Other How can we fix roleplay commitment issues

[Sibelle Grey]

I think the best way to attempt to limit these issues (because I honestly don't think people are going to stop dropping roleplays anytime soon) is to make sure you and the people you happen to be playing with are looking to get the same thing out of the roleplay. If people find it fulfilling, people will stay. If they're not getting what they want out of the roleplay, they will leave.

I'm with Sludge , many people think they want something long-term, but long-term takes effort. It's not as immediately gratifying and omgsofun all the time, but it's fulfilling in a different way. It's less constant tons excitement, and more figuring out how to get to that super-exciting scene in a realistic, well-paced way while developing the verse and characters (for me, at least). That can be exciting in itself. I think it's easier to be clear about what you want and actually get what you want in a smaller group. I fixed this issue for myself by exclusively participating in 1x1s, because I have less people to deal with and it's easier to communicate what works and what doesn't.

So yeah:
- communicate.
- kill anyone who's slowing you down (this is arguably useful in real life, too, tbh*) (*bad joke, not encouraging homicide)
- roleplay with people you know you can count on (ie: "This person was part of a group I was in a while back, they're cool and dedicated and as annoyed by lack of commitment as I am, lemme invite them to partake in this new project")
- avoid insta-grat roleplayers if you're looking to write more than play, or write as much as you play, and avoid people who want something novel-style if you'd prefer something low-effort. There was a 'why do you roleplay' thread a while back, and the variety of responses to that is proof that we're not all in it for the same reasons.

People commit to what they enjoy. The question is, how to find a whole group of people who can enjoy the same roleplay (for different or similar reasons) enough to commit. No idea how to do that, other than ask around and search.

*skulks back into the shadows*

 

[Isaedras Cleditre]

I think the best way to attempt to limit these issues (because I honestly don't think people are going to stop dropping roleplays anytime soon) is to make sure you and the people you happen to be playing with are looking to get the same thing out of the roleplay. If people find it fulfilling, people will stay. If they're not getting what they want out of the roleplay, they will leave.

I'm with Sludge , many people think they want something long-term, but long-term takes effort. It's not as immediately gratifying and omgsofun all the time, but it's fulfilling in a different way. It's less constant tons excitement, and more figuring out how to get to that super-exciting scene in a realistic, well-paced way while developing the verse and characters (for me, at least). That can be exciting in itself. I think it's easier to be clear about what you want and actually get what you want in a smaller group. I fixed this issue for myself by exclusively participating in 1x1s, because I have less people to deal with and it's easier to communicate what works and what doesn't.

So yeah:
- communicate.
- kill anyone who's slowing you down (this is arguably useful in real life, too, tbh*) (*bad joke, not encouraging homicide)
- roleplay with people you know you can count on (ie: "This person was part of a group I was in a while back, they're cool and dedicated and as annoyed by lack of commitment as I am, lemme invite them to partake in this new project")
- avoid insta-grat roleplayers if you're looking to write more than play, or write as much as you play, and avoid people who want something novel-style if you'd prefer something low-effort. There was a 'why do you roleplay' thread a while back, and the variety of responses to that is proof that we're not all in it for the same reasons.

People commit to what they enjoy. The question is, how to find a whole group of people who can enjoy the same roleplay (for different or similar reasons) enough to commit. No idea how to do that, other than ask around and search.

*skulks back into the shadows*

*follows*

 

[Purity]

I feel the need to reiterate my previous point. There’s a fundamental flaw with correcting the commitment issues in roleplays. That being, there is no way to correct it. The causality behind commitment can be argued, the theory and praxis of successful stories for roleplaying can be looked at, but if each individual person remains individual, there is never going to be a roleplay that lasts even for a significant amount of time. Now, you can link me to threads that have had thousands upon thousands of posts, but those are mainly the ones where there is no real structure, and a group of generally like-minded writers simply band together to engage in multitudes of relatively minor stories that can be categorized under one umbrella, albeit a very large one.

The problem that most of us on this thread are experiencing is that we wish for a well-written, plot driven, and interactive roleplay to succeed. For this to happen, certain criteria must be met. The first and most difficult, not a single person can drop off. And therefore, the solution to commitment leads into itself, and why it is so difficult to fix. Once a person drops off, (unless this is one of those flimsier roleplays mentioned earlier), others will get discouraged. It’s a fact that I’ve seen all too many times, and while there are certainly examples countering my observations, I am speaking for the majority.

The second is much less difficult, but no less crucial. The GM must maintain interest and post the most frequently out of all players in a roleplay. This is essentially plan B: if character interaction is at a minimum, everyone is pondering what to do, and people are just generally confused, then at least players can respond and react to the GM’s hopefully all-inclusive posts. The GM is, in a way, writing a mystery novel to keep their players interested. Humans are naturally curious. You must simply play on this fact.

