Other A Case for Length Requirements

Idea

The Pun Tyrant
Roleplay Availability
Roleplay Type(s)
My Interest Check
Length requirements: Asking for a particular amount of words, lines, paragraphs or the like for each post as a rule in the roleplay. It's something that happens often and just as often is complained about, though not in the same place. Length requirements can be stiffling, sometimes you just don't know what to write or may lack the time in the day to write that much. They can also be an ill-fit for, say, a back and forth conversation where maybe telling someone you liked their dinner doesn't take two bulky paragraphs. Indeed many write larger posts without needing requirements and possibly find the idea of being "required" to be their specific grievance.

All of these are valid complaints, and if you follow me that far, then the question becomes: Why would anyone want to have them?

That is what I want to make a case for today. I want to defend why I and plenty of others not only have length requirements, but why indeed I personally seek them out in roleplays when choosing whether or not to join them. I am making this a thread because it is such a common thing that is brought up and because I feel it is a topic worth going in-depth about.


Part 1: Assumptions

Before we begin discussing this there are some assumptions I would like to state I will be working with, and for that reason I wish to justify. These are:
1. There isn't an inherent quality factor in length. This is to say that the mere fact you wrote something in more words or less words is not by itself an indicator that something is better or worse writing, though other factors which are statistically or tangentially associated by indicate a difference in skill (for instance if you write a bigger description because you're not able to actually describe the thing, cetris parius someone who can do the latter would be more skilled).

2.While I will be addressing the point of less skilled / unskilled writers of a particular play style, I will default to assuming the person "knows what they are doing" and is attempting to write in the style that suits them.

3.Nobody is entitled to having another roleplay with them. The one making the roleplay has no right to demand that others join, nor does one attempting to join have the right to join on that basis alone.

4.The primary purpose of roleplaying is personal satisfaction (this is usually taken to be "fun" but that isn't always necessarily the case for everyone). Different people enjoy different things, therefore there will be different ways to fulfill the primary purpose.


The first assumption is a matter of understanding that using less words does not automatically mean you have a higher density of content, "saying more with less" as some might put it. Yes you may have the capacity to say the major points in a more succint manner, but in the process you can lose detail or implications. At some point, "saying more with less" becomes just "saying less and expecting the other person to read your mind and get the stuff you didn't actually write". Where this point is is debatable, but it exists and if you can't agree with that then I'll have to ask you to at least temporarily concede me that point so we can have a discussion at all.

The second assumption is present because unskilled / newer writers are prone to a lot of mistakes and not use their 'tools of choice' properly. As a certain professor of mine once said "there is often one way to do something right and an infinite number of ways to do something stupid". The value of something needs to be explained using cases were it works, even if one must remain aware of the cases where it doesn't.

The third assumption is the answer to an admittedly uncommon complaint: That if you have length requirements then you're somehow enacting some injustice (my words not theirs) against others who may want to join but may not want to follow the rule in question. I would posit that, on the contrary, it would be unfair to prevent someone from being able to make or join a roleplay with certain rules or topics just because there might be an unrelated someone out in the ether who wouldn't be happy in the roleplay, or that the rules for deciding who can be in a roleplay should be determined by skill or willingness without a strong element of compatibility.

The fourth assumption is here because it has one key implication: There are a variety of mindsets and tastes. Something seeming better to you - or boring to you, exciting... - even something satisfying all you want, does not mean it will necessarily meet the criteria for another person. One should be careful when assuming that another values the same you do, because if they don't, then it's only natural they would adopt different methods from you. At least in roleplay you have no obligation (beyond that minimum of human decency, following the rules and contributing to the roleplay) to answer to an audience.



All of these assumptions will be taken as true moving forward in this thread. Still, I think for the most part those that complain about length requirements would still agree with those assumptions. They would still think people don't have an obligation to include others nor a right to be included in a particular roleplay, they would agree that roleplaying is first and foremost for fun, and they would at least understand why I am addressing this generally assuming at least somewhat skilled writers.



Part 2:Merits of Length

If you read the previous part properly then you know the answer: There are none. Length by itself does not improve quality, therefore the merits of length are effectively non-existent.

What, though, if there was something that length brought with it that, beyond length itself, is valuable? Something that perhaps you can have even if length isn't necessarily present, but which has a strong correlation to it, making length a good indicator of it?

Well, as it turns out from my experience, there are three:

A) Detail - Descriptiveness tends to come hand in hand with longer length. Often it's one of the keys requirements to even get to the length consistently. I think that's enough to explain it though I do find it ironic how simple it came to be compared to the other two haha.

B) Content (per post) - I don't think I'm alone in saying that when I played in chat RPs (skype, discord, and some sites) one thing that stood out to me was just how much time I was using per day, practically uninterrupted, just to get through small scenes (if that). This is because contrary to my expectations each post sent was actually filled with a lot of action that on the surface moved things forward but from a structural perspective barely did anything. Three long posts of characters discussing something will often end in characters moving on from the conversation, but a more back and forth one can take several times the length even accounting for the difference in size. A conversation in larger posts ends up being shorter because a lot of the in-betweens of a more natural conversation, and a lot of the banter, is often tossed aside because it doesn't fit the longer string of dialogue. A lot more things can happen in a small scene with smaller posts, but assuming a proportional timing the longer posts are likely to end up going through the key events faster while adding detail about other things as well, which the smaller posts may or may not depending on the immediate relevance of those details to the characters or plot.

C) Story Structure - Smaller posts are written more spontaneously, and this is one of the reasons why they can get burned out by length requirements more easily (something I will address later). It's also linked to something I believe the majority of RPs prefer or at least think they prefer (without having actually tried the alternative a lot of the time): By-the-seat-of-your-pants writing, AKA discovery writing. Writing which, as opposed to planned writing which formulates a plan for how things are before writing them, just metaphorically lets the characters or story take charge and follow through with the consequences of what they do or have happen as it they see it. Small posts are far more conductive to this than longer ones, but that reason too more planning-focused roleplayers tend to have longer posts as well, and by their nature, more structured posts as well. Planning-based writers are, by definition, the ones aware of the destination and the big picture of the story. In roleplay this may translate more into the big picture of the post than the roleplay itself, but even then they might have a strong idea of where they want to take their characters at the very least, without being utterly inflexible. This means this type of writer organize the way they write more, and make use of more writing techniques/tools than a discovery writer could, namely foreshadowing. It's a lot harder to foreshadow things in discovery writing because you don't know yet if anything will actually be relevant. Planning, however, will make it relevant barring a circumstance that would really get in the way. Smaller posts tend to be more disorganized and spontaneous, longer posts tend to be more structured and planned. Smaller posts focus on what's happening right now, but longer posts have a higher chance of considering how that post is framed in the big picture of the roleplay, of nothing else, by looking backward.


The three above you can most certainly have without length. I know at least a few people who even advocate for shorter posts being preferential and the "less is more" attitude, but whose posts are beautiful and well-detailed. No doubt, those posts are filled with content too. But I would suggest that players who want shorter posts also tend to care less about being detailed or putting a lot of content in a given post. Their focus is more on moving the action / plot along. But my point is not that length causes more content or more detail, rather it's that it's far more common for posts with more length to also have more detail and more content per post.

Now it's true I haven't exactly conducted a statistical investigation into this and I'm relying mostly on my personal experience, but I do believe this to be a statistical reality. It's quite relevant, when you consider that you don't really have an easy metric for either detail nor content. You can't say "I have detail 2" or "there's 3.467 content in this post". But you can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt "I wrote at least 500 words in this post".

Length, without being detail, content, or story structure is something I and no doubt many others have found to be a good proxy for those three things.


Part 3: Objections to Length Requirements

Sometimes a good way to look at the merits of something can be by looking at its flaws and where it's lacking.

The following are some of the more common objections to length requirements I've seen, barring any that would be dismissed by the assumptions alone:

Length requirements don't work well with some scenes, like combat or back and forth dialogue.
This is for the most part true. There are some solutions, like collaborative posts, but often a more flexible line is better for a more organic movement of the action, and some scenes are more realistic happening in small instances (again the dialogue example, it's more realistic for a conversation to be back and forth than long strings of dialogue).

That being said, I would say it's absolutely possible to keep things organic - realistic even - without discarding post length. These happens in two main ways: First, one could simply focus on other aspects than the particular action. Unlike dialogue or combat actions, the descriptions of the environment, character thoughts, etc... Aren't limited to the timeframe. I would argue as well that if we value realism then body language, constant trains of thought and taking in a lot of information at once is something we do every second of every day without even realizing it a lot of the time. How is the texture of whatever you're touching, what are you smelling, how does everything in front of you look like... all of this and more is stuff your brain processes every moment, though it does cut out from your attention things it finds less relevant.

Second there's the concept of "fluid time". It's a concept describing several things being written in parallel which may be happening in several different moments chronologically. Your post might include dialogue for a conversation while the second half has your character going to another room, and other posts may continue both lines, furthering the conversation while exploring the contents of the room. This is a little trick very frequently found and less frequently thought about in group RPs and longer-post RPs alike. For obvious reasons posts that contain several jumps in time and can frequently be very much retroactive isn't really a natural-sounding thing. However, I have rarely found a person who gave this much thought, let alone was actually annoyed by this to any great extent. What it suggests to me is that this has become entrenched in the way many of us RP and the benefits of potentially working in several chronologically close but still separate moments of action outweight the strangeness.


