Consider placing your character into difficult circumstances more often

[Faceslinger-argent-dawn (Faceslinger)]

Why don’t you practice what you preach

I argue when there’s things to argue tbqh.

I’m not the one disagreeing with the OP.

Similarly, were I to in fact disagree with his opinions, I would engage in conversation and raise my concerns as to why what has been said is disagreeable.

So technically, it’s kinda <people’s> fault for not providing a real counter-argument but instead resorting to ‘omg you dare??’.

What am I meant to practice, Umay? Am I meant to agree with myself and say that I agree? Because I did, a few times. If reasonable arguments against the contextual issue are provided, I’m all for discussing roleplay as opposed to some dude’s snarky tone, which is what has been happening since the beginning (and yes I’m sure you can find that 1 obscure post where someone, amidst a wall of text, also makes a mention of something other than how rude it all sounds).

And seeing as you’re willing to discuss it, let’s go:

For me, his justification - because people need to provide tension for other characters by way of problems they can solve - is what I take issue with.

Yeah but

I mean, obviously, you can’t have roleplay without other characters

So the logical assumption can be made that, when you roleplay, you do eventually begin to provide some kind of problem to be solved in your character arc? And people who do roleplay with you, do in fact, see that your character might be undergoing interesting and engaging (speaking on a narrative level) issues.

But the issue is pedantic, as you say. Let’s look into it, too.

The problem is that you disagree with the fact that people should feel obliged to provide engaging and interesting characters to others? I blatantly disagree with this. Yeah, like, you can do what you want with your sub. money but that’s a boring and frankly senseless argument imho. In order to see what might be interesting—because THAT is subjective—we should look at the context.

Roleplay.

Roleplay is, as I previously put it in this thread, something that I would call more difficult than acting and writing combined, at the same time. Because it literally is that. But wait—there’s different types of roleplay! There’s tabletop-style RP where people just play a game and maybe insert an emote once every four turns with a funny voice. There’s the more typical kind of roleplay we see on AD, that being pure writing. Let’s stick to the common method that you’ll encounter.

Our definition of roleplay is creative writing. What constitutes creative writing—specifically in a high fantasy setting? Thankfully we don’t have to answer that, because Blizzard—the creator—has already provided us many, many books and other written material to study in order to ‘hone our craft’ (as our OP says).

So in order to roleplay well in this scenario & setting, we need to:

1. Be apt in creative writing
2. Understand the creator’s standards for similarly written creative material

But roleplay’s also a hobby, and, as I also previously said in this thread: we can’t possibly expect people that do something as a hobby to perform better than people whose career revolves around that subject. So is it fair for people to demand that people raise their standards and replicate Blizzard’s professional novel-writers? Not really, not in any world.

Is it fair to want such a thing, though? We’ve got a solid and realistic definition of what our top standard of writing should be—the source creator. Is it wrong to aim to replicate that? Should a painter telling others to improve on their work be considered wrong (yeah I know, art is subjective but let’s not go into this loophole again)?

You don’t RP for others, you RP for yourself. So do yourself a favour and improve at your hobby.

Does this appear more constructive than my meme posts previously did?

[Aerilen-argent-dawn (Aerilen)]

We’ve got a solid and realistic definition of what our top standard of writing should be—the source creator.

The bar isn’t high folks, it really isn’t.

[Faceslinger-argent-dawn (Faceslinger)]

and look how low we’ve fallen lmao

[Loni-sporeggar]

Since people are talking about writing being subjective or not I’d like to point something out.

There’s a certain structure fiction writers adhere to in order to create good story, the components are called

Exposition
Rising action
Climax
Falling action
Dénouement

I am aware there is some debate about whether this applies to modern stories but most stories both written and on film do generally follow this structure which is objective.

What is subjective however is the story itself. I’ll use an example to better illustrate my point because honestly I’m tired since I’m drinking Chamomile Tea.

I like Daredevil [the Netflix show] because the character is flawed in various ways. But you may like Sherlock Holmes who is near perfect in his skills of deduction which you may like more.

Both of these sentences are subjective because they’re both based on an opinion, while the act of writing the structure of a story or scene is objective

[Faceslinger-argent-dawn (Faceslinger)]

Tl;dr: if someone RPs a peasant and you think that’s dumb, that’s just your opinion.

