Other Central Vs Decentralized Roleplay

[White Masquerade]

Hello. Back at it again with another discussion on the inner workings of roleplay. What I want to know is what writers here prefer. In a roleplay, 1 of 3 thing will generally occur - at least when it comes to structure. Each option is listed in the poll.

1. There will be a GM that directs the roleplay and all the players within.
2. There will be a tribe of players that play off each other and generally drive the direction of the roleplay themselves.
3. A GM will be there creating and facilitating the stories and events right alongside the players.

Inherently, no one option is naturally better than the other. Just like Strawberry is not naturally better than Rocky Road. However, we all do have certain flavors we gravitate to and that applies here too. My question is what you all prefer. What have you played in, enjoyed, and want to do again. Do you yourself feel that one option IS better than another?

I've got to go with option number 1. Mainly because that's where I see and have felt the most success. In theory, option 3 sounds ideal, but doesn't flow as well in practice. It'd have to have a lot of adaptable players. Option 2 is cool, but you might as well not have a GM in that case you know? What do you all say?

*Poll is anonymous and can change choices like usual.

 

[Bone2pick]

In order to get something out of a roleplay, I (as a player) need to have the space to tell a proper story with my character(s). So either choice two or three, depending on the circumstances, and never choice one.

My characters, and further my imagination, will never be needlessly handcuffed.

 

[White Masquerade]

In order to get something out of a roleplay, I (as a player) need to have the space to tell a proper story with my character(s). So either choice two or three, depending on the circumstances, and never choice one.

My characters, and further my imagination, will never be needlessly handcuffed.

I see. So you wouldn't trust anybody to be good enough to take control?

 

[Bone2pick]

It's not about good enough; I need an outlet for my imagination. And the more room I'm given to be a storyteller, and not just a character pilot, the more satisfied I am.

 

[White Masquerade]

It's not about good enough; I need an outlet for my imagination. And the more room I'm given to be a storyteller, and not just a character pilot, the more satisfied I am.

So would you say there's no point to there being a GM then?

 

[Idea]

While I think that a GM shouldn't be making random concessions to the players and should have a firm grasp of the aim and how to get there, I also believe that a GM unable to changing course in response to the players is usually just a tyrant. It is idealic and certainly too complicated for most groups, but I do believe that only if the players and the GM find a common goal that sets them on the path for concessions and cooperation can dedication to the cause rather than just the self can a truly great roleplay be achieved.

 

[White Masquerade]

While I think that a GM shouldn't be making random concessions to the players and should have a firm grasp of the aim and how to get there, I also believe that a GM unable to changing course in response to the players is usually just a tyrant. It is idealic and certainly too complicated for most groups, but I do believe that only if the players and the GM find a common goal that sets them on the path for concessions and cooperation can dedication to the cause rather than just the self can a truly great roleplay be achieved.

So what's the difference between say, enjoying a book or a play and participating in a tyrant's roleplay? Isn't it pretty much the same force at work? You don't have any input, but if it's to your liking, you can certainly enjoy it.

 

[Bone2pick]

So would you say there's no point to there being a GM then?

No, GMs are incredibly vital to group roleplays.

 

[Idea]

So what's the difference between say, enjoying a book or a play and participating in a tyrant's roleplay? Isn't it pretty much the same force at work? You don't have any input, but if it's to your liking, you can certainly enjoy it.

The difference is there is neither demand nor expectation of input in a book, whereas in a roleplay there is. To put simply, roleplaying is differs from hobbies such as reading or even playing a game in that it is a productive activity. It asks for effort and in this case imagination (resource) as input, then returns a good in relation to that input as a product of that and the product thus returned may or not be worth it, meaning entertaining and fun. Reading simply asks you consume an already existing good.
Because of this when you roleplay, you are seeking to create that good you enjoy, but a tyrant's rule makes it so that is requires a lot more effort to have even a fraction of that good- if it can be done at all. And rarely if ever does that tyranical person, who I remind you was someone I defined to be someone who refused to change at the behest of the player's needs or requests, ever give something worth the waste they produce.

People already have difficulty just going along with someone genuily trying to help, now imagine when that help isn't even actually viable as help.