Lets say, though, that you don't buy what I said above. That you think it (at least in general) just can't be done to keep things organic with long posts, and fluid time is just not something you think should ever be a thing. Then I should ask: What makes being organic or realistic the end all be all of dialogue? Would we really find it more immersive if even the most well-spoken characters had constant breaks, sudden inputs, random noises and the like that real life dialogue has? Does sounding natural truly triumph above every other aspect - or it be simply a facet of dialogue's quality, one which perhaps other styles of writing value less? Perhaps the way the dialogue expresses the character, or helps aid in the plot, makes for worldbuilding or foreshadowing, etc... Or maybe they simply find such dialogue more expressive?


Length requirements are arbitrary
Not exactly. I would agree if you said that "a lot of people have length requirements with only vague reasons as to why they are that length". If you ask why a paragraph a common response is "because I think two paragraphs would be too much but I also don't want one liners". But if you were to try to pursue the questioning further you'd be unlikely to get a much better answer than "just because". I would argue though, that this is a matter of custom and imitation. New players look at how things are done on the site, and assume this how something is "supposed" to be done, and later it just becomes a habit to ask for one of those common standard lengths.

Then there's people like myself. People who have tried and experimented with several different lengths (and even other modes to try to get more content-rich posts but I'm getting ahead of myself) and found that below a certain threshold things just didn't work as well for them. I tried content requirements, I tried no requirements, I tried line type requirements and word type requirements. Nowadays my interest checks often sport both a line or a word requirement, depending on the preference of the partner/players. I've found that the latter has worked best for me, as they both have the necessary simplicity (content requirements could be hard to check or know if you met them) and allow them to fulfill their purpose, which I will talk about later. The point, however, is that this was not arbitrary, it was the result of my personal experiences and experimentations as well as me gaining more knowledge about my own preferences in roleplaying that led me to come up with the numbers I now use.

Be it by custom, imitation or experience length requirements are rarely if ever truly arbitrary. This can be seen as a technicality though: Sure they are technically not without any reason, but surely "I just do it because other people do it / by force of habit" is not much of a reason either? I would argue there's merit in it though, as even if you don't personally know it, it's not unreasonable to presume that if people in general or you yourself in the past did something, then there likely was a reason for it. Custom or imitation are really a matter of trust towards something you don't feel you can't (or maybe you just don't feel like trying to) do yourself. Perhaps this trust is ill-advised but that is a topic for another discussion.

One thing I want to stress though is this question: Why would anyone want to pick up that specific custom, or why would I go to such lengths experimenting with different types of requirements? What could we value about having those requirements that would make it worth adding them in the first place?


Length requirements lead to "purple prose"
The answer to this one partially threads on the earlier assumption about unskilled player or players out of their suitable writing style, as those are the players (for reasons I will get into a bit later) who will do this more frequently.

That being said I want to address another matter entirely, though still an answer to the objection: How do you define purple prose? To many, the criteria would involve description that isn't relevant to the character or the plot. However, this isn't the way everyone would look at it. A description purely for world building's sake is not something I would automatically label purple prose, to give an example.

Purple prose is an excessive or futile descriptiveness. Adding content or descriptions just for the sake of making the writing more elaborate without adding anything meaningful. To many purple prose is simply a boring thing and makes a post worst. However, we disagree on where the line is and I would argue in this case that disagreement largely has to do with the things we value in a post. Someone who values only plot and character will see scenic descriptions in many circumstances as superfluous, whereas another might find them extremely valuable and love them.

More length has a correlation with more content - but whether this content is something you find valuable will affect your view of this fact. Perhaps it is superfluous in your eyes, with your values, but what if I find the things this is adding to be valuable? Whether length requirements generate "purple prose" depends on how you define it, and more importantly, whether that is even a bad thing for those using those length requires in the first place also depends on that definition. When you change the meaning of a concept you change its implications as well.



Length requirements take too much to write and feel like work rather than fun
You could always spread it out. A lot of the time, length and quality are treated as almost a dilema, but in truth it's more of trilema, with speed/pace. You can make consistent quality long posts, but this will take you longer than small quality posts or long poor quality posts.

However, this only answer a very specific case of that objection, a lack of time. Other cases are mainly answered by what I concluded was the reason to use length requirements and I'm saving the answer for that part. I will say this though: Why should you force yourself to write in a style you don't want to? And, seeing the assumption about neither being entitled to the other being in a roleplay them, why ought I want to play with people who don't enjoy the kind of writing I want to make?



The Common Thread
In the end of the day, what do all of these objections and their responses have in common? Well, I would suggest it's this: People who use length requirements and those who are against them have different values. Perhaps the conclusion sounds obvious to you when I put it that way, but I urge you to think about the implications. It means we are judging the same thing on completely different standards. When someone complains about length requirements the argument almost always presumes their own tastes as a given for a metric, and this is where that fourth assumption comes in, because a writing style's merits have to do with its goals, and the goals can change depending on the writer's own values. The writing style of someone who puts a great deal of value on clothes will include richer vocabulary on clothing, more in-depth descriptions of character clothing and so on... to another, descriptions of clothing may seem superfluous, and they might not even think about the richness of the dialogue clothing-wise, or the realism of the character in that area, but why would we say that these elements are a bad thing when they are in line with the goal of the writer? We can apply this, in a broader sense, to length requirements as well: If the things they bring me are the things I value, and if it is more suited to achieve what I want to achieve, then why should it be considered useless or in poor taste to use? Why should the utility of glasses be measured in their ability to survive a highspeed encounter with a baseball bat?

Of course none of this would matter, in fact it might be pointless to make this thread, if every instance of someone judging length requirements by their own tastes was simply as it regards to themselves. It's obviously valid to say "I don't like X because it doesn't work for my tastes". But what is more often seen is claims that length requirements are bad and people shouldn't use them. "Quality over quantity" is phrase that has come to become annoying by how often it comes from people who say this about length while simultaneously demanding daily or even multi-daily posts, without the possibility being considered that the alternative of giving time can be the difference between a long AND quality post versus one or the other. The biggest and thankfully rare issue comes when the perception of length requirements comes to the point that people start drawing implications about the people using them, such as the idea they are elitists who think quality only comes from length (perhaps I'm exaggerating but not by much).

Even for those who use it, the misconception on length requirements can be a problem, because if you forget that length requirements have a purpose then they become just showmanship, and at point you make true what was false. If you're adding them just for the sake of it or to show off, then you're better off not doing it. I think if you do have them, then it should be for a reason befitting what it can achieve.

Of course, who am I to tell you what the reason should be? Well, I am nobody worth doing anything like that. But I believe I've at least managed to put into words what my, and likely the general reason for using length requirements is. But before that, there's one more thing I need to address.



Part 4: Unskilled Roleplayers
When I was listing common objections there were a couple I left out that were countered by the assumptions. One of those is an idea similar but somewhat different from the third objection regarding purple prose. This one, however, is that "length requirements force people to focus on fulfilling a quota and thus add stuffing instead of content".

This is something that I would say is not true if we assume the roleplayer is skilled and is hardly true if the player is somewhat skilled at least. With experience, practice, preparation and other such methods stuffing is wriggled out of posts like one wriggles water out of wet cloth. While circumstances such as a short deadline for posts can certainly force one's hand, I would argue that if one is given time and is willing to put thought into it, one can easily have long posts without stuffing consistently. This does not, however, happen by removing the content, but by making what is added meaningful.

This borrows some from what I said in the "purple prose" argument: A skilled player will add content they find valuable, focus on aspects they find important, but this does mean potential readers will consider it such as well. These things can include worldbuilding, things that show character, set up, or even just descriptions to set the tone/atmosphere of a scene.

I am no master of the writing craft, not even of what I would call the "detailed mindset style of writing". I certainly think I am competent, but I see many areas I wish to improve upon and don't think I am that a great as a writer or roleplayer. However, I do know even I am able to do the thing I proposed above: I can make what would otherwise be stuffing into character-showing elements, set ups for the future, worldbuilding, setting the atmosphere or at times just attempts to be humorous. This doesn't necessarily mean they will be high quality or even will be picked up on by my partners/fellow players but the moment someone has a real trick that automatizes good impactful writing writers will be out of a job.

It should also be noted that a lack of skill isn't the only thing that can cause the problems I associated with unskilled or newer roleplayers. In fact a player that approaches things from a mindset significantly different from the "detailed mindset style of writing" in key areas (the "detailed" part) is likely to not understand what they should do to make those longer posts work. Someone who's focus is primarily on plot and action may end up putting a lot of random unnecessary, maybe even disrupting actions on their post because they are simply not thinking that maybe description would have fit better instead, the idea of worldbuilding maybe doesn't even cross their mind in most circumstances. If the length requirement someone wants just doesn't match your style at all, then maybe you are not very compatible partners.



Part 5: Filters, the Purpose of Length Requirements

So, we arrive at the end, at the conclusion of this lengthy ...thing I have written. Not sure what to call it to be honest, but it's about time I give the answer and you probably have a good idea what I'm going to say given the title.

That's right, length requirements are filters. Why? Let's put together what we assembled before:

*Length can, from a statistical perspective, be seen as a proxy for detail, story structure, and content. Longer posts tend to have more of those three.

*People value different things, something may seem worthless because it's being judged by a criteria that doesn't appreciate it or whose function is predicated on a different set of values.

*The length of writing can be associated with an approach to writing, therefore players may want to work with people who share their interest in length for more fulfilling roleplays.


The last piece of the puzzle, which I only sort of touched on in the previous part, is that interest in something can make you think of it more. Valuing something makes you think of it more, and more naturally. Using the example of the clothes-loving-person from earlier, this person will more easily write about clothes and notice details on that topic than someone who lacks that kind of interest. If we broaden this we can say that people who are more interested in the things contained in detailed roleplaying (usually associated with higher length) will have an easier time thinking of those things, coming up with how to fill up the work. It's not that they are actively trying to write more, they just do it naturally. Someone with no interest in worldbuilding will have a hard time describing worldbuilding elements or considering them as an option to fill out a post, so naturally people who in general lack those types of interests will write smaller posts more naturally.