And with that all said and done, we can continue to post solutions, argue these solutions, improve upon these solutions, but without any offense intended, these solutions are all irrelevant. They offer explanations of individual cases and niche examples, but I truly do believe that we all need to accept the basic fact that we’re all roleplaying for different reasons. There’s no solution that will fit everyone, and even the most general of solutions will have its flaws just because of how humans work, not because of how roleplaying works.

So, this is probably the most aggravating and frustrating “solution” of all, and I trust that many of you will give me an ear over this, but just accept that commitment is always going to be an issue. I’m just as disappointed as many of you are over this issue, but there is no way to generalize solutions to fit all our problems. Every roleplay must have its own ways to deal with commitment.

 

[Idea]

I feel the need to reiterate my previous point. There’s a fundamental flaw with correcting the commitment issues in roleplays. That being, there is no way to correct it. The causality behind commitment can be argued, the theory and praxis of successful stories for roleplaying can be looked at, but if each individual person remains individual, there is never going to be a roleplay that lasts even for a significant amount of time. Now, you can link me to threads that have had thousands upon thousands of posts, but those are mainly the ones where there is no real structure, and a group of generally like-minded writers simply band together to engage in multitudes of relatively minor stories that can be categorized under one umbrella, albeit a very large one.

The problem that most of us on this thread are experiencing is that we wish for a well-written, plot driven, and interactive roleplay to succeed. For this to happen, certain criteria must be met. The first and most difficult, not a single person can drop off. And therefore, the solution to commitment leads into itself, and why it is so difficult to fix. Once a person drops off, (unless this is one of those flimsier roleplays mentioned earlier), others will get discouraged. It’s a fact that I’ve seen all too many times, and while there are certainly examples countering my observations, I am speaking for the majority.

The second is much less difficult, but no less crucial. The GM must maintain interest and post the most frequently out of all players in a roleplay. This is essentially plan B: if character interaction is at a minimum, everyone is pondering what to do, and people are just generally confused, then at least players can respond and react to the GM’s hopefully all-inclusive posts. The GM is, in a way, writing a mystery novel to keep their players interested. Humans are naturally curious. You must simply play on this fact.

And with that all said and done, we can continue to post solutions, argue these solutions, improve upon these solutions, but without any offense intended, these solutions are all irrelevant. They offer explanations of individual cases and niche examples, but I truly do believe that we all need to accept the basic fact that we’re all roleplaying for different reasons. There’s no solution that will fit everyone, and even the most general of solutions will have its flaws just because of how humans work, not because of how roleplaying works.

So, this is probably the most aggravating and frustrating “solution” of all, and I trust that many of you will give me an ear over this, but just accept that commitment is always going to be an issue. I’m just as disappointed as many of you are over this issue, but there is no way to generalize solutions to fit all our problems. Every roleplay must have its own ways to deal with commitment.

In spite of everything, I can´t help but mostly agree with you. In pratice, there is no way to convince the masses to act in this or that way, even if it would be to their benefict. You can temporarily trick them into it, but the charisma, subtly and everything else is takes is far from the skill set of the average person.

Still, by what I believe, discussing things is never useless, if it is done in a proper manner. I never argue to convince people, I know that I probably won´t be able to. Regardless of being right or wrong. But what I can do, is argue to verify the solidity of my own beliefs. Strengthen what I can defend, correct what I can´t. And even if the chance is slim, if I can raise awareness for just a few people about certain truths, lifes could be improved, however so slightly. That makes it worth it to bring up these topics, I believe.

 

[Whisker]

Random but I miss the days where we had tons of Hosted Projects. It was probably just me but I seem to recall that roleplays were a lot less hit-it and quit-it back then.

 

[Bone2pick]

How and why?

If the character breaks a critical promise of the RP/story.

 

[Idea]

If the character breaks a critical promise of the RP/story.

what is a critical promise of the rp/story? exactly.

 

[Bone2pick]

I describe them in this thread. There's even a video if you have some free time. https://www.rpnation.com/threads/player-choice-vs-thematic-consistency.296542/#post-7474733

Edit: the video is no longer linked for some reason...

 

[Idea]

I describe them in this thread. There's even a video if you have some free time. https://www.rpnation.com/threads/player-choice-vs-thematic-consistency.296542/#post-7474733

Edit: the video is no longer linked for some reason...

Ah, as I expected. Yeah, when I said "unlikable character" I didn´t mean a character you dislike, but a character that is crafted in such a way, via their personality, actions etc... so as to purposely not be sympathetic or overly relatable, at first at least.

