Experiences Fixed Role in Interest Check

[Ranix Aurus]

Another random rant/question/opinion gathering from me, the shoes with a cat on it. (it says meow by the way).

When lurking in 1x1 interest check, I tend to see IC with fixed role prepared for the characters. For example:

"Muse A is a thing from thang. They have this background which made them become etc. Muse B is a thing who will do something with Muse A, what will happen after that?"

Now this is my personal feeling, so don't take it too seriously, but this kind of IC actually turned me off. It's like my character, my creation, was forced to be something I maybe not intending it to be. It kinda hard to get attached to, unless my character coincidentally matched the description perfectly (which, from experience, rarely happened.)

When I made an IC, I usually start from the setting instead of the character. Actually I usually leave the character alone up to what my partner want to be. Sure there's some expectation, but most of the time the more they defy my expectation, the more it got interesting. After all, if I already know everything about the character in general, what's the fun in that? Discovering the character's life bit by bit is what makes roleplaying, and storytelling in general, fun for me.

Well that's all I guess. My question perhaps is which approach is better? Or do they both have their own value? Or maybe there's another better way to do interest check?

Thanks again for listening / reading / skimming / whatev you did just now lol

 

[rae2nerdy]

Well it's a bit of an objective question and has more to deal with why people roleplay.

The reason the structured style is so popular is ( in 1x1s ) about 90% of people are looking for romantic pairings. In which case those plots are just elaborations on the pairings they are currently craving.

It's no different than listing - I want
- bad boy x nerd girl
- loner x jock
- princess x servant
- witch x familiar

etc. etc.

They are just expanding on that with an actual plot which I find helpful as it lets me know if nothing else some thought was put behind their pairings and they're probably going to put some effort into the roleplay itself.

Now whether the written pairings actually interest me is a little more subjective but that's a matter of what I'm looking to roleplay and not whether or not the method is poor in and of itself.

As I think that method pretty usually works exactly as it is intended. It's intended to get people interested in doing a ( usually ) romantic roleplay involving the described pairing.

 

[Nana_MelaNinja]

Firstly, I extend my warmest meow-greetings to the nifty pair of shoes with a cat on it.

More seriously now: In addition to what geeking out mentioned previously, fixed roles could potentially be helpful to those who struggle with developing characters of their own. It gives them an angle to work from, so to speak. From what I've seen, some people prefer or are willing to make up entirely new characters to fit an open role in a RP that they're interested in. Either that, or they are just a little more willing to adapt their existing character to such a role. I don't think one way is particularly better than the other; they just pertain to different tastes.

I guess for maximum effectiveness an interest check could include plots that are "setting-based", as you prefer, as well as "character-based" plots that feature fixed roles in order to meet the preferences of a wider audience of potential partners. Hopefully that suitably answers your rant/question/opinion gathering.

 

[Idea]

I pretty much have the flip side of your values when it comes to characters. I cannot stand characters whose appeal is being hidden, and it often reveals that those are either litterally nothing (as in the character didn´t actually have a set personality) or that personality was a piece of junk. A good character, in my eyes, has several layers to them, and does not need to hide any because their appeal is the showcasing and growth of those layers rather than some usually lackluster suspense about who they might be, that leaves me unable to be interested in the character because there is no appeal to them.

This doesn´t just apply to characters though: how the plot goes from point A to point B is pretty interesting to me. The way a plot wants to convey a message or explore a theme, the journey is supposed to be the interesting part. When it comes to worldbuilding, the more fixed and rulebound the better, because rules can be explored and allow clever and creative situations that give a sense of victory that could never be achieved with a deus-ex-machina superpower wand.

So, in my eyes, it doesn´t really matter, what you start with. In fact, working within certain limitations is an incentive to creativity. And I think rather than thinking of it as not being able to pull that one crave, one should think of it as all the possiblities of things they haven´t tried yet.

 

[missbrightside]

I appreciate that type of plot suggestion for its honesty. If you want something specific, you should really just come out and say it. That way you can find people to do what you want, and someone isn't trying to play a plot with you that they think you're interested in, when in reality it's just not what you imagined. However, I mostly tend to back away from those. I always buck at having limits set on my character, which is a completely separate issue to me than having a partly established plot or a vague archetype like loner x jock that doesn't really say much about personality, background, or motivation. Part of this is because I like to imagine multiple different backgrounds and trait sets for a character before settling on one. Part of this is because I fear that my role might just be a warm, typing body to fill the other side of their plot and not a collaborative partner, even though I recognize that I am probably judging prematurely on that. So basically, I think that tactic is great for some people, and perhaps everyone in some situations, but most of the time I don't prefer it.