That is perfectly fine and they are not worse for it, just shifted to a different focus. But it does allow us to conclude what the length requirement can do for us: It can help us determine who does and does not have our taste and interests in writing. You do want to work with people who share your approach, and you know that length is an easy to measure proxy for the indicators. You also know that people who do have higher length may be doing so because it comes more naturally to someone with this "detailed mindset writing style". Those are the people least if at all bothered by length requirements: Why would you be bothered by a requirement that you meet anyway?

Length requirements are not an attempt to fix the RP to a rigid system of post length quotas (in fact I'd say after a while one could definitely loosen up the requirements), they are the means to the end of finding people who think in a way that gives them a propensity to making the types of posts you want to see - and perhaps the ones you want to be appreciated of your production instead of boring your partner and getting told your hard-worked details are just flowery language.

For some people their ability to have fun with RPs can be highly tied to this. Length itself isn't the issue, but many things that person thinks important may be associated with it.


Part 6: So You're Saying Longer Posts Are Better?
Not at all. I do think they tend to be better in some respects, and worse in others, but overall I'd say length is pretty neutral. The biggest difference lies in what you gain and what you sacrifice. The story structure, content, worldbuilding, details, etc... are gained at the expense of things flowing naturally or organically in the way shorter posts often can, it can sacrifice some realism and pacing in particular is likely to be lost too.


Part 7: Final Word
Well, it's nearly 4 AM now, which I really should've seen coming when I started writing this. I don't have the energy to proof-read, but hopefully nothing too dramatic there, though I do think maybe I could've worded things better... and that I didn't miss anything I intended to write.

In any case, I hope you all enjoyed the read. If nothing else I want to leave things with this old phrase:

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
 
Not a fan of one-lining, but that does not by any means mean I appreciate absurd lengths as minimum requirements. Sure, five paragraphs or more is fine for an introductory prologue, but damn, I ain't sitting through that for every damn post! There's only so much you can say before you start repeating things.

Oh yeah, did I ever tell you all about the guy who REALLY wanted long ass paragraphs? He goes apeshit whenever I dedicate a new line for dialogue and then goes all "YOU CAN'T PUT ONE LINE PARAGRAPHS" or "PARAGRAPHS TOO SHORT" like holy shit mang.
 
Not a fan of one-lining, but that does not by any means mean I appreciate absurd lengths as minimum requirements. Sure, five paragraphs or more is fine for an introductory prologue, but damn, I ain't sitting through that for every damn post! There's only so much you can say before you start repeating things.

That’s fine and dandy of course. Everyone has their own tastes, and as I concluded the purpose of length requirements is to filter for people who more closely share your approach and taste in writing style. After all what one would call an “absurd length” varies from person to person, and while you're correct you can only say so much before you start repeating yourself, what that amount is will also vary from person to person depending on what they even consider saying - or worth saying. My usual 1x1 interest check requirements are usually 700-800 words / 15 full PC lines. I know people who take that casually and I know people who seem close to fainting at half of that. I also know the dramatic contribution my requirements made in finding the right partners for me, partners with whom I was far more satisfied.

Naturally none of that means one has to like length requirements, even if one employs them they are not ideal, just a means to an end. But it's a different story if one is to say they are a bad thing or shouldn't be used, as that I think is wrong and often fundamentally misses their point.

As sidenote, yeah that thing about individual paragraphs all having to be long is pretty silly, I gotta agree there.
 
I think how people write also differs. I can easily produce multiple paragraphs with no effort. It doesn’t mean I resort to purple prose or repeating myself. If anything I tend to get lost in describing inner monologues and setting scenes.

If you ask me to stick to one or two paragraphs on the other hand I will be sweating buckets and cursing my computer.

So there are some people that favor brevity and others that favor detail. It’s why personally I like to use roleplay samples.

As they get to how someone writes over how much someone writes. And it does look very different when a writer that favors brevity tries to write three paragraphs and someone who enjoys details does the same.
 
So there are some people that favor brevity and others that favor detail. It’s why personally I like to use roleplay samples.

As they get to how someone writes over how much someone writes. And it does look very different when a writer that favors brevity tries to write three paragraphs and someone who enjoys details does the same.

Personally I've found success with length requirements, though to be honest writing samples is one of the few things I haven't tried with the seriousness I've tried other things. This is because I fundamentally don't trust them: A length requirement is useful in part because it is easy to check and continuous. If the situation calls for flexibility with a partner I already trust of course I won't be excessively strict, but a writing sample happens only once and there's no shortage of examples online and in real life alike of people taking shortcuts once they no longer have to prove they can do things or of cherry picking something to show that makes them look good but isn't representative of what they will actually provide.

Of course, those are just my personal reservations. I know you talk about writing samples a lot in these kinds of discussions so I'm glad to hear they work for you. In the end of the day, people getting RPs that make them happy is what matters.
 
Well when I say writing sample I mean a sample of a previous roleplay in its entirety. So it gives you an example of how the person writes AND how they respond.

So yeah they might write differently from one roleplay to another but that’s not a writing problem. That’s a problem with communication.
 
Well when I say writing sample I mean a sample of a previous roleplay in its entirety. So it gives you an example of how the person writes AND how they respond.

So yeah they might write differently from one roleplay to another but that’s not a writing problem. That’s a problem with communication.

Hmm... A clever solution.
 
Peronsally, I prefer a partner who's comfortable changing up their length over one who sticks to a strict minimum or maximum. This is because certain lengths just work better for certain types of scenes.

To explain what I mean:

Shorter posts work really well for a lot of action scenes. Take, for example, a down-and-dirty fight between two characters. For a scene like this, I like short, punchy posts that convey the fast-paced action. Plus, shorter posts give my partner's character a chance to respond before mine does something else.

Meanwhile, Longer posts would just bog the fight down. In an action-y situation irl, people don't typically have time to consider each move, or wax poetic about their feelings. So a lot of internal monologue really just pulls me out of the action. It reminds me of cheesy shonen anime I used to watch as a kid, stuff where a single fight is stretched to three episodes because the characters won't stop talking to themselves.

The same sort of applies to conversations between characters. Think about an intense argument-- chances are, if two people are really upset at each other, they're not going to sit patiently while the other person gets through their internal monologue then gives a long, carefully thought-out response, or let them bring up several points in a row. It's much more likely that they'll yell at each other, interrupt and talk over each other, even walk out in the middle of a scene... Short posts give the other character time to do that interrupting and have those knee-jerk reactions that make the scene feel more natural and compelling.

And on the other side of things...

Long posts can work really well for setting a scene. Long posts give you time to describe a lot of sensory details, world-building tidbits, and what your character thinks/feels about what's around them. Which are great ways to set the tone of the scene and introduce new stuff. This is why my intro posts, and posts starting a new scene in a new place tend to be way longer than average. Long posts can also be surprisingly good for quiet moments in the story, when your character does have time to think through deep concepts and feelings.

Longer posts are also helpful when you've got a huge cast of characters interacting with each other. A long post would be good for a huge battle between armies, where there's a ton of characters doing a ton of things.


Those are just the examples that came to my mind, but there's a lot of other times when a certain length just works better with certain scenes. Obligatory disclaimer that this is just my preferred way of doing things, no one's obligated to do it this way, everyone should just do what's most fun for them, and so on and so on. This is also based entirely on 1x1, as I rarely do groups.
 
I get all that, I suppose, but I personally still don't like any limits. To me, it invokes academia and removes any sense of fun. Like, I write posts that most people consider to be long (usually around 1k, but up to like 1.8k if the scene warrants it), and it doesn't even take up a lot of my time. I can write 1k words in an hour easily, without rushing myself. That only happens when I'm comfortable with the roleplay, though, and introducing literally any kind of length requirement kills that for me. It makes it feel like work in my head.
 
Shorter posts work really well for a lot of action scenes. Take, for example, a down-and-dirty fight between two characters. For a scene like this, I like short, punchy posts that convey the fast-paced action. Plus, shorter posts give my partner's character a chance to respond before mine does something else.

Meanwhile, Longer posts would just bog the fight down. In an action-y situation irl, people don't typically have time to consider each move, or wax poetic about their feelings. So a lot of internal monologue really just pulls me out of the action. It reminds me of cheesy shonen anime I used to watch as a kid, stuff where a single fight is stretched to three episodes because the characters won't stop talking to themselves.

I feel like this kind of scene you’re referring to is one that really shows not only the difference in approach that exists between different writing styles but also the, for lack of a better word, ‘danger’ in oversimplifying a particular type of scene. I want to preface this though by making it clear I am not trying to throw criticism at what you enjoy, I just thought your description of your perspective presented a great opportunity in exemplifying one of the things I talked about.

So for starters my angle: From where I stand, the fight you're describing in your first post could very easily be a shopping list reading or a news report, it's technically telling me what is happening but its depth and its weight are stripped from it, as though are rarely something I find in the fight by itself, but rather exist in the details that provide context for it and how those details affect the fight. Furthermore even the possibilities within the fight itself are diminished because the style you at least appears to be promoting often lacks setting and blocking (the latter which means the indication of a character's position in the scene's setting, allowing a reader to keep track of where everyone is to better visualize the scene). Clever uses of the environment will often need a set up or they can end up feeling like they came out of the blue, but with that proper set up can really make a fight feel a lot more lived not to mention add more variety to the fight itself. I do think the feeling of things being dynamic and action-packed is important of course, but often shorter sentences rather than short posts entirely can be sufficiently to give it the more fast-paced feeling, and not letting the character actually stop even if they are thinking, gives a sense of more continuous action.