If someone RPs a peasant but all they do every single day in their RP is go to the pub, that is objectively bad writing. Kinda like

*writing isn’t subjective as much as people might want to call it that: grading and rating is a thing since like primary school and stuff. I personally might disagree with some industry or even grammatical standards that should be observed when writing, but that doesn’t make the criticism an editor gave me ““subjective””

[Rogmasha-argent-dawn (Rogmasha)]

From a brief skim-reading it seems like the original post and the less heated discussion can be summarised as one big reference back to Danellos’ old guide on how to avoid being a Mary Sue - which is a fair point, and it’s worth contemplating when you approach roleplay.

If you perceive the community you’re in to have a lot of characters like x (x being a stand-in for just about anything), maybe it’s worth trying something different to make the dynamic interesting. The full piece can be read here - but here’s a few relevant snippets.

3. Avoid creating pity-beggar characters.

The pity-beggar Mary Sue is a common one, often leading a painful life with hateful parents, perfect siblings/friends or no friends at all, no lover, no man or woman taking a fancy to them, and the list could go on. The worst part of this is that the character who has suffered these injustices would have little or no reaction towards these experiences.

Pity-begging characters tend to spend a great deal of time talking about their awful pasts as well, and this is not something that people really always enjoy in roleplay. Don’t dwell too much on these things.

I am not saying that giving your character a horrible past is necessarily a bad thing, but I am saying that basing your entire character concept around it would be dangerous.

In real life, we’ve all suffered some degree of injustices. Its just the reality of life. Over-emphasizing it on your character is more often than not going to cause eye-rolling.

4. Make it difficult for your character sometimes.

It is very easy for players to make their characters out to be this individual that “just seems to get everything right the first time". Like a druid mastering his flight form on the first try, for example.

Fighting skills, special talents, strong relationships, and any special powers of some sort should not have come easily to your character in the beginning.

For example, this current character I am posting with struggles endlessly understanding the branch of druidism related to curing land corruption. In fact, he may never fully grasp the concept at all, and this may in turn prove to be a disadvantage to him!

There is, in fact, an engaging balance to be found between the two above poles.

[Lóras-argent-dawn (Lóras)]

A good roleplayer is someone who makes fun for themselves and those around them, whatever that may be (within reason).

Anything else just falls under the bracket of what you find fun, and therefore who you gravitate to. We’re not the arbiters of what’s good and bad beyond that.

[Aerilen-argent-dawn (Aerilen)]

Anything else just falls under the bracket of what you find fun, and therefore who you gravitate to. We’re not the arbiters of what’s good and bad beyond that.

speak for urself

i slam my gavel on my desk

loras is bad roleplay, case closed

[Lóras-argent-dawn (Lóras)]

That’s because I’m a sorry excuse for a player who makes fun for neither myself nor others

[Aerilen-argent-dawn (Aerilen)]

That’s because I’m a sorry excuse for a player who makes fun for neither myself nor others

If you don’t openly mock other roleplayers who roleplay in <location and/or group > then how can I tell you’re good?

I slam my gavel even harder

case closed mr. loras.

[Umay-argent-dawn]

So the logical assumption can be made that, when you roleplay, you do eventually begin to provide some kind of problem to be solved in your character arc?

Yes - but for your own sake, and your own enjoyment, and independent of the skills of other players, and the personalities and motivations of other characters. Every character and situation can be used for your own roleplay, regardless of their nature. In addition - it should really be a problem YOUR character has to solve.

The problem is that you disagree with the fact that people should feel obliged to provide engaging and interesting characters to others? I blatantly disagree with this. Yeah, like, you can do what you want with your sub. money but that’s a boring and frankly senseless argument imho. In order to see what might be interesting—because THAT is subjective, we should look at the context.

No, my issue is that people should not be obliged (or feel obliged, or encouraged) to manufacture problems that other people can solve. In fact, if they can be solved by other characters, I wouldn’t say they are particularly compelling and interesting problems, and certainly don’t add to their own characters growth or development.