 

[Bone2pick]

Ah, as I expected. Yeah, when I said "unlikable character" I didn´t mean a character you dislike, but a character that is crafted in such a way, via their personality, actions etc... so as to purposely not be sympathetic or overly relatable, at first at least.

I see. Well that is quite a different animal compared to what I thought you were saying. Still, a character failing to make nice with other characters could be a broken promise, depending on the roleplay. For instance, if a slice of life roleplay was advertised as a group of former college friends reuniting for one last romp around the town. In that instance, social chemistry would be an expectation.

 

[Idea]

I see. Well that is quite a different animal compared to what I thought you were saying. Still, a character failing to make nice with other characters could be a broken promise, depending on the roleplay. For instance, if a slice of life roleplay was advertised as a group of former college friends reuniting for one last romp around the town. In that instance, social chemistry would be an expectation.

Yes, that is true. But in that scenario, the reason for quitting was that one of the people was actively going against the basic needs for the roleplay to come to be at all, or it´s plot at least. Not the fact that a character was unlikable by itself

 

[Bone2pick]

Yes, that is true. But in that scenario, the reason for quitting was that one of the people was actively going against the basic needs for the roleplay...

Yes, that's another way of saying they've broken a narrative promise. We've come full circle.

 

[Idea]

Yes, that's another way of saying they've broken a narrative promise. We've come full circle.

no we didn´t. I know that´s another of saying it, I rephrased it on purpose, because I was trying to convey the fact that what you said regarding, quote "breaking a narrative promise" was completely tangent to my point. because said "breaking a narrative promise" would be the reason for the person to quit the roleplay, the justification, something which is justified, unlike quitting just because a character isn´t likeable AKA immediately reletable and sympathetic.

 

[Bone2pick]

unlike quitting just because a character isn´t likeable AKA immediately reletable and sympathetic.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Idea]

I still don't understand what you're trying to say here.

let me try dishing out an example then. Say you join a roleplay, something like a freeform or action roleplay, where there really aren´t many rules as to what to make your character like except you can´t contradict established lore or be OP and the like. Now, one person makes a character who is very strict and very goal-oriented in how they seek justice, by enforcing law for the sake of order. They are a bit broody, and never take a joke, not to mention being merciless, but they they are honest and selfless.

Now, given the traits I presented here, most would not see this character in a good light, and they would likely not be able to relate to them either. Make the character stubborn, and suddenly intereacting with this character can be really frustrating... It´s an unlikeable character. It´s not breaking any rules and it perfectly fits, being both somewhat rounded, believable and properly flawed. But the thing is, those particular flaws make them a difficult person to deal with. So it´s possible you will not come out thrilled with interacting with this character in every scenario, especially early ones.

But here´s another fact: this character has TONS to offer a story. They can provide conflict for other characters, deepen the themes of the plot, and certainly have some nice room to grow.

Still, many would be a bit off-put by someone playing such an unreleatable character. And I am not bashing that, but rather stating that someone trying a different type of character from what you would is no reason to abandon ship on that roleplay.

 

[Bone2pick]

I think part of the reason I'm finding your point so confusing is how seemlessly you're switching unlikeable from the point of view of the character to the POV of the player. As I'm sure you understand, those two POVs have significantly different meanings. For instance, combining them would mean that I, the player, would hate my character's antagonist—which is never the case if the writing is up to snuff.

 

[Idea]

I spoke entirely of the perspective of the players though....

it´s an aspect to character design. One can break down character traits into "qualities" "flaws" and "quirks", though most traits relevant to the discussion are found within the first two. Character qualities can be both relatable and sympathetic, albeit they don´t necessarily have to be either. Flaws, on the other hand, are inherently not sympathetic, but they can still be relatable. A good balance of these generally speaking can make a decent character, so even a character crammed with unsympathetic traits whcih are also unrelatable is not necessarily a bad character or a character that in the long run will remain that way or be a detriment to the roleplay if given a shot.

But as stated, said traits are neither likeable nor relatable. They are likely to be off-putting at first. There is a slim chance someone will look and think about how great a character they are, even more so than with any other. But giving up the RP because of that is a huge waste.

 

[Bone2pick]

I spoke entirely of the perspective of the players though...

Fair enough, then I disagree with the following.

Now, given the traits I presented here, most would not see this character in a good light, and they would likely not be able to relate to them either.

If someone creates a well written character with the personality that you specified, then I'm confident that most players would view them favorably.

One can break down character traits into "qualities" "flaws" and "quirks"...

I wouldn't. At the very least, I don't see that as a productive area to travel down since it just creates more room for disagreement. For instance, I don't accept your definition of flaws, but the arguments we would have over this entire "break down" would deserve its own thread.