But all of that is a matter of tastes of course, so let's set it aside. Notice how you said "shorter posts give my partner's character a chance to respond before mine does something else". This betrays a conception of posts as composed, in large part, by character action. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but it is a very clear example of what I talked about in my original post and a lot of times before: Your tastes influence what you consider as possibilities. There are many ways - from placing your action such that it is not terminated by the end of the post, to just adding a "if they were to succeed" type of clause on their next action, for example. In fact, in IRL situations you do actually think a lot. You don't have time to properly consider those thoughts, but there's a reason "mind racing a mile a minute" is often used in these types of situations, danger is one of the things the brain is specially callibrated to respond to and rather than a lack of thoughts, you will end up having a lot of them and very chaotic ones at that. Just because you aren't IRL able to put your exact feelings and thoughts into a concise words as they are happening doesn't mean you aren't in fact having those emotions, thoughts and experiences. Even as a writer who always tries to write from a strict constraint of the character's own perspective I still have to use words to describe things after all. I prefer using words that will attempt to paint a picture or convey the experiences rather than simplifying or ignoring those experiences.

Naturally there are better and worse ways to do this. A long, drawn-out ramble on an emotion of a character can end up seeming like a "the character is definitely totally feeling this" situation and ends up feeling as bland as not giving any thoughts on their emotions. But circumstances are everything and sometimes a "I'm scared" in the right place will break through a long line of text, like a light bulb or a shattering of the character's own pretext to themselves and resonating because of it.


To make a long story short: Descriptiveness - which by nature implies length in most situations - has something to add to fight / action scenes that is often lost with shorter posts.


The same sort of applies to conversations between characters. Think about an intense argument-- chances are, if two people are really upset at each other, they're not going to sit patiently while the other person gets through their internal monologue then gives a long, carefully thought-out response, or let them bring up several points in a row. It's much more likely that they'll yell at each other, interrupt and talk over each other, even walk out in the middle of a scene... Short posts give the other character time to do that interrupting and have those knee-jerk reactions that make the scene feel more natural and compelling.

Natural I'll give you. Organic even, I would add, not to mention realistic. But compelling? I'm not so sure about that. This is something that very much relies on how much weight you give to the dialogue sounding like what you'd hear in real life. If the character "sounding like a real person" is the crux of the matter then sure that's really important. But what if what's being conveyed, what if the meaning in what is said is what is important? What if you look at individual moments of the dialogue more than the flow of conversation? What posts have an overlapping chronological space, this is they aren't fully happening one after the other, but maybe they start while the other is still ongoing?

What you find often in shorter posts - if my experience with them, particularly in platform RPs like within discord, is anything to go by- is that to make that flow of conversation you need to add a lot of in-between stuff. Short post dialogue is a lot less focused. So one could ask "well, if realism / sounding natural is so important, why not add the other traits of real life - all the uhms and the misshearings and misspeaking, the little distractions and interruptions etc..."?

So once again it's not that one style is really great at the scene and another is bad at it, it's that one side gives way more importance to a particular aspect of the scene than the other one does.


Long posts can work really well for setting a scene. Long posts give you time to describe a lot of sensory details, world-building tidbits, and what your character thinks/feels about what's around them. Which are great ways to set the tone of the scene and introduce new stuff. This is why my intro posts, and posts starting a new scene in a new place tend to be way longer than average. Long posts can also be surprisingly good for quiet moments in the story, when your character does have time to think through deep concepts and feelings.

Absolutely. But I also see reasons why someone might try to do something shorter with intro posts as well: They lack a partner to respond to or interact, and they may find worldbuilding a boring bit that should be fed as appropriate over the scene, bring it up when relevant to the action. Instead the introduction post could start with a fast-paced hook, quick action to jump right into the fun bits.

Honestly I don't feel that's as good a reasoning as some of my other points but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a mindset that doesn't really gel with mine. Still I don't think it's an unreasonable stance.



Those are just the examples that came to my mind, but there's a lot of other times when a certain length just works better with certain scenes. Obligatory disclaimer that this is just my preferred way of doing things, no one's obligated to do it this way, everyone should just do what's most fun for them, and so on and so on. This is also based entirely on 1x1, as I rarely do groups.

As I hope I was able to point out I don't entirely agree with your position, but I think our disagreement is one of degree rather than the nature. I would absolutely agree that, as you said, there's times when certain lengths work better for certain scenes. Where I don't is in how general these categories are.

Fight scenes, even as you said "down and dirty" aren't necessarily made better by shorter posts. However, a case for instance where to characters fall in the mud and are doing nothing but punching and kicking each other, without a flurry of emotions or any kind of changing environment, then a shorter post is generally better. Note though that should an interaction is both unlikely to last long and very much specific. If any one of these conditions isn't met there is space for descriptiveness - A changing environment means that it becomes relevant to describe the environment, the scene being intensely emotional would call for description that capitalizes on that emotion instead of simply the blows themselves, characters doing anything aside from the fight make space for other actions, dialogue and even more room for thoughts, and finally if the circumstances of the battle are not ones which would be simplistic then a structured "choreography" can be focused on.

The case of dialogue is a bit less specific than that, but very much falls in the same idea: A small-talk style conversation without anything present or happening externally or in the character's thoughts is definitely leaning more to small posts, but outside of that there's plenty of room in or outside the dialogue itself for stuff that naturally increases post size. Notice again that the scene has to essentially exist in a vacuum to prevent the descriptiveness from adding it's contributions.

You are/would be absolutely correct in saying over the course of an RP some scenes will demand longer or shorter posts. Often those demands will coincide with the examples you gave., but I would say "relatively shorter than other posts in the same roleplay" is different from shorter than the average post in general. Most people asking for length requirements are willing to be flexible if things really call for it, as far as I can tell, but this isn't supposed to be a frequent thing, as the circumstances that create that need are usually avoided by people who have some experience in a particular writing style (Among my friends whom I know write shorter posts, many of them outright avoid any scene where their character stops to describe something, such as in contemplation or looking at a a new location. Likewise if I do happen to have a small talk scene I will be using every opportunity to interact with the environment, with the other characters or to express some quirky aspect of my own character). The relationship between writing more or writing less is not one of better or worse in almost any circumstances, but a tradeof between the benefits the styles of writing bring, and as such how much you value what the sides of the tradeoff give you will decide which one you see in a more favorable light at any given time.


In conclusion: Thank you very much for bringing the examples you did, as they were a good prompt to explain the point about differences in approach, which can bring different benefits to scenes which might be thought of as belonging to one style of writing or the other, as opposed to being able to be written differently for different effects. That said, there's no need to like length requirements, of course. They are simply a tool, a tool I think is often villified but shouldn't be disregarded out of hand, but a tool nonetheless.
 
I get all that, I suppose, but I personally still don't like any limits. To me, it invokes academia and removes any sense of fun. Like, I write posts that most people consider to be long (usually around 1k, but up to like 1.8k if the scene warrants it), and it doesn't even take up a lot of my time. I can write 1k words in an hour easily, without rushing myself. That only happens when I'm comfortable with the roleplay, though, and introducing literally any kind of length requirement kills that for me. It makes it feel like work in my head.

Sure, far from me to tell you what you should or shouldn't enjoy. I'm not arguing that one has to like them - not even the people who use length requirements need to in fact- my argument is about suggesting they are a bad thing or that they shouldn't be used. After all, if you don't like the constraints of a length requirement you surely must see them as constraints, so if I want to roleplay with someone whose writing style is such that they don't see them as such, then me using the length requirement is a signal: You are better off finding another partner, trying it with me would likely be a waste of time for both of us, and we could be happier in other roleplays instead.
 
Phew!

What a read!

I think this is one of the few times I've seen the two of us actively disagree on a subject before, Idea Idea . Lol!

But hey, all respect for your wonderful analysis and presentation of your stance and opinions regarding the matter, as well as all of the points you brought to the table. Most people, in my experience anyway, would just maintain silence and choose to ignore differing opinions rather than actively seek a discussion about it. Let alone one this deeply analytical. That, or they just disagree and then try to act like you're a troll when you present a calm counter to their stance and they start going off on random angry tangents. I'm sure you've seen that before, yeah? Blegh.

Anyway, well done! And once again, respect!

I have to admit that I had a bit of a chuckle when my "post length requirements are arbitrary" comment made it into the list of points you disagreed with. I had a feeling it might once I read the first paragraph or two of your post. But I wasn't sure. Still, seeing that actually kind of made me happy. Am I weird for being happy that something I said was used against me in this way? XD

Anywhoosle, for the sake of discussion I shall attempt to defend my words. Key word being "attempt."

So, here we go!

----------

Looking back I have to say that the main crux of my argument, which I still stand by, was definitely not presented in a way that allowed for a full understanding of why I chose the words I did. As one who frequently makes very long posts I'm obviously no stranger to them, nor am I averse to them, nor ignorant to the fact that length and quality can absolutely go hand in hand depending on the skill and intention of the writer. When I said "post length requirements are arbitrary," my focus was on one word in particular of that phrase: "requirements."

To my way of thinking, requiring a specific post length is and always will be arbitrary. While it's true that it can, as you pointed out, have a utility purpose such as acting as a filter to find writers who share your own views and values with regards to writing, such views and values can be found in other ways without making anything "required." The fact that a requirement of this nature is, in and of itself, not necessary to achieving your goal is what makes the "requirement" part of it arbitrary in my view.