 

[Lorsh]

A STRONG LEADER IS NECESSARY

 

[MicroFunk]

RULED BY STRENGTH, NOT COMMITTEE

 

[Idea]

The meme posters on this thread...

 

[Intellectual Sword]

I feel like there's a lot of factors here regarding whether which of the three form would succeed. Mainly, competency of the people trying to steer the plot. As a GM or as the player, I can tolerate being flexible with the story - if it's going a damn good direction or, at least, a sensible one. What I can't stand is shoddy storytelling, characterization, etc - which happens more than I would like it to. It ends up me trying to contrive all sort of manners to clean up the messes, if even possible.

Course this can be solved if everyone discussed plans prior hand, but the thing is, that simultaneously takes a lot out of the experiences and surprises of roleplaying... which sucks. Plus being continuously fussy could get you accused of being a tyrant even if all you're trying to achieve is a coherent story for everyone. (Yes, personal situation).

I'm leaning most with option 3, mutual collaboration is ideal but I don't think think there's a straight answer. It depends on the group.

A good GM would allocate control of the plot out to those in the group that they can trust, as well as those who like to steer the plot would reciprocate by appealing to everyone's vision including the GM's. To me, RP has been always about give and take.

 

[Idea]

Course this can be solved if everyone discussed plans prior hand, but the thing is, that simultaneously takes a lot out of the experiences and surprises of roleplaying... which sucks.

I must veemently disagree with this concept, that planning inherently takes away from the surprise and experience of a roleplay. Sure, this may happen in some cases, but I would argue that's hardly ever the case when people are open to the idea at all. Of course, though, that in of itself may be a big hurdle, but it's not an absolute that planning takes away the surprise, much less that it takes away the experience. If anything, the experience is improved, with better and more concise writing, less "muse" problems, more investment and more solified relationships with better pay-offs. The end result of the roleplay also ends up being better, not just the direct experience. As for the surpirse, planning only requires the establishment of a structure, the fleshing out in of itself or what comes up with while planning can be wonderful surprises as well.
Of course, like with any aspect of writing, this takes skill to pull off. You can enjoy it just as much without that skill, but the best results obviously will only come once someone has experience and knowledge about the matter on their back, and they are willing to put it in action- but that goes for anything.

 

[Bone2pick]

I must veemently disagree with this concept, that planning inherently takes away from the surprise and experience of a roleplay.

I, as a player or a GM, make use of extensive planning. But I'm careful about how much (if any) of my plans I share ahead of time with the group. And as far as I can figure, I do this primarily to not ruin my narrative surprises. Is that something you're arguing against? I wish I could tell from the rest of your post but I often have difficulty following your points. This time proved not to be an exception.

Also, I'm curious, what are "muse" problems?

 

[Idea]

I, as a player or a GM, make use of extensive planning. But I'm careful about how much (if any) of my plans I share ahead of time with the group. And as far as I can figure, I do this primarily to not ruin my narrative surprises. Is that something you're arguing against? I wish I could tell from the rest of your post but I often have difficulty following your points. This time proved not to be an exception.

Also, I'm curious, what are "muse" problems?

Oh I didn't just mean planning for oneself, though that is pretty important as well, but I was more referring to people planning amongst each other. That said, I do recognize some surprises are inevitably eliminated when planning, but it doesn't eliminate the surprises from the narrative. There still will be surprises, it just won't be the same ones.

Regarding the "muse" problems, it's when a person ends up not posting for a long while or even quitting a roleplay because they can't "get the muse". I'm surprised you don't seem to have run into people saying that... So, yeah, this occurs because you can't always have a surge of inspiration. My point regarding them is that if you're trying to ad-lib everything these are a very serious issue, because you have nothing to fall back into except your "muse". On the other, with planning you alreayd have material. And sure the post may not be as fleshed out and interesting as when you are inspired, but it at least could consistently exist...

 

[Intellectual Sword]

I must veemently disagree with this concept, that planning inherently takes away from the surprise and experience of a roleplay. Sure, this may happen in some cases, but I would argue that's hardly ever the case when people are open to the idea at all. Of course, though, that in of itself may be a big hurdle, but it's not an absolute that planning takes away the surprise, much less that it takes away the experience. If anything, the experience is improved, with better and more concise writing, less "muse" problems, more investment and more solified relationships with better pay-offs. The end result of the roleplay also ends up being better, not just the direct experience. As for the surpirse, planning only requires the establishment of a structure, the fleshing out in of itself or what comes up with while planning can be wonderful surprises as well.
Of course, like with any aspect of writing, this takes skill to pull off. You can enjoy it just as much without that skill, but the best results obviously will only come once someone has experience and knowledge about the matter on their back, and they are willing to put it in action- but that goes for anything.