But as stated, said traits are neither likeable nor relatable. They are likely to be off-putting at first. There is a slim chance someone will look and think about how great a character they are, even more so than with any other.

Using the arguments you've provided, I don't see why that would follow. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of likeable or relatable—and I suspect I don't.

 

[Idea]

Well, I´ll leave it at that then. If there is one thing I hate arguing about, it´s semantics, and since I gotta get ready for my exam tomorrow anyway, I won´t persue this further either.

(note: I will still reply to people who quote me or mention me, I just won´t specifically be further engaging in this discussion with Bone2pick )

 

[Devious Dilbert]

Sometimes, things can genuily just not be fun. Then you could quit. I am not saying you can´t quit nomatter what. I am saying, how do we fix committment issues? Well, start by changing the idea of quitting every time there is a rough patch or in any slow beggining.

Well, I do think that more people should consider this because this mindset would definitely help a lot of gm's. But again, this is very passive.
Anyway, it really does just seem like a difference in how we see it, which is not a bad thing.
I'd rather take on a more direct approach. And to be honest, I don't think that if your players told you that your rp isn't fun anymore or that they are losing interest, you'd just say, "Well, it's not supposed to be fun because it's writing! The fun comes after the rp!" I'm sorry, but I think a lot of people would be even more inclined to leave, LOL.

To you, the pay-off when rp'ing and writing is supposed to come later, I can understand that, really. But again, people tend to half-ass what they're not interested in/bored of. And if you're posts even as a gm are not captivating your players and/or encouraging them to write/react to something, then you have a bunch of dispassionate/bored players in your rp that are there only because of the promise that it gets better. And they're going to likely give you dispassionate/boring replies. And then it won't really ever get better and the pay-off wouldn't even be that great anyway either.
However, this is just theoretical/hypothetical situation. But one that I think could be realistic enough.
But overall, that's fair. I just do it differently, and hopefully you can see that and at least understand my way after all of that explaining.

In addition to that, never once have I seen a game in my life, regardless of what type of game it was, where the part of the audience that actually paid attention to the world, story etc... was more than a small fraction compared to those that were there for the mechanics and what they provided. For the "game aspect".

Really? Guess we live in different worlds then. That sounded sarcastic, LOL. But really, most people I know play the game for both, if not, more for the story. Because like I said earlier, if there's no higher significance to doing something, people won't do it. And the story or whatever goal/objective can be the best driving point to getting people motivated to interact with the gameworld (when talking about narrative-driven games).
Again, you could just have a bunch of cool places to explore, but nobody's gonna explore them if it's only a waste of time/doesn't contribute to anything and they aren't actively trying to numb their brains.

Even when people take a break from the main storyline of a game, which is the driving force to playing the game usually, to grind or exploit the mechanics, or whatever for some mindless action, they always come back to it at some point if their goal is to beat the game, which it usually is (with narrative-driven games).

I think people not paying attention to the story/world of a game is just a silly meme like you said earlier I think. Which... I don't think is an accurate representation of reality, LOL. At least- I don't think that the number of people who just trash games and then leave are higher than the ones who pay attention and want to get their money's worth out of a $60 game.

Writing on the other hand does not have the luxury of having something to distract you from the writing. To have fun right away, it´s because you envision how fun it will be. In writing, something is fun because you invest in it, not the other way around. That is the issue I am trying to say is making this backwards.

Yeah, I understand. But most people are just too ADD to commit to something that doesn't satisfy them in the here and now.
It's also a lot easier said than done to willfully stick around for something that you just don't have any more interest in and you are seeing as a waste of time. And I think this is understandable. A problem still for the sake of longer-lived rp's, but an understandable one, don't you agree?

If someone shows up and happens to have a less likeable character, it can turn off your immediate investment in that character. But is the other person playing with such a character really a reason to say "I will not enjoy this RP, and therefore should leave it to die"?

I remember you talking to me about the first chapter novel and saying how bad it was, LOL. I mean, it was, but you said that people would read this, realize how bad it was, and then immediately drop it and not want to waste their time on it.
Do you see what I'm getting at?

Other players having characters that annoy you isn't really something that the gm can control since they don't know what annoys you, but the characters in the rp add to the whole experience.
And this is not just limited to the characters, but any other aspect of the rp. They all add up to the whole experience.
And again, I personally just don't think it's that crazy of an idea to leave something that you do not enjoy. I know that you would disagree, but that's just how I see it. There are tons of rp's out there and to find the one's that you truly enjoy, you have to give a lot of rp's a chance and then leave when those rp's blow that chance. Of course, you could argue that if people only stayed and disciplined themselves better by waiting out the rough parts of an rp, they could potentially find an rp that they do enjoy just by doing that. There's just two kinds of people I guess. Like I said earlier, it's a lot easier said then done to force yourself to commit to something that you just simply don't like, and even more so to put your best effort into.