For example: Let's say I'm firmly in your corner with the idea that the requirement is necessary to filter those players I know I want to engage versus those I don't (note, I actually did this once upon a time for several years before changing my view on it), without making anything "required," I can state openly at the beginning of any Interest Check I create that I prefer, nay expect, to be writing alongside other writers and role-players who value longer posts and prefer to provide as much detail as is possible/necessary given the situation/scene at hand at any given time. I can also state my desire to see exactly the kinds of things you pointed out such as the details in clothing, atmosphere, architecture, environments, or anything else that someone may or may not deeply love to detail in their writing and encourage them actively to put forth as much of it as they desire as often as possible. And, if necessary, I can state openly that I prefer to avoid shorter posts and present any and all reasons as to why that is the case.

Nothing is forced, but the filter is still applied by making these views, values, and expectations clear. And anyone who comes along saying "Hey, I'm not really much for longer posts. But can I still join," can be gently turned away with a simple "Thank you for your interest, but as stated in the Interest Check I prefer writing with others who can push themselves to write (insert post length). Good luck with your future RP endeavors!"

You may not have made a friend, but you were polite and considerate enough to let them down without looking or sounding like an asshole.

-------

While I can agree that length can and does contribute to detail (writer's skill dependent), I disagree that either "content" or "story structure" are major merits of length as both can be contributed by smaller posts as well (again, writer's skill dependent, as well as the GM's direction and competency in their role which is a whole other discussion).

As per my own experience, and this is presuming I'm understanding the context of "content" as you describe it in your main post, your stated version of content is simply a measure of perceived value for the relative amount of information being presented in the post. For example, you said the following: "Three long posts of characters discussing something will often end in characters moving on from the conversation, but a more back and forth one can take several times the length even accounting for the difference in size. A conversation in larger posts ends up being shorter because a lot of the in-betweens of a more natural conversation, and a lot of the banter, is often tossed aside because it doesn't fit the longer string of dialogue."

While much of what you say can be true, I believe you forgot to account for something in this section of your analysis (and I blame it on how late it was as you were up writing that... thing, as you put it): Intent.

The intentions of the writer will be the single greatest determining factor in whether or not they opt to include or exclude more information than just the dialogue itself, how much of the detail and events surrounding the conversation we get to see and experience along with it, and whether or not the dialogue itself focuses on more than just banter for banter's sake rather than forward progress. If they want to progress things rather than let the conversation overstay its welcome, they will use their dialogue to push in that direction. If they want to let the banter continue for banter's sake, they will. If they want the conversation to end faster, they might include more of their character's arguments and have them anticipate counter arguments and either agree or shut them down for the purpose of not letting potential retorts drag it out any longer than it's already gone.

For many who enjoy shorter dialogue posts, such as myself in a lot of cases, the intent (there's that word again) is to focus on more intimate character moments without letting ourselves be distracted by outside factors. While there is absolutely something to be said in the support of adding more detail around the conversation, such as describing the gentle whisper of the wind through their hair, the clashing glimmer of the moon and campfire light off their eyeballs, and the subtle reverberations of their voices in the canyon as they enjoy their dinner together, such details, while fun and most certainly worthy of being included for a good number of reasons are not necessary to making these moments of character matter. Nor would the lack of their presence detract from the value of the conversation from the characters' own perspective unless the contrary was the intention. For example, if I wanted the glimmer of the fire and moonlight to be a featured reason why my character looks at and speaks to another character, his crush for example, then I'd absolutely include it. If not, no inclusion.

----------

Story structure is probably the thing I'll disagree with you the hardest on as far as whether or not the "merits" of length are actually applicable. And the main reason is because I firmly believe that this, more than anything, is determined by the writer's understanding of structure as well as their skill at implementing it and is not an inherent part of either side of the equation in the longer vs shorter post debate.

Story structure, in no uncertain terms, is the backbone of the narrative at any given point in time with respect to whether or not you're focusing on the macro or micro at that time in the RP (Macro and micro being unofficial terms I've coined for my own personal discussion purposes, cue trademark logo).

Macro focus would be focusing on the overall narrative of the entire RP's story, and micro would be the narrative of individual scenes. While certainly related, they are in fact different and require different approaches. A scene is a story in miniature, after all. Or, at least, a good scene is a story in miniature with a definitive beginning, middle, and end, as well as other major beats you'd find in a full-length story such as the inciting incident and climax. A scene can be as short as a single post, or as long as fifty posts of varying lengths (depending on who's involved and their preference for post length).

Interestingly enough, and this sounds like it's contrary to my initial statement on the topic (lol), I find that both shorter and longer posts are more suited to rather unexpected sides of the macro vs micro coin.

As you explain, fewer large posts can bring things to an end more quickly than numerous smaller posts (depending on the skill and understanding of structure on the part of each writer involved) because more information can be covered in a relatively shorter amount of time and space in the online posts. In this way, the longer posts have proven in my own experience to be more direct and to the point which makes them perfect for micro structure as entire scenes can be started and ended more rapidly and succinctly than numerous smaller posts. This can lead to a faster sense of progression as scenes move along at a faster overall clip. And to many, that's a very attractive notion. Myself included whenever I'm in a group that happens to prefer longer posts.

Their smaller cousins, by contrast, have fewer moving parts and can focus more on the little things within each individual post's jurisdiction (for lack of a better term) which, in my experience, far more easily allows all participants to take part in the act of extending the scene and giving more overall time and room for the GM to present large scale story and plot beats, as well as any important worldbuilding information throughout the life cycle of the scene in question, exactly where and when they want them to drop (so long as the GM is at least moderately competent with introducing elements which support that growth and focus). If the GM sucks, then this doesn't apply as their lack of competency will lead to uncontrolled chaos.

Fewer longer posts, while having the capability of accomplishing the same as their shorter cousins when it comes to a macro perspective so, in my experience have frequently presented less flexibility for the GM to drop the major beats exactly where and when they're needed unless certain conditions are met. What are the conditions? Consistent OOC communication, proper IC direction and narrative guidance, and having a solid grasp of who your fellow role-players are and knowing their posting tendencies so you can predict how they will respond and accurately navigate their posts to drop the story/plot beats when and where you want them. And while all of this is entirely possible, I can attest to the my experience being that it's far more stressful to have to think about and navigate all of these avenues of longer posts rather than relaxing and letting shorter posts give me more openings and flexibility with dropping the story/plot beats exactly where and when I need them to drop.

To summarize this section... Story structure is complicated. Lol.

In my own experience smaller posts have proven to be a preferred approach for macro structure (again, presuming the GM's good at introducing elements to help facilitate this) whereas larger posts have been better suited to micro structure. But, in the end, neither one of them is a cold or solid truth in the coin flip and either could be applicable to the other providing the GM and other participants have the skill and know-how to make it work.

In this way, I believe that story structure as an argument for the merits of "length" in reference to longer posts specifically is not applicable in the way you presented it. At least not when it can swing both ways with equal ease.

----------

In conclusion...

Overall, I'd say I agree with about 75%-ish of what you presented. And I most certainly appreciate your stance and willingness to analyze and present a case for a contrary opinion to my own regarding the merits of post length requirements (And again, I got a chuckle out of you calling out my personal stance so well played. Lol).

I don't think anyone will convince me that actually requiring a post length is anything other than arbitrary. But I'll agree for certain that there are indeed merits to longer posts, and that the utility of it acting as a filter is certainly understandable. Again, I used it for that exact purpose for many years before my experiences changed my view on the subject. So I know how liberating it can be to find the exact kind of role-players you really want to engage with due to such filters.

In the end, as you say, everyone has their own values and goals for writing. And everyone has their own comfort zone as well with regards to whether they prefer longer posts, shorter posts, or whatever length best suits the situation and captures everything they want to capture.

Hopefully, everyone will be able to agree to disagree in a civilized manner as they seem to have been doing so far. It's always more fun to discuss and debate when everyone has the maturity to recognize that contrary opinions are still opinions with as much validity as one's own so long as we keep an open mind on the subject matter. Wouldn't you agree?

Cheers!

~ GojiBean
 
Phew!

What a read!

I think this is one of the few times I've seen the two of us actively disagree on a subject before, Idea Idea Idea Idea . Lol!

But hey, all respect for your wonderful analysis and presentation of your stance and opinions regarding the matter, as well as all of the points you brought to the table. Most people, in my experience anyway, would just maintain silence and choose to ignore differing opinions rather than actively seek a discussion about it. Let alone one this deeply analytical. That, or they just disagree and then try to act like you're a troll when you present a calm counter to their stance and they start going off on random angry tangents. I'm sure you've seen that before, yeah? Blegh.

Anyway, well done! And once again, respect!

I have to admit that I had a bit of a chuckle when my "post length requirements are arbitrary" comment made it into the list of points you disagreed with. I had a feeling it might once I read the first paragraph or two of your post. But I wasn't sure. Still, seeing that actually kind of made me happy. Am I weird for being happy that something I said was used against me in this way? XD

Anywhoosle, for the sake of discussion I shall attempt to defend my words. Key word being "attempt."

So, here we go!


Well, I'm glad you liked it, and thank you for all the praise :) To be perfectly honest one of the big things that prompted to finally make this post was your comment, though at that point said post was at least a few days old or perhaps even weeks I don't recall exactly, so I felt it would be inappropriate to make a direct reply.


That being said I do want to clarify this post wasn't specifically against your point so much as your post was one of the many cases I've seen people attacking length requirements (and at times even people who employ them) as bad, pointless or just as something which shouldn't be done. So there are likely things about your post which I would agree on (I imagine that as I read on your response to my own I will find some of those things) and others which would require a counter-arguments which wouldn't fit the post I wanted to make with this.


Looking back I have to say that the main crux of my argument, which I still stand by, was definitely not presented in a way that allowed for a full understanding of why I chose the words I did. As one who frequently makes very long posts I'm obviously no stranger to them, nor am I averse to them, nor ignorant to the fact that length and quality can absolutely go hand in hand depending on the skill and intention of the writer. When I said "post length requirements are arbitrary," my focus was on one word in particular of that phrase: "requirements."