Oh I don't disagree. I may had came a little too strong with that sentence but I was making a point which you agree referring with "some" cases. There's certain planning that's fine to get broad on, but there's some that's just great when it hits everyone like a truck, test their aptitude as roleplayers, etc. But point was needing the fact you have to babysit everyone along the way, because they can't be trusted to themselves. That's the aspect which sucks. That and I'm also much of a go-with-the-flow type of writer. I don't like linear plots for roleplaying as much as the next guy so I'm very open to branching ideas and at the same time I challenge them when I see a ostentatious plot hole... but that invites frustration because no one likes to hear their ideas are bad and a stickler to logic. This rounds back to excess planning sucking - some people have this conception that plot holes can be covered up after, some primitive people even suggest that some plotholes can be completely ignored, but that's just the slippery slope from there in my opinion. I say it's better to eliminate the problem (which isn't difficult at all) when you see it, compounding the the whole leniency that comes with suspension of disbelief, establishing the logic which the world operates, so on.

 

[Idea]

Oh I don't disagree. I may had came a little too strong with that sentence but I was making a point which you agree referring with "some" cases. There's certain planning that's fine to get broad on, but there's some that's just great when it hits everyone like a truck, test their aptitude as roleplayers, etc. But point was needing the fact you have to babysit everyone along the way, because they can't be trusted to themselves. That's the aspect which sucks. That and I'm also much of a go-with-the-flow type of writer. I don't like linear plots for roleplaying as much as the next guy so I'm very open to branching ideas and at the same time I challenge them when I see a ostentatious plot hole... but that invites frustration because no one likes to hear their ideas are bad and a stickler to logic. This rounds back to excess planning sucking - some people have this conception that plot holes can be covered up after, some primitive people even suggest that some plotholes can be completely ignored, but that's just the slippery slope from there in my opinion. I say it's better to eliminate the problem (which isn't difficult at all) when you see it, compounding the the whole leniency that comes with suspension of disbelief, establishing the logic which the world operates, so on.

Yes, we may be more in agreement than I first thought then . Personally I'm the opposite there, as you may have guessed, so I guess we've come to opposite conclusions on the matter. I believe it is best to plan more rather than less, and that going with the flow tends to create over-covenient pathways that, personally, really suck the air and atmosphere out of a story. I also like a story having more direction and a solid base, so all in all, I am very much that rare kind that really wants to plan everything, then simply flesh it out in the actual roleplay.

 

[Intellectual Sword]

Yes, we may be more in agreement than I first thought then . Personally I'm the opposite there, as you may have guessed, so I guess we've come to opposite conclusions on the matter. I believe it is best to plan more rather than less, and that going with the flow tends to create over-covenient pathways that, personally, really suck the air and atmosphere out of a story. I also like a story having more direction and a solid base, so all in all, I am very much that rare kind that really wants to plan everything, then simply flesh it out in the actual roleplay.

Well I'm with

I, as a player or a GM, make use of extensive planning. But I'm careful about how much (if any) of my plans I share ahead of time with the group. And as far as I can figure, I do this primarily to not ruin my narrative surprises. Is that something you're arguing against? I wish I could tell from the rest of your post but I often have difficulty following your points. This time proved not to be an exception.

Also, I'm curious, what are "muse" problems?

On this matter. I do extensive planning more or less, for myself. It's like having multiple contingency plans. Actually I'm much of the same sentiment where I also have to see all the directions something can go, and fleshing it out during its execution. It's not all improv, well maybe it's comprehensive improv? (Naw... that's not a thing) Overall, it doesn't stop me from changing said plans, being flexible, however. Direction can and should be able to change if the foundation is soundly established. I love open exploration but I will do something to the fullest when it's introduced as well (either if it's by me or someone else.) That's much of the adored freedom which comes with roleplaying.