Then you blew it out of proporsion, because you took things that only apply to writing novels and expanded it to all forms of writing.

Then I admit that this is my mistake.





If these replies were a lot more "casual" and It seems like I missed a lot of what you said, it's because I'm currently brain-dead at the moment sjfdjgdgkfk. So, I apologize for that.

Anyway, I honestly think that we've both gotten our points across to each other. Or at least- I feel like I understand yours now. I'm not sure how well I've expressed mine to you for you to understand where I'm coming from, but eh probably just my fault since it's incredibly hard for me to put my thoughts into words.
Anyway, continuing this is still fine with me if you want to.

 

[Devious Dilbert]

Well, I´ll leave it at that then. If there is one thing I hate arguing about, it´s semantics, and since I gotta get ready for my exam tomorrow anyway, I won´t persue this further either.

(note: I will still reply to people who quote me or mention me, I just won´t specifically be further engaging in this discussion with Bone2pick )

Good luck on that exam.


Edit: (I thought my replies would merge. Oh well)

 

[Idea]

Good luck on that exam.


Edit: (I thought my replies would merge. Oh well)

they no longer merge

thanks!

Well, I do think that more people should consider this because this mindset would definitely help a lot of gm's. But again, this is very passive.
Anyway, it really does just seem like a difference in how we see it, which is not a bad thing.
I'd rather take on a more direct approach. And to be honest, I don't think that if your players told you that your rp isn't fun anymore or that they are losing interest, you'd just say, "Well, it's not supposed to be fun because it's writing! The fun comes after the rp!" I'm sorry, but I think a lot of people would be even more inclined to leave, LOL.

Oh I didn´t say my RPers quit because of that, at least not all of them. Plus, as I said, I don´t argue to convince people, so I wouldn´t chase after them with that argument anyway (especially because again, it´s a bit off what I said. You can have fun RPing, but you have to invest first, which means sometimes the first few posts may be boring without that impying the rest will be). I do recognize I have many key difference in style and many faults of my own as a player, a GM and a person to many of my fellow roleplayers. I don´t want to shift the blame here, I was merely pointing out the existence of a phenomena as part of the causes of a particular problem.

To you, the pay-off when rp'ing and writing is supposed to come later, I can understand that, really. But again, people tend to half-ass what they're not interested in/bored of. And if you're posts even as a gm are not captivating your players and/or encouraging them to write/react to something, then you have a bunch of dispassionate/bored players in your rp that are there only because of the promise that it gets better. And they're going to likely give you dispassionate/boring replies. And then it won't really ever get better and the pay-off wouldn't even be that great anyway either.
However, this is just theoretical/hypothetical situation. But one that I think could be realistic enough.
But overall, that's fair. I just do it differently, and hopefully you can see that and at least understand my way after all of that explaining.

It´s quite realistic, indeed. But there comes the effort part. Remember my fishing example? If you want that fish in your hands, you have to put effort into things. If you want that thrill, you can´t half-ass the boring parts. Adn writing is pretty much like that. It´s not easy, and people realistically wouldn´t jump to that prospect, I get that. But the whole point of a change of mentality would be changing how people behave. To have them overcome their first impulses and walk an extra mile for something they love as their hobby, and make it much more fun in the process.

Really? Guess we live in different worlds then. That sounded sarcastic, LOL. But really, most people I know play the game for both, if not, more for the story. Because like I said earlier, if there's no higher significance to doing something, people won't do it. And the story or whatever goal/objective can be the best driving point to getting people motivated to interact with the gameworld (when talking about narrative-driven games).
Again, you could just have a bunch of cool places to explore, but nobody's gonna explore them if it's only a waste of time/doesn't contribute to anything and they aren't actively trying to numb their brains.

Even when people take a break from the main storyline of a game, which is the driving force to playing the game usually, to grind or exploit the mechanics, or whatever for some mindless action, they always come back to it at some point if their goal is to beat the game, which it usually is (with narrative-driven games).

I think people not paying attention to the story/world of a game is just a silly meme like you said earlier I think. Which... I don't think is an accurate representation of reality, LOL. At least- I don't think that the number of people who just trash games and then leave are higher than the ones who pay attention and want to get their money's worth out of a $60 game

Is not about the people I know directly, but the community at large. Unless you mean games with ONLY narratives, most people look at things like PvP fighting and other forms of in-game competition.