I don’t think the idea of a total stranger falling into your life and curing your alcoholism and rage issues, or coming up with a platitude that extinguishes your depression for all eternity, is particularly tense, interesting, or compelling. Could they maybe help, for a day, or an hour, with somebody’s mood? Absolutely! But then there’s something that rings false, too, about a character that goes around looking to rescue people and remedy their issues - shouldn’t problems, and tension, and solutions, occur naturally, at least in social RP, as a result of interactions and relationships, as opposed to artificially imposed as a plot device for the pleasure of others?

[Faceslinger-argent-dawn (Faceslinger)]

No, my issue is that people should not be obliged (or feel obliged, or encouraged) to manufacture problems that other people can solve.

Obliged not, encouraged yes. Why not encouraged? Do you deem my way of playing (DMing) as bad and wrong? When I encourage the participants of my events to think freely and create scenarios which they themselves will find interesting and immersive, does that sound bad?

Here’s a fun HOMEWORK we had over Christmas (what nerds): we would all come up with a rumour for our characters that could be accessible to someone that might, in some way, look for it. None of our characters knew one-another when they met, but they had heard things—like in the real world. A real, immersive world.

I actually agree with you: creating a problem that is inherently meant to be solved by someone is not always the best thing (although is NOT bad). But I’m not talking about problems which you’re meant to solve. I’m talking about problems in the first place. Why? Because problems are an objective necessity for good writing—and in our definition of roleplay, on AD, roleplay=writing.

Now if you made a rolling system and your focus was around stats, weapons, %exploration_rate, and similar mechanics like that, your definition of roleplay changes. But on AD, for our vast majority, roleplay is writing. And writing can be subjected to right and wrong.

You have full right to write a boring and badly-written character, even Blizzard does it. Does this mean that you should be encouraged to continue doing writing wrong? I don’t think so. I think it’s good to encourage everyone to improve.

[Umay-argent-dawn]

Obliged not, encouraged yes. Why not encouraged? Do you deem my way of playing (DMing) as bad and wrong? When I encourage the participants of my events to think freely and create scenarios which they themselves will find interesting and immersive, does that sound bad?

But I’m not talking about DM’d scenarios, I’ve referred repeatedly (and explicitly) to social roleplay. When you create an NPC for a DM’d event, they are in fact a plot device intended to facilitate the progression of the story, capable of providing valuable exposition and helping players to achieve their goals. DM’d RP is a world away from social RP.

If you’re writing problems for your player character that are intended to act as plot hooks that other players can solve, then your character isn’t a character. It won’t speak or act or behave like a believable person. Problems should emerge organically from the DNA of your character’s personality, interactions, and relationships. How many of your flaws or issues, or even material circumstances, have been resolved by a total stranger’s intervention?

A good roleplayer is someone who makes fun for themselves and those around them, whatever that may be (within reason).

That’s certainly one interpretation, and a noble one. But surely another is that a good roleplayer creates an authentic, interesting, believable character, whose actions and reactions are consistent to their personality, history, and motivations, regardless of whether other players find this fun or rewarding to interact with?

Obviously I think if one does this, and does it well, then everybody will have fun (or at least be interested/ entertained) anyway.

[Lóras-argent-dawn (Lóras)]

That’s certainly one interpretation, and a noble one. But surely another is that a good roleplayer creates an authentic, interesting, believable character, whose actions and reactions are consistent to their personality, history, and motivations, regardless of whether other players find this fun or rewarding to interact with?

That’s personally what I find fun, so I don’t disagree. But if others find something else enjoyable, even if I think, as Faceflinger so eloquently put it, they’re playing a “boring and badly-written character”, I don’t think that they’re any more right or wrong than I am.

RP is principally a hobby. We do it to enjoy ourselves; it doesn’t need to be complicated with unnecessarily pretentious notions of what is good or bad. We can have our own perspective, but it will never be the objectively correct one.

[Faceslinger-argent-dawn (Faceslinger)]

But I’m not talking about DM’d scenarios, I’ve referred repeatedly (and explicitly) to social roleplay. When you create an NPC for a DM’d event, they are in fact a plot device intended to facilitate the progression of the story, capable of providing valuable exposition and helping players to achieve their goals. DM’d RP is a world away from social RP.

Ok my bad there, I misunderstood.

If you’re writing problems for your player character that are intended to act as plot hooks that other players can solve, then your character isn’t a character. It won’t speak or act or behave like a believable person.