To my way of thinking, requiring a specific post length is and always will be arbitrary. While it's true that it can, as you pointed out, have a utility purpose such as acting as a filter to find writers who share your own views and values with regards to writing, such views and values can be found in other ways without making anything "required." The fact that a requirement of this nature is, in and of itself, not necessary to achieving your goal is what makes the "requirement" part of it arbitrary in my view.

For example: Let's say I'm firmly in your corner with the idea that the requirement is necessary to filter those players I know I want to engage versus those I don't (note, I actually did this once upon a time for several years before changing my view on it), without making anything "required," I can state openly at the beginning of any Interest Check I create that I prefer, nay expect, to be writing alongside other writers and role-players who value longer posts and prefer to provide as much detail as is possible/necessary given the situation/scene at hand at any given time. I can also state my desire to see exactly the kinds of things you pointed out such as the details in clothing, atmosphere, architecture, environments, or anything else that someone may or may not deeply love to detail in their writing and encourage them actively to put forth as much of it as they desire as often as possible. And, if necessary, I can state openly that I prefer to avoid shorter posts and present any and all reasons as to why that is the case.

Nothing is forced, but the filter is still applied by making these views, values, and expectations clear. And anyone who comes along saying "Hey, I'm not really much for longer posts. But can I still join," can be gently turned away with a simple "Thank you for your interest, but as stated in the Interest Check I prefer writing with others who can push themselves to write (insert post length). Good luck with your future RP endeavors!"

You may not have made a friend, but you were polite and considerate enough to let them down without looking or sounding like an asshole.

I think our disagreement here is perhaps a difference of experience. Not in the sense of one being more experienced than the other (honestly I don't even know which one of us is, if such a thing is relevant at all) but rather from what I think I can gather from what I quoted you seem to have at one point used length requirements, but later abandoned them in favor if outright stating that you're looking for partners who will work with you with that more detailed sort of writing, and this has in your view been just as if not more helpful than using a length requirement, even before accounting for the fact you're not mandating a length.

If I got anything wrong about that, do let me know.

What I've experienced though was quite the opposite. After trying many methods as I've gone over, the end result is that in practice that simply isn't an effective method of self-selection. One of the reasons for that which I don't think I brought directly in this thread, is that roleplayers have a big tendency to overestimate what they can do. What's more extraordinary is that even happens with people who struggle with lack of self confidence, anxiety or even depression. People overestimate their ability to keep to schedules, to stay invested in something and to keep up with a particular level of detail. Even the length requirements have this flaw though for reasons I will explain in a moment I think it deals with these issues with an efficiency so far unsurpassed by any method I've tried. Point is though, that it is simply human nature or perhaps human psychology to overestimate what we can do in particular in regards to future commitments, or perhaps rather than overestimating ourselves we underestimate the situation we will be in in the future, thinking "surely by then I will not be busy/demotivated/feeling too lazy to write/etc...". And even if we were able to get a perfect awareness of what we can do, what I've also experienced is that often people may not care to be honest or even think about whether they can do it, because they find an RP they want to join and then say whatever slides them into it? How many people don't even bother to read the rules once? How many people ask about whether the RP will have any rules in group interest checks?

At the point where you already have potential RP partners, I would say now you have two goals as far as determining if they are the right partner for you (though I will be applying it to the discussion of length versus other criteria, these two goals I believe apply in a more general sense to other aspects of figuring the right partner):
1. You want to be able to check in the short term, whether they are compatible with you as a partner. The reason I specify that this must be in the short term is because nobody has time to give everyone a chance. It's simply not feasible, especially for older players who are likely dealing with a greater amount of IRL responsibilities. As such, you want to minimize the time and effort you invest into partners with whom things just won't work out. Something simple and concrete helps in this regard.
2. On your partner's side you want them to and they likely would also appreciate a way to actually be sure if they are or not meeting your standards. The logical conclusion of "a standard that explicitly states what I want" is "a post that will make me happy". Ultimately, yes that is the goal, but how is anyone to supposed to know whether their concrete post meets this barely defined, vague and to a certain extent subjective standard? If they feel they are missing the goal in some way, how can they figure what concrete steps to take to fix it? While the logical conclusion here is obviously an exaggeration the criteria you propose and others like it often incur in this same issue, there is an element of uncertainty as to whether the standard is really met. So either the person has to overcompensate, give up on trying to meet the standard, or constantly check to see whether the small increments are helping during the post construction. So once again it's helpful to have something concrete and simple. The ability easily check for yourself is also helpful towards a better self-selection process, as removing subjective elements helps in reducing if not necessarily overcoming the issue of one's flawed self-perception.

The advantage of length requirements over other methods is precisely in this: Without sacrificing the statistical correlation on the important things, the criteria itself is simple and concrete. You can easily find out whether you yourself or others are meeting that criteria and with a reasonable degree of confidence you can say that if someone is consistently meeting that criteria they are likely the type of roleplayer you want, at least as far as the aforementioned correlations are concerned.

Thus far, however, I must concede that one could argue "maybe you use length, but you don't need to make it a 'requirement' maybe you could make it a 'suggestion/recommendation' instead? That way they would still have something concrete and simple to go off of, but isn't as inflexible as a requirement". However, there is one aspect to this that I think gives requirements specifically an advantage as a filter:

If I told you "it's mandatory to breathe" or "You have to keep your heart beating at least once every 48 hours" nobody would really think of this as constraints. Technically they are, but in practice you do these things anyway. A rule that only enforces what people do anyway, and never forces any behavior they wouldn't normally want, is a rule in name only. This kind of thing has a big impact in the realm of politics for instance, as its a lot easier to pass a vote by majority if at least on the surface they gain and only a small minority is affected negatively. People have a harder time seeing constraints that don't constrain them personally. The way the requirement filter works is a bit of a flip on this though: Someone who naturally writes longer posts and believes they will consistently write those posts will not generally see length requirements (up to a certain amount of course) as constraining. If someone told me I needed to write a minimum of 300 words per post, well I would need to be in a seriously bad spot for several posts in a row to miss on such a requirement, without making a specific effort to get to that amount even. But if someone expects to write lower length posts on a frequent basis (which to note doesn't mean this person doesn't write mostly longer posts, and only a minority of smaller ones, but rather that they don't see writing a shorter one as an unfortunate and necessary exception but rather something that is a natural aspect of how they write) then they will see such a requirement as constraining, because in every situation where they would want to write shorter posts the requirement makes them write longer ones. In addition to this, even people writing longer posts by nature know that if there really is an exception then any reasonable partner regardless of requirements will give them some leeway for exceptional circumstances, but at the same time there is a difference between an exception and an infrequent but expected segment of the narrative.

Thus requirements have an effect of seeming more burdensome to those who don't think they can meet them, and being far more trivial to those who believe they meet them naturally by means of their writing style. But why would one want another to consistently meet the a certain specific writing length? If the amount was arbitrary then indeed there would be no point. However as I went over in my previous post (mistakenly thinking the objection about length requirements being arbitrary referred to the amount of length), length requirements of the kind I am defending are not a random number but rather come from imitation, custom and eventually experience. They are informed by a trust or by experiences informing the player of what length typically translates to a post they can be happy with. To use myself once again as a concrete example: Posts under a certain length, usually less than 300-500 words tend to either feel extremely bland, like reading a shopping list, or be so hyper-focused that in reality they don't contribute anything. On the other hand as I mentioned before, my current requirements of around 700-800 words give me very few partners but the ones I do get tend to be consistently some of the best partners providing some of the best RP experiences I've ever had.

Still, the thing about this whole train of thought it that it has an underlying assumption that only be verified or disproven by experience: That most people aren't aware of how detailed they really are, or what it necessarily means, in large part because it is human nature to overestimate ourselves, and thus a concrete standard that avoids subjective evaluation is needed. That even if people did know their own ability, they wouldn't know if said ability meets what you want or expect from them, thus a concrete and simple way to communicate it is also required. That even if they knew their own ability and knew your standards, if they really want to join your RP despite the mismatch they might have a short-term incentive to be deceitful, thus something that creates a counter-incentive to this behavior by making people have to consider the long-term troubles is required. Length requirements aren't an ideal solution, but they are by far the best one I've ever encountered.

My experiences confirm those assumptions for me (despite the language it's not as though I had the assumptions before, rather they are conclusions from my experiences, and things I've seen happen). If your experiences tell you they are false assumptions then naturally the solution they point to is not one you will agree with either.


While I can agree that length can and does contribute to detail (writer's skill dependent), I disagree that either "content" or "story structure" are major merits of length as both can be contributed by smaller posts as well (again, writer's skill dependent, as well as the GM's direction and competency in their role which is a whole other discussion).

As per my own experience, and this is presuming I'm understanding the context of "content" as you describe it in your main post, your stated version of content is simply a measure of perceived value for the relative amount of information being presented in the post. For example, you said the following: "Three long posts of characters discussing something will often end in characters moving on from the conversation, but a more back and forth one can take several times the length even accounting for the difference in size. A conversation in larger posts ends up being shorter because a lot of the in-betweens of a more natural conversation, and a lot of the banter, is often tossed aside because it doesn't fit the longer string of dialogue."

While much of what you say can be true, I believe you forgot to account for something in this section of your analysis (and I blame it on how late it was as you were up writing that... thing, as you put it): Intent.

The intentions of the writer will be the single greatest determining factor in whether or not they opt to include or exclude more information than just the dialogue itself, how much of the detail and events surrounding the conversation we get to see and experience along with it, and whether or not the dialogue itself focuses on more than just banter for banter's sake rather than forward progress. If they want to progress things rather than let the conversation overstay its welcome, they will use their dialogue to push in that direction. If they want to let the banter continue for banter's sake, they will. If they want the conversation to end faster, they might include more of their character's arguments and have them anticipate counter arguments and either agree or shut them down for the purpose of not letting potential retorts drag it out any longer than it's already gone.