Yeah, I understand. But most people are just too ADD to commit to something that doesn't satisfy them in the here and now.
It's also a lot easier said than done to willfully stick around for something that you just don't have any more interest in and you are seeing as a waste of time. And I think this is understandable. A problem still for the sake of longer-lived rp's, but an understandable one, don't you agree?

It´s an understandable impulse. I agree with that, to the extent that I can see why people would think like that. But I can also see several deep flaws in that way of thinking.

I remember you talking to me about the first chapter novel and saying how bad it was, LOL. I mean, it was, but you said that people would read this, realize how bad it was, and then immediately drop it and not want to waste their time on it.
Do you see what I'm getting at?

There is a difference though: the people I said would loose interest were merely readers. That is, they were consuming your product. You, as a writer, will still have to go through the boring parts.The reader, however, will only put in the investment you sell them. I don´t think this is a good attitude for readers either, mind you. But as I critiqued your piece, I critiqued from the point of view of someone thinking about the pratical impact of your first chapter, assuming you wanted it to have any form of recognition.

Other players having characters that annoy you isn't really something that the gm can control since they don't know what annoys you, but the characters in the rp add to the whole experience.
And this is not just limited to the characters, but any other aspect of the rp. They all add up to the whole experience.
And again, I personally just don't think it's that crazy of an idea to leave something that you do not enjoy. I know that you would disagree, but that's just how I see it. There are tons of rp's out there and to find the one's that you truly enjoy, you have to give a lot of rp's a chance and then leave when those rp's blow that chance. Of course, you could argue that if people only stayed and disciplined themselves better by waiting out the rough parts of an rp, they could potentially find an rp that they do enjoy just by doing that. There's just two kinds of people I guess. Like I said earlier, it's a lot easier said then done to force yourself to commit to something that you just simply don't like, and even more so to put your best effort into.

The problem with giving up anything you don´t like to quickly, is that you kill the potential for things to grow. I´ve already explained this in another post in this thread, but to summarize, creativity can´t flourish if the risk for being creative and trying new things, more complicated things or generally anything that isn´t immeditaely appealing from the getgo is too great. Quitting everything without seeing it through is the exact means to create situations like the massive amounts of highschool Rps. Bland, generic, half-dead from the start, but what else are you gonna do? Who are you gonna pull those crazy, whacky or new stuff with, if no one is willing to give it a shot if they can´t smile like they´re on cocain right away?

Kinda see what I mean?

I think I agree with you on something though. We are discussing this from alien points of view. I think it´s best summarized as me persuing how things should be, and you persuing how things can be. While I am looking at the properties of the medium, you look into people´s desires from it. Where I see a flaw that could compromise dignity, quality and entertainment in the long run, you see a natural response that only logical because you might be momentarily sacrificing those things several times if you didn´t respond as such. In short, we have two very different ways of looking at things, as you said. Still, conflicting ideas are the best to discuss. Recognizing flaws, debunking mistakes, perfecting our viewpoints, even if they remain different, those are the hallmarks of meaningful conversations, discussions, debates. You say you understood my viewpoint, so I hope such a hallmark was achieved for you as well.

 

[rae2nerdy]

So just in the entrance of finishing my contribution to this site and this conversation I'll break down the point I was attempting to make earlier.


Roleplaying is indeed a process. It is a process that requires commitment from all parties involved ( whether that is two people or twenty ) in order to succeed.


The problem comes in when people think the process is solely focused on the aspects that they deem personally important. So for instance it would be like me saying that the roleplay process is entirely dependent on making a social connection because that is the part of the process I value.


Well not everyone is going to value that particular part of the process. In fact a big part of the reason I'm leaving this site is because the number of people who value the same things as myself in roleplay is actually very limited on this site. ( well that and I am just going to be insanely busy doing things for my real life work for the next two months )


So that is why I said that if you want to increase commitment you have to be willing to work on communication. See what it is exactly that makes other people want to stick through the process of roleplaying.


Don't just ask "What are the problems?" ask instead " What are you looking for? What would you like to see that would keep you invested?"


You'd be surprised what a bit of positivity can do. So many people jump on the negativity train ( not in this thread specifically thankfully but on the site in general ) and it's disheartening. Why would someone want to roleplay or stick around if they know all they have to look forward to is someone tearing them down? Either directly or indirectly? I mean I'm not saying that I expect roleplay to be all rainbows and sunshine and no hard work. I am saying that if I know going into it all I'm going to get is judgmental passive aggression I'm not going to bother. Because that's not worth me putting in any effort if I know I'm not going to get any form of enjoyment out of it.

 

[Devious Dilbert]

Again, slightly braid-dead at the moment, so my baddkgdjgfdkg

they no longer merge

Grrrr that's so bad!

