimately, I think it sits in the middle. It's simply an element to consider.
While I do agree that being able to act as a writer, and write as an actor, are both very good assets, they are not necessary to perpetuate one another. Some people are better at writing than others simply because they understand the science of language and literature to a greater degree than others, and the same goes for those who act/role play. I can assert myself that having experience in both fields does not automatically translate to improved results. It depends on the individual.
It certainly does depend on the individual, but I find that having a minimal basis in acting as a writer for the sake of presenting information (your character) is an important baseline. If for nobody else, it is a baseline for me (although I personally do not demand character sheets from partners). Anything further than that I don't consider particularly relevant here.
The variance from person to person is exactly why I think the concept of pre-made characters has potential, in theory. I cannot possibly account for everyone who isn't me, so I don't. But, I also don't take that variance into account as a tool for argumentation, because it is worthless as evidence.
We'll have to digress. I am equally convinced that making your own character is something achievable in such a great number of people, with little cost and some benefit I've seen over time, is a boon over having a character just presented to you for you to fit into its shoes.
In regards to 1x1s in particular, I think that the similarity between pre-made characters and pre-made roles could act as support if structured in an argument for the effectiveness of pre-made characters.
I draw a line; a role is a guideline for creating a character, and a useful one at that. Once you actually make characters instead of roles to build characters into, the core of my argument comes into play at a personal level and what I perceive to be the case elsewhere.
Ah, I'm sorry for disregarding a great deal of your post. I feel that most of it was based on misconceptions of my beliefs, which is why I chose to clarify rather than address your individual points.
You disregarded irrelevant content. There's hardly an issue with doing that.
Apologies if I missed something you've corrected, just looked back in and saw you edited after I started typing. If that makes my reply to the point unnecessary, just toss it out.