 

[Idea]

Well I'm with


On this matter. I do extensive planning more or less, for myself. It's like having multiple contingency plans. Actually I'm much of the same sentiment where I also have to see all the directions something can go, and fleshing it out during its execution. It's not all improv, well maybe it's comprehensive improv? (Naw... that's not a thing) Overall, it doesn't stop me from changing said plans, being flexible, however. Direction can and should be able to change if the foundation is soundly established. I love open exploration but I will do something to the fullest when it's introduced as well (either if it's by me or someone else.) That's much of the adored freedom which comes with roleplaying.

Just because I plan extensively doesn't mean I am incapable of change. Heck, one might argue certain aspects of planning make you more capable of changing plans. I do understand I am in the minority when I say I think a lack of structure is actually more limiting than one more solidly laid out.

 

[White Masquerade]

No, GMs are incredibly vital to group roleplays.

Ah. Then you know what question I want to ask next. If GMs are vital to a roleplay, then why do you want space to be your own story-teller? Why do you need a GM then? Or what's their purpose? It seems like 2 different ideas clashing.

The difference is there is neither demand nor expectation of input in a book, whereas in a roleplay there is. To put simply, roleplaying is differs from hobbies such as reading or even playing a game in that it is a productive activity. It asks for effort and in this case imagination (resource) as input, then returns a good in relation to that input as a product of that and the product thus returned may or not be worth it, meaning entertaining and fun. Reading simply asks you consume an already existing good.
Because of this when you roleplay, you are seeking to create that good you enjoy, but a tyrant's rule makes it so that is requires a lot more effort to have even a fraction of that good- if it can be done at all. And rarely if ever does that tyranical person, who I remind you was someone I defined to be someone who refused to change at the behest of the player's needs or requests, ever give something worth the waste they produce.

People already have difficulty just going along with someone genuily trying to help, now imagine when that help isn't even actually viable as help.

Understood. Have you ever come across any Quests you weren't a part of but enjoyed reading? Any Quest creators you felt could make a roleplay you'd like to be a part of? I ask if you've ever come across a writer you'd trust enough to give you a good experience? Where you don't have to do much except follow the flow?

A STRONG LEADER IS NECESSARY

Lorsh M MicroFunk
Right on! I'm of the ilk where I'd rather have a strong GM that knows what they're doing rather than player-led stories or an even partnership. I can't place it, but it feels right. Everything is tighter, more related, and together when you have that one person doing things. It's not a loose mash of ideas, but one full project. I used to see a lot of these GMs but the flow has turned to more teamwork and Co-GMs. It's interesting to see.

Course this can be solved if everyone discussed plans prior hand, but the thing is, that simultaneously takes a lot out of the experiences and surprises of roleplaying... which sucks. Plus being continuously fussy could get you accused of being a tyrant even if all you're trying to achieve is a coherent story for everyone. (Yes, personal situation).

Interesting reading this. I lean toward option 1 because of just that. If you're going to plan what happens with everyone, what's the point of the story? There will be nothing to figure out or be surprised by. Option 3 I feel is too difficult, or rather, it rarely works in a good way. As you say, it does heavily depend on the skill of the people involved. Say you have a poor GM and great player or vice versa, partnership is not going to come out well. I think an effective give-and-take would require 2 very special people.

I must veemently disagree with this concept, that planning inherently takes away from the surprise and experience of a roleplay. Sure, this may happen in some cases, but I would argue that's hardly ever the case when people are open to the idea at all. Of course, though, that in of itself may be a big hurdle, but it's not an absolute that planning takes away the surprise, much less that it takes away the experience. If anything, the experience is improved, with better and more concise writing, less "muse" problems, more investment and more solified relationships with better pay-offs. The end result of the roleplay also ends up being better, not just the direct experience. As for the surpirse, planning only requires the establishment of a structure, the fleshing out in of itself or what comes up with while planning can be wonderful surprises as well.
Of course, like with any aspect of writing, this takes skill to pull off. You can enjoy it just as much without that skill, but the best results obviously will only come once someone has experience and knowledge about the matter on their back, and they are willing to put it in action- but that goes for anything.

My issue with that is when there's a tense situation coming up and it's planned who's going to win or lose. I personally don't find that fun, even if they full battle and how someone wins/loses isn't fleshed out. There are just things that lose their "oomph" when you know the gist.