Is not about the people I know directly, but the community at large. Unless you mean games with ONLY narratives, most people look at things like PvP fighting and other forms of in-game competition.

I was also talking about the community at large, I didn't actually mean it literally when I said, "people I know", LOL.

I kind of feel like you are only looking at the concept of interaction from the surface. This is something that I probably should have said earlier, but maybe it's not too late.
It is true that most people see the mechanics of the game before they experience the deeper story of even a narrative game (With a few exceptions. For some games, it is the story/experience that is its most prominent quality even from the get-go).

Either way, even the mechanics of the game encourage interaction as well because they are what you can actually do/accomplish in the game. It's just that the story/competitive/completion aspect are the driving forces for the interaction. Which are the strongest encouragements.

Interactions are far more than just dialogue from an npc, looking around, picking things up, talking to another player, reading some lore, etc.
Leveling up in a game is an interaction with the gameworld because it is a reward for your play-time/effort. And following that, your stats increase or you learn a new skill. Which is a chain reaction that you benefit from because now you are more powerful and that unlocks a lot more opportunities for you as a player within the gameworld. Getting into a firefight with group of mobs is a series of interactions with the gameworld as the AI fights back. Even taking damage from a mob is an interaction with the gameworld, because you react to getting hit by losing hp and either dying, scrambling taking cover, healing, shrugging it off, or even coming up with some crazy hit or miss suicide move because you now only have 10 hp left and are out of healing.

And these are all things that you do within the game that encourage chains of interaction from you, the player. It's not necessarily a reward system or even a, "Do this first and then you can do this," but it can be sometimes, and that's not a bad thing. Because depending on how well you encourage interaction/reaction from you to your players or even from your players to your other players with it still being fun, you can keep them invested in your game/rp, even if just for the moment. But master this, which is incredibly hard, and you can possibly keep them invested and having fun for the whole rp. That's how I see it at least.

It´s quite realistic, indeed. But there comes the effort part. Remember my fishing example? If you want that fish in your hands, you have to put effort into things. If you want that thrill, you can´t half-ass the boring parts. Adn writing is pretty much like that. It´s not easy, and people realistically wouldn´t jump to that prospect, I get that. But the whole point of a change of mentality would be changing how people behave. To have them overcome their first impulses and walk an extra mile for something they love as their hobby, and make it much more fun in the process.

Yeah, I can understand that. But I'd also say it would be fair to walk an extra mile as the gm and come to understand what your rp'ers are wanting out of the rp and then provide that for them. And usually that's for fun/engaging content, but not always as of course people seek different things like expressed in this thread. Here, you'e kind of putting the pressure on the players to discipline themselves, but I personally just think that most of the work into getting people to rp should come from the gm and not the players themselves by forcing commitment since it is the gm's rp and they have created it for their players.
Of course, this isn't to say that players can't satisfy themselves just from purely writing and staying committed to an rp. As I can see, you're one of those players. And that's not to say that you or those players don't enjoy a nice fun twist.

I tend to think that making your rp fun using the elements of a game, since they tend to be similar, engages your players and makes them want to stick around because the rp is fun for them. But I agree that everything at least takes some effort. And if you wanna discipline yourself for the sake of your favorite hobby, then by all means, please do it.

I agree with that, to the extent that I can see why people would think like that. But I can also see several deep flaws in that way of thinking.

Of course, I do too quite honestly. It's a very romantic way of putting it- that people shouldn't be so quick to give up on things that they don't immediately enjoy as the pay-off is in the effort and therefore it is satisfactory after, but people will just do them, my man. If somebody wants to be a very committed player, they will. If somebody doesn't or just lacks the willpower, they just won't.

The problem with giving up anything you don´t like to quickly, is that you kill the potential for things to grow. I´ve already explained this in another post in this thread, but to summarize, creativity can´t flourish if the risk for being creative and trying new things, more complicated things or generally anything that isn´t immeditaely appealing from the getgo is too great. Quitting everything without seeing it through is the exact means to create situations like the massive amounts of highschool Rps. Bland, generic, half-dead from the start, but what else are you gonna do? Who are you gonna pull those crazy, whacky or new stuff with, if no one is willing to give it a shot if they can´t smile like they´re on cocain right away?

Kinda see what I mean?

Yeah, I do see what you mean. And honestly, when you say it like this, I can agree.

I think I agree with you on something though. We are discussing this from alien points of view. I think it´s best summarized as me persuing how things should be, and you persuing how things can be. While I am looking at the properties of the medium, you look into people´s desires from it. Where I see a flaw that could compromise dignity, quality and entertainment in the long run, you see a natural response that only logical because you might be momentarily sacrificing those things several times if you didn´t respond as such. In short, we have two very different ways of looking at things, as you said.