For many who enjoy shorter dialogue posts, such as myself in a lot of cases, the intent (there's that word again) is to focus on more intimate character moments without letting ourselves be distracted by outside factors. While there is absolutely something to be said in the support of adding more detail around the conversation, such as describing the gentle whisper of the wind through their hair, the clashing glimmer of the moon and campfire light off their eyeballs, and the subtle reverberations of their voices in the canyon as they enjoy their dinner together, such details, while fun and most certainly worthy of being included for a good number of reasons are not necessary to making these moments of character matter. Nor would the lack of their presence detract from the value of the conversation from the characters' own perspective unless the contrary was the intention. For example, if I wanted the glimmer of the fire and moonlight to be a featured reason why my character looks at and speaks to another character, his crush for example, then I'd absolutely include it. If not, no inclusion.

I would like to correct the notion of content, though I will apologize as maybe I should have defined it in my original post. What I mean by content, at least in the context of longer posts generally having more of it, was "the meaning/ amount of information contained in the words". So it's not a matter of value as in how much one values the thing, so much as it is the amount of information the words convey. This is distinct from value, and I think this quote from when I was talking about purple prose best shows the distinction I drew between those concepts:

"More length has a correlation with more content - but whether this content is something you find valuable will affect your view of this fact. Perhaps it is superfluous in your eyes, with your values, but what if I find the things this is adding to be valuable?"

Now of course the skills of the writer, particular scene, and other circumstances will influence the amount of content from one post to the other (heck, even within a given post they might) but cetris paribus I find it hard to deny lengthier posts will have more content to them. After all, it's a matter of much one can reasonably fit in a word versus more words (reasonably because if we start assuming the audience will magically get your intention then anything goes), and much like filling up bottles of water while any individual bottle big or small can be more or less full to the point where a big bottle could have less water than a small bottle, so long as we are working with the assumption that people will on average fill them to the same percentage then the bigger bottles will have overall more water in absolute numbers. That being said many small bottles may combined hold more water than a big one and one could reasonably argue because it's faster to fill the smaller bottles in the end the sum favors the smaller ones. This is why I specified "content (per post)" when I referred to its statistical correlation with increased length.

That last part though is one I think worth stressing and I'm not sure if you understood. I never said that length causes more content, descriptiveness or better story structure, or at least it doesn't do so directly. What I did say is that from my experience there is a statistically significant correlation between them. If you find someone with more length you can reasonably expect from a statistical stand point that their posts will contain more content (per post), more descriptiveness and a better story structure.

As such I don't think what you brought up about intent is incompatible with what I have said, however, as though in a game of Poker I will raise you something: That you're actually putting two very distinct things together and talking about them as if they are if not the same then at least in lockstep.

You could roughly, if we are to analyze this angle, divide the post-making process into three components: Intent (what you want there to be in the post), Method (How you aim to realize that intent) and Execution (the actual attempt to make the post). Execution we shall ignore because it's effects is circumstancial and skill based, which for the sake of argument we are assuming is at least on average the same across the board. The "intent" you spoke of actually includes both the "Intent" and "Method" of this split.

The reason this division is important that is the intent (from here on onwards assume when I say intent I mean the one from that three-way-split) is mostly a conscious, intentional affair. You decide what you want in the post there's little more to it other than specific individual circumstances. But Method is another story entirely. The way one approaches doing things had to do with the way one thinks, and this actually means your method will be largely a subconscious matter. Speaking from experience, when working with people who generally make small posts, one thing that happened often is they would block or deliver posts will what in my eyes was barely anything, yet they would state they "couldn't think of anything else to add". This anecdote is simply to illustrate the point that it's not that one actively chooses not to be more descriptive: A lot of the time, the person is simply unable to be, ways of accomplishing it that may seem obvious to those who write more may simply not be present in their train of thought or if it is, it is dismissed. Likewise there's a feeling of something being wrong, a discomfort, for a player who likes longer posts if they attempt to make very small ones. Things may feel out of place, or they may assume certain information will be present and have trouble writing if they don't have it, or plain and simple it may bore us.

The way of thinking affects the method by which one considers how to realize their intent. The way of thinking is itself influenced by what a person values. You put the Intent and the Method together in essence, saying that how the person will go about things is part of the intent. But even as you choose what to do in individual circumstances, you have a perspective, a framework which serves as the basis from which you take your range of possibilities and what would be favorable. One which I would say has a great influence.

Put another way: If you enjoy or value the things that come with shorter posts more, then you will have a tendency to think in the terms that work within shorter posts. What I call the "casual mindset" (from back when RPN divided detail by "simple/casual/detailed") focuses more on action and dialogue as methods for instance, so one will have a harder time with solutions that don't involve characters doing or saying something. On the other hand, if you enjoy the types of things that come with longer posts then you will tend to think in terms that work with longer posts. A meteorologist may assume the TV's lack of reception is due to the weather, the mechanic may assume it's from the mechanism, the old man who "never liked that weird box anyway" might accidentally fix the TV as they slam a fist into it. The same intent of fixing the tv can have various approaches which people tend to follow sometimes without even realizing it themselves.


Story structure is probably the thing I'll disagree with you the hardest on as far as whether or not the "merits" of length are actually applicable. And the main reason is because I firmly believe that this, more than anything, is determined by the writer's understanding of structure as well as their skill at implementing it and is not an inherent part of either side of the equation in the longer vs shorter post debate

Before I advance further in this part of my response to your own I want to bring up the assumption I was working with:

"While I will be addressing the point of less skilled / unskilled writers of a particular play style, I will default to assuming the person "knows what they are doing" and is attempting to write in the style that suits them."

For the most part I was working under a cetris paribus assumption, or an "everything else constant" assumption for those unaware of that expression. Under this assumption the differences in skill are acknowledged but considered irrelevant for the sake of discussion. It's not that they aren't there, but rather the focus was on the part of the differences that wasn't based on individual differences like skill or the circumstances of the roleplay.

I do agree though that skill is not a part of the debate on length (not that there is much of a debate there as length is merely indicative of some things that have merit rather than it itself having merit), as even skill may be worth considering the question of "skill by which criteria" or "skill in what writing method".


Macro focus would be focusing on the overall narrative of the entire RP's story, and micro would be the narrative of individual scenes. While certainly related, they are in fact different and require different approaches. A scene is a story in miniature, after all. Or, at least, a good scene is a story in miniature with a definitive beginning, middle, and end, as well as other major beats you'd find in a full-length story such as the inciting incident and climax. A scene can be as short as a single post, or as long as fifty posts of varying lengths (depending on who's involved and their preference for post length).

Interestingly enough, and this sounds like it's contrary to my initial statement on the topic (lol), I find that both shorter and longer posts are more suited to rather unexpected sides of the macro vs micro coin.

As you explain, fewer large posts can bring things to an end more quickly than numerous smaller posts (depending on the skill and understanding of structure on the part of each writer involved) because more information can be covered in a relatively shorter amount of time and space in the online posts. In this way, the longer posts have proven in my own experience to be more direct and to the point which makes them perfect for micro structure as entire scenes can be started and ended more rapidly and succinctly than numerous smaller posts. This can lead to a faster sense of progression as scenes move along at a faster overall clip. And to many, that's a very attractive notion. Myself included whenever I'm in a group that happens to prefer longer posts.

Their smaller cousins, by contrast, have fewer moving parts and can focus more on the little things within each individual post's jurisdiction (for lack of a better term) which, in my experience, far more easily allows all participants to take part in the act of extending the scene and giving more overall time and room for the GM to present large scale story and plot beats, as well as any important worldbuilding information throughout the life cycle of the scene in question, exactly where and when they want them to drop (so long as the GM is at least moderately competent with introducing elements which support that growth and focus). If the GM sucks, then this doesn't apply as their lack of competency will lead to uncontrolled chaos.

Fewer longer posts, while having the capability of accomplishing the same as their shorter cousins when it comes to a macro perspective so, in my experience have frequently presented less flexibility for the GM to drop the major beats exactly where and when they're needed unless certain conditions are met. What are the conditions? Consistent OOC communication, proper IC direction and narrative guidance, and having a solid grasp of who your fellow role-players are and knowing their posting tendencies so you can predict how they will respond and accurately navigate their posts to drop the story/plot beats when and where you want them. And while all of this is entirely possible, I can attest to the my experience being that it's far more stressful to have to think about and navigate all of these avenues of longer posts rather than relaxing and letting shorter posts give me more openings and flexibility with dropping the story/plot beats exactly where and when I need them to drop.

To summarize this section... Story structure is complicated. Lol.

In my own experience smaller posts have proven to be a preferred approach for macro structure (again, presuming the GM's good at introducing elements to help facilitate this) whereas larger posts have been better suited to micro structure. But, in the end, neither one of them is a cold or solid truth in the coin flip and either could be applicable to the other providing the GM and other participants have the skill and know-how to make it work.

In this way, I believe that story structure as an argument for the merits of "length" in reference to longer posts specifically is not applicable in the way you presented it. At least not when it can swing both ways with equal ease.

I realize story structure is of the things I mentioned being correlated with length, the one closest to a conception of skill or "good writing" (without of course being either, at most a component of it), so I also thought it'd be the one I would have to defend the hardest, surprisingly this is the first time this came up so far... I think it would be wrong of me to say that more length denotes a bigger capacity for better story structure, that it denotes ability. Instead allow me to throw back the matter of intent to you, this time as you previously defined it: The way someone writes or what someone writes being influenced by what they want to include to begin with. Indeed, what I argue is it's not people who favor shorter posts are unable to do good story structure, it's rather than they care less about it (if at all).