 

[Intellectual Sword]

Just because I plan extensively doesn't mean I am incapable of change. Heck, one might argue certain aspects of planning make you more capable of changing plans. I do understand I am in the minority when I say I think a lack of structure is actually more limiting than one more solidly laid out.

Sorry didn't mean to suggest that. Gahahahaha. If anything I was saying extensive planning and being flexible can coexist, I was supporting your type of existence. Also I won't say it's so much of a lack of structure, but more a structure capable of growing and being added on to. Which you need a solid base for definitely. But how and where the structure grows is what could be considered "its lack of structure".

Ah. Then you know what question I want to ask next. If GMs are vital to a roleplay, then why do you want space to be your own story-teller? Why do you need a GM then? Or what's their purpose? It seems like 2 different ideas clashing.


Lorsh M MicroFunk
Right on! I'm of the ilk where I'd rather have a strong GM that knows what they're doing rather than player-led stories or an even partnership. I can't place it, but it feels right. Everything is tighter, more related, and together when you have that one person doing things. It's not a loose mash of ideas, but one full project. I used to see a lot of these GMs but the flow has turned to more teamwork and Co-GMs. It's interesting to see.


Interesting reading this. I lean toward option 1 because of just that. If you're going to plan what happens with everyone, what's the point of the story? There will be nothing to figure out or be surprised by. Option 3 I feel is too difficult, or rather, it rarely works in a good way. As you say, it does heavily depend on the skill of the people involved. Say you have a poor GM and great player or vice versa, partnership is not going to come out well. I think an effective give-and-take would require 2 very special people.


My issue with that is when there's a tense situation coming up and it's planned who's going to win or lose. I personally don't find that fun, even if they full battle and how someone wins/loses isn't fleshed out. There are just things that lose their "oomph" when you know the gist.

On this notions, actually I think GM is a whimsy position. They're vital for sure, but someone can easily take the role of "GM" even if they're not the one who made the thread. Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm defining GM as the person who adds to the world, move the plot, so forth. AND someone has to take the role, and someone usually will. I guess that's where wanting space to your own story comes in. That can work because people usually just mean the bubble of their characterization. You have to be able to adapt that bubble to fit with everyone's else, overlapping but not popping. A GM should accommodate just as much too, but certainly shouldn't bend over backward when said bubble is knocking every goddamn vase and fine china off the table. Oops sorry outburst.

Ugh and yeah, option 3 is simply ideal. I had a lot of successes with option 2 personally, because I am a bit of an aggressive writer to say the least. And yeah disagreements can get tense as much as you want to be objective about it. People just see you a grumpy mcgrumperson even if you're laying out hard facts for them to correct and muse on.

 

[Idea]

Understood. Have you ever come across any Quests you weren't a part of but enjoyed reading? Any Quest creators you felt could make a roleplay you'd like to be a part of? I ask if you've ever come across a writer you'd trust enough to give you a good experience? Where you don't have to do much except follow the flow?

I'm gonna have to be honest and say no because I don't generally read other people's roleplays. However, I did come across a few people whom I would trust to give me a good reading experience almost any time (in fact one of my favorite things in roelplaying is reading my partner's response posts). Of the top of my head, I could name yuckeroni and ApfelSeine , though regarding the quest roleplays and being a part of them that's a whole other can of worms. I am generally trying to discern the GM's priorites, assuming the writing style and premise of the roleplay already interested me, so that if I join the RP I want to know how committed I should expect the GM to be, how much freedom upon my own choices I have and last but not least, whether I can expect my time to be well spent-there. If not for how vital the others are as well, that last one may be the most important to me even. Roleplaying is a productive activity, it involves writing. When I roleplay I want to have fun, but I want to be making somehting I can be proud of as well, something worth my time. Mindless fun for me is not enough. Quest roleplays may suffer a little deviation from that, in that I probably wouldn't have to really write much of anything or come up with it for them, so a much more casual approach would be easier to get into, but I still don't think it would be something I could get into without knowing the quest writer understands basic consistency and has something smart for me to read and choose.

My issue with that is when there's a tense situation coming up and it's planned who's going to win or lose. I personally don't find that fun, even if they full battle and how someone wins/loses isn't fleshed out. There are just things that lose their "oomph" when you know the gist.