That is an interesting summary of our differing thought processes.

Still, conflicting ideas are the best to discuss. Recognizing flaws, debunking mistakes, perfecting our viewpoints, even if they remain different, those are the hallmarks of meaningful conversations, discussions, debates. You say you understood my viewpoint, so I hope such a hallmark was achieved for you as well.

Of course. I have come pretty far in seeing your side of things and even if I may disagree with it, it gives me a wonderful new perspective to consider.
I am glad to take the time to understand your viewpoint because I feel that it is this new understanding of an almost opposite point of view that will aid in self-assessing myself and keeping me open-minded and understanding of differing views in the future. I am always one for self-improvement so any kind of insight is appreciated.
And I'm not sure if I expressed my gratitude to you before when you were giving me brutal feedback on my novel, but that was very much appreciated as well.
I hope you get something out of my rambling too.

 

[Idea]

I was also talking about the community at large, I didn't actually mean it literally when I said, "people I know", LOL.
However, it is true that most people see the mechanics of the game before they experience the deeper story of even a narrative game (With a few exceptions. For some games, it is the story/experience that is its most prominent quality even from the get-go).

Either way, even the mechanics of the game encourage interaction as well because they are what you can actually do/accomplish in the game. It's just that the story/competitive/completion aspect are the driving forces for the interaction. Which are the strongest encouragements.

I kind of feel like you are only looking at the concept of interaction from the surface. This is something that I probably should have said earlier, but maybe it's not too late.
Interactions are far more than just dialogue from an npc, looking around, picking things up, talking to another player, reading some lore, etc.
Leveling up in a game is an interaction with the gameworld because it is a reward for your play-time/effort. And following that, your stats increase or you learn a new skill. Which is a chain reaction that you benefit from because now you are more powerful and that unlocks a lot more opportunities for you as a player within the gameworld. Getting into a firefight with group of mobs is a series of interactions with the gameworld as the AI fights back. Even taking damage from a mob is an interaction with the gameworld, because you react to getting hit by losing hp and either dying, scrambling taking cover, healing, shrugging it off, or even coming up with some crazy hit or miss suicide move because you now only have 10 hp left and are out of healing.

And these are all things that you do within the game that encourage chains of interaction from you, the player. It's not necessarily a reward system or even a, "Do this first and then you can do this," but it can be sometimes, and that's not a bad thing. Because depending on how well you encourage interaction/reaction from you to your players or even from your players to your other players with it still being fun, you can keep them invested in your game/rp, even if just for the moment. But master this, which is incredibly hard, and you can possibly keep them invested and having fun for the whole rp. That's how I see it at least.

A very good point. In the first part, it probably boils down to what games we know within the RPG genre I suppose, but the thing about the interaction via leveling in particular does share many similarities with the written medium that make it translatable- so much so that I´ve been working on something that employs it for several months now.

The problem remains, though, that those elements don´t exist on their own. For a player in an RPG to interact with them, they just have to play the game, they don´t even really have to try. In writing, on the other hand, information only exists as much as you craft it. Given players can´t read the world´s designer´s mind, that means that a pre-existing need to go through the process of "studying" the world via exposition IC or OOC is kind of necessary for them to be able to interact with the RP in the way they would a game. So, ultimately, I think my point stands. But I do think those ideas of a more interactive and rewarding world are interesting.

Still, experience counter-points it for me. I am a man of order- I don´t like to leave things to chance or allow chaos in my threads if I can help it, for anything which could threaten the RP´s ability to function. I systematized several things, created various mechanics for my RPs. Profession systems where money was taken more realistically, leveling, working magic systems, mechanics that balanced power levels or assured people could fill different roles without too much overlapping, etc... Maybe I just did it all wrong, but my experience with this sort of thing says people hate constricting their options in any manner. That people rarely bother to really read through the systems or even everything the GM specifically puts in all caps and pratically shouts "THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!" . Among other things. So while I can see your point and I do think it makes some more sense now, allow me to flip the tables here and say, this doesn´t seem pratical. Because in pratice, applying this is rejected by the masses.

Yeah, I can understand that. But I'd also say it would be fair to walk an extra mile as the gm and come to understand what your rp'ers are wanting out of the rp and then provide that for them. And usually that's for fun/engaging content, but not always as of course people seek different things like expressed in this thread. Here, you'e kind of putting the pressure on the players to discipline themselves, but I personally just think that most of the work into getting people to rp should come from the gm and not the players themselves by forcing commitment since it is the gm's rp and they have created it for their players.
Of course, this isn't to say that players can't satisfy themselves just from purely writing and staying committed to