To explain, I need to begin by going over the notions, which I'm sure you're aware of but just to provide context, of discovery writers and planning-based writers (I forget if there was a name for them or not, so I'll just call them that) AKA "pantsers" (from the expression "by-the-seat-of-your-pants") and planners. Pantsers like to write as they go, rather than thinking up a plan beforehand. They like to let things flow, to let the characters and story take a life of their own and often in their view even seemingly outside their control (to be honest this part is a bit incomprehensible to me. I don't think the meaning is literal but I am also unsure what it could be a metaphor for), making the story character-driven in the truest sense of those words. Naturally this means they tend to be better at finding a character voice, and making their writing feel organic, since indeed they follow whatever the characters would do next without trying to chase a particular direction. Planners, on the other hand, are concerned with the bigger picture. As the name suggest their writing method is to develop a plan and then write things given that plan. Planners care a lot more about how the different elements vertically (previous, current and future parts of the story) and horizontally (worldbuilding, different characters, themes, ...) interact with each other. If I were to make an analogy the pantser is willing to make a weird tapestry out of carefully crafted wool. The planner is more willing to get lower quality fabric as long as the tapestry is overall impressive. Everyone wants fine wool and a great tapestry of course, but sometimes you need to pick one or the other. Of course, everyone has a bit of pantser and a bit of planner, but which one you tend to lean to more will put you broadly in one category or the other.

A big and very relevant distinction between the two is what they do when it comes to comes to story structure. Let's for example, take a scene where two rival character are trapped in a collapsed cave, and as they search for a way to escape they bond, and come out of the experience not only closer but having went through some satisfying character growth. A discovery writer enter into the scene and see an opportunity. "Hey, these two characters that are trapped in a cave now could bond". A skilled discovery writer is good at finding and taking advantage of the opportunities that come their way. But opportunities are incidental, this is, they happen to appear or not and even when they do they aren't necessarily in an ideal direction. The two characters trapped in the cave might instead be the pair that already gets along super well or is really good at getting out of caves anyway, for example. Or perhaps the story was actually so far leading to their rivalry escalating and creating a big epic conflict which the scene while providing character development also curbs in the process. It may still very much right to the writer though, but from a story structure perspective it might just be a loss. Discovery writers don't tend to come up with a story structure, as trying to constrict their story to an outline, even if a broad one, might hamper this style of writing. They may stumble upon a great story structure, but this will at least in part be the work of chance and opportunism.

Planners on the other hand excel (when skilled) at creating opportunities, or rather the right conditions for what they want to happen. They are more artificial but this doesn't mean forced/contrived, it's not something which goes outside the boundaries of what would be a reasonable way for those characters or world to operate, but pieces tend to fit in a way that just wouldn't get along with a more realistic approach. They didn't pick a scenario where the characters are trapped in a cave by chance, nor which two characters, in fact they likely set up something like a character is afraid of the dark or another character who maybe was able to help them escape was not long before moved to a different location so help was harder to come by. They probably decided to showcase the rivalry between the two characters near the time of the trapping to make the issue stand out as more relevant, and thus give it's resolution more weight as well. That being said this is certainly not without flaws: There's really only so much you can do if you don't, for example, control more characters than your own.

Now each method has some leeway to compensate for their weaknesses when you're writing a book. One thing I've heard about discovery writers, is that many don't simply make one draft and then are done. Rather than allow that flow but then do it several times for the same story or scenes until they find the right one and/or spend a lot of time editing (planner lacks full control of the story), thus they keep the advantages of the flow, while after the fact adjusting it to work better from an overall perspective as well. Planners, on the other hand, have the advantage of absolute control in a book, not needing to be constrained by the uncertainty of what others might do. Books, it should be noted, also happen to be a medium which being non-segmented can have many if not most of the advantages of both lengthier writing styles and shorter writing styles.

Of course, we are not writing books here, we are roleplaying, so you don't get those advantages. Pantsers are stuck with their initial draft. Planners have to deal with the aforementioned uncertainty and partial control. So even in books people who care more about story structure will tendentially be planners rather than pantsers, and in roleplay this is compounded by being unable to compensate for the weaknesses of the approach as one would in a book. In roleplay, people who give importance to story structure are far more likely to be planners, and those who care less for it are far more likely to be pantsers.

Ok, but what does this have to do with length? Well, planners tend to include more stuff (both because they have more elements they consider, but also because they have more of an idea of what they want to put in the post to begin with), and thus tend to write longer posts. I would even go as far as to say planners more often tend to chase after bigger lengths, though this particular aspect of it is merely empirical and I don't have an explanation for it beyond what I already said, which I find insufficient to explain how much of a leaning there seems to be. Pantsers, on the other hand, tend to far more easily get burned out or feel longer posts would be cumbersome, and thus even if for some reason they started there they would end up drifting away. Planners who prefer shorter posts, while far from the norm, are there, but a pantser feeling more at home with longer posts than shorter ones would be a much rarer find. Now if your goal is at least in part to get more story structure then it would make sense that you would try to find those that care more for it, the planners, and in doing so you'd want to filter based on where they are found in a larger concentration. Note that this is concentration not absolute numbers necessarily. If you want to catch blue fish, and you only have so much bait, you are better off fishing in a small pond with only blue fish than a big pond with a mix of blue and red fish.


Now, with all of that said, I don't think I addressed your point quite yet and just expanded upon my own. My response to your objection is that you seem to be assuming two very distinct levels of skill between groups. "Consistent OOC communication, proper IC direction and narrative guidance, and having a solid grasp of who your fellow role-players are and knowing their posting tendencies so you can predict how they will respond and accurately navigate their posts to drop the story/plot beats when and where you want them" is not exactly the makings of your average base-skill level GM or group. Of course, we are assuming a base level of competence in this discussion, but I would argue this goes far beyond that, and either way at least part of your argument is that "I can attest to the my experience being that it's far more stressful to have to think about and navigate all of these avenues of longer posts rather than relaxing and letting shorter posts give me more openings and flexibility with dropping the story/plot beats exactly where and when I need them to drop.", or put another way because it's "less stressful" you're considering it will happen more often for groups with shorter rather than longer lengths.

This, I feel, is comparing apples to oranges. Even if for the sake of an example were to say "a person, on average, more likely to be skilled at basketball than football" it wouldn't make any sense to compare a less (relatively) skilled football player to a more (relatively) skilled basketball player would be fair, as far as comparing the two types of sportsmen. Likewise, even if one were to say that it's easier for one to navigate those things with shorter posts it doesn't follow that you can reasonably compare a situation in which one group of shorter posters is being led by a GM that is more skilled than the one in your example that is guiding the longer post players. After all, in your example at least, only one of the two GMs seems to be really capitalizing on the strengths of the length.

Even beyond that though, I would question another thing you said: "giving more overall time and room for the GM to present large scale story and plot beats, as well as any important worldbuilding information throughout the life cycle of the scene in question, exactly where and when they want them to drop". This is not wrong, as far as potential is concerned, but as I went over before shorter post roleplayers don't tend to value having these things as much in the first place. They are more likely to view worldbuilding elements as superfluous or purple prose. What "important information" there is is likely to be far less in extent than for longer post roleplayers. If you tell me the GM is including all of those things then in many cases it may call into question for me if this GM is themselves a short-post-type roleplayer or if they are actually making far bigger posts than the rest of the group a lot of the time, happening to be a player of another "breed" (I really hate using that word when talking about people, but it seems appropriate enough here) than the rest of the group. Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with that, if that's fun for them more power to them. But I do think it's a bit of a contaminated sample when it comes to drawing a comparison.

Your overall point about story structure was, if I understood correctly, that it can lean either way. However, I would object both by virtue of the leanings of pantsers and planners, and by the some of the flaws I see in your comparison, that what I experienced in terms of the correlation between length and story structure is a reasonable expectation going forward, and thus length as an indicator of better story structure - due mainly to length's correlation with a bigger appreciation of story structure -is in that respect something that can be used to filter for that.



In conclusion...

Overall, I'd say I agree with about 75%-ish of what you presented. And I most certainly appreciate your stance and willingness to analyze and present a case for a contrary opinion to my own regarding the merits of post length requirements (And again, I got a chuckle out of you calling out my personal stance so well played. Lol).

I don't think anyone will convince me that actually requiring a post length is anything other than arbitrary. But I'll agree for certain that there are indeed merits to longer posts, and that the utility of it acting as a filter is certainly understandable. Again, I used it for that exact purpose for many years before my experiences changed my view on the subject. So I know how liberating it can be to find the exact kind of role-players you really want to engage with due to such filters.

In the end, as you say, everyone has their own values and goals for writing. And everyone has their own comfort zone as well with regards to whether they prefer longer posts, shorter posts, or whatever length best suits the situation and captures everything they want to capture.

Yeah, I absolutely don't think I can convince anyone most of the time. It's only happened a few times in my lifetime, and generally it's best to not to go in thinking you will change the mind of someone already convinced of a position. But I still find value in debating things to refine one's own position, and for those undecided who might read the discussion and see the different sides to make a more informed choice.

Hopefully, everyone will be able to agree to disagree in a civilized manner as they seem to have been doing so far. It's always more fun to discuss and debate when everyone has the maturity to recognize that contrary opinions are still opinions with as much validity as one's own so long as we keep an open mind on the subject matter. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely agreed.



Cheers, I hope you like this response as well, as I loved yours. It took me way longer to write this one than I thought, but new things kept popping to my head and I had to trim what exactly I wanted to say. That said, I doubt it will looked very trimmed haha... But yeah.

Cheers!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top