My main character for a few years was Valethion: an elven Magister with an uncanny obsession over immortality. He did very little himself, and instead wanted to test people in order to have them prove themselves as worthy of receiving his blessing (and entry ticket to his secret cult).

His only problem was that he had no clue how to actually obtain immortality. Here’s the kick: a manipulative dude that he was, he made the characters that followed him in order to get immortality find a non-corruptive way for him to be immortal. As a test, duh.

So no, Umay, you are wrong. You can have a character whose biggest plot point is a hook for other characters and make the character realistic.

How many of your flaws or issues, or even material circumstances, have been resolved by a total stranger’s intervention?

I can bring up a fun experience I had from a few years back, when I fully and entirely randomly DMed for the Tide Raven. I won’t spill out the full story since it was mighty lengthy, but the short end of it was: my character needed a ship. He didn’t have a ship, or a crew. He had to find other characters to provide that to him.

These absolute strangers who, a few days prior I did not know existed, ended up resolving a major character arc which I had never intended to have resolved.

Touche yet?

eloquently

I am a man of many nicely-constructed phrases, and even more opinions.

[Mion-argent-dawn]

I can’t believe I just spent another five minutes on this thread. By now, I assumed all of the OPs points had been covered, examined and thoroughly discussed. It looks like I was sadly mistaken! Right, well. Let’s have a look.

One thing that just came to my mind is that we need to make huge distinction between main characters and alts.

I try and give all of my characters a unique-ish concept. Some of them are developed more than others but I don’t really have a ‘main’ for role-play. I just use whoever I feel is more befitting my mood on any particular day.

Back on my old realm (I left the Sha’tar just before Cataclysm launched)

It’s funny how everyone tended to jump ship from The Sha’tar just before or during Cataclysm. I held on until Pandaria but by then, nearly all of the role-play community had jumped ship. Sigh

I was on Sha’tar too, fella. Good times

I certainly hope you weren’t Northw- shot in rp

I miss The Sha’tar. It had good quality control. It’s why I was heavily shunned. Half of the things I see people do on Argent Dawn would have been laughed at and or black listed on The Sha’tar by the heavily elitist community.

Looking back, I often don’t view it as a negative thing. When I did find role-play on there, it was always top tekkers. No Goldshire ERP hub either.

Then you clearly have a different interpretation than I have. As already seen above.

So this is something I was thinking about while reading your posts, Slerk but surely, there’s only an implication being made if you consider yourself or another party to be the implicated, in which case the implication holds weight?

I dunno, just a random thought. I found the OPs tone a bit droll but like I said in my first post, there’s nothing inherently wrong with what he’s saying other than what people have over-exaggerated.

The only thing I will ask the OP, is whether or not they play characters with menial roles or not? Just curious.

[Jalbert-argent-dawn (Jalbert)]

Half of the things I see people do on Argent Dawn would have been laughed at and or black listed on The Sha’tar

Like talking about food (^:

[Aerilen-argent-dawn (Aerilen)]

It’s funny how everyone tended to jump ship from The Sha’tar just before or during Cataclysm. I held on until Pandaria but by then, nearly all of the role-play community had jumped ship. Sigh

Realm was dying for a long time, though I followed friends who saw a cool guild on AD and wanted in and I was dragged along.

[Lóras-argent-dawn (Lóras)]

though I followed friends who saw a cool guild on AD and wanted in and I was dragged along.

… and then you met me in said guild. Funny how things turn out.

I wish you’d stayed where you were.

[Cormier-argent-dawn]

The only thing I will ask the OP, is whether or not they play characters with menial roles or not? Just curious.

Hey, I’m still floating here, enjoying Umay and Face’s constructive discussion. - I play a Farstrider who’s a bit of a wimp on Horde-side. He always imagined himself climbing the ranks, and so did his family, but he can barely defend himself in a fight, so he was relegated to Eversong’s conservation and has been stuck there on the fringes ever since. I mostly perform research in the woods, heal people’s mounts/animals, and provide comedic relief on him to other people’s characters - despite the fact he has a background of self-harm and uncertainty and bloodthistle addiction that stems from his “failings” in life.

That’s one of 'em, I’ve got a couple others who’re soft targets.