Well, to begin with, consider the opposite option. Rarely if ever does one person WANT to lose. Leaving it to both people ad-libing tends to result in an endless clash of bullshit, by my experience. Not to say these fights don't have conclusion, but they tend to be a lot less, lt's say artistic. You can't afford to just be cool or coregraph or put emotional development and character/story costrasts and all that good stuff in a fight in which doing so means sacrificing your overall goal just because.
Plus you don't actually have to plan who wins or loses. I would still rather a meaningful battle over a bland one where the only appeal is finding the winner, but you can plan even keeping that. Planning can be boiled down to an outline, and everything els outside the outline is to be fleshed out at the time. For example, one way to do it is to simply makers events X, Y and Z that must happen and characte must B attitude or whatever... From there, so long as the order and happening of the events within a logical context happens, anything else can.

 

[Intellectual Sword]

I'm gonna have to be honest and say no because I don't generally read other people's roleplays. However, I did come across a few people whom I would trust to give me a good reading experience almost any time (in fact one of my favorite things in roelplaying is reading my partner's response posts). Of the top of my head, I could name yuckeroni and ApfelSeine , though regarding the quest roleplays and being a part of them that's a whole other can of worms. I am generally trying to discern the GM's priorites, assuming the writing style and premise of the roleplay already interested me, so that if I join the RP I want to know how committed I should expect the GM to be, how much freedom upon my own choices I have and last but not least, whether I can expect my time to be well spent-there. If not for how vital the others are as well, that last one may be the most important to me even. Roleplaying is a productive activity, it involves writing. When I roleplay I want to have fun, but I want to be making somehting I can be proud of as well, something worth my time. Mindless fun for me is not enough. Quest roleplays may suffer a little deviation from that, in that I probably wouldn't have to really write much of anything or come up with it for them, so a much more casual approach would be easier to get into, but I still don't think it would be something I could get into without knowing the quest writer understands basic consistency and has something smart for me to read and choose.


Well, to begin with, consider the opposite option. Rarely if ever does one person WANT to lose. Leaving it to both people ad-libing tends to result in an endless clash of bullshit, by my experience. Not to say these fights don't have conclusion, but they tend to be a lot less, lt's say artistic. You can't afford to just be cool or coregraph or put emotional development and character/story costrasts and all that good stuff in a fight in which doing so means sacrificing your overall goal just because.
Plus you don't actually have to plan who wins or loses. I would still rather a meaningful battle over a bland one where the only appeal is finding the winner, but you can plan even keeping that. Planning can be boiled down to an outline, and everything els outside the outline is to be fleshed out at the time. For example, one way to do it is to simply makers events X, Y and Z that must happen and characte must B attitude or whatever... From there, so long as the order and happening of the events within a logical context happens, anything else can.

I'm going to assume here quests means "Here's a mission assigned" and not "There's circumstances that came up which I have to resolve". Well, depending on the setting, a mix of those can be enjoyable.. realistic. And I say they're intrinsically different. Since the latter really expects everyone to know how to give and take, whereas the former is more just a point in the plot: both are points of conflict that moves the plot. Yah but then again I'm also not familiar with all these roleplay jargon so I could be talking about something entirely different. I'm very willing to trust my experience to someone who can lead a sensible development and I try to be open-minded about it too (accounting the inexplicable facets of the human heart). If anything, at most I nudge the story toward a direction. I think it's bad manners to try to wrest the plot to another direction just to achieve some characterization I selfishly want. There should be moderation as players since again, you have to account for everyone's vision. The GM more or less do this too, but they're not as restricted since people should respect that this is a world they created.

As for losing and winning conflicts, while I'm fine with butting heads and taking a loss... I still need a good reason to take it, meaning I need my points refuted which is really what I'm asking for when I disagree with someone about a certain story development or element for soso reasons. When people detract from the points of the argument then yeah it's not meaningful at all.

 

[Idea]

I'm going to assume here quests means "Here's a mission assigned" and not "There's circumstances that came up which I have to resolve".

It doesn't mean either of those. A "quest roleplay" is a roleplay that works like one of those "choose your own adventure" books where one person will write for the roleplay and the others will, usually, simply pick among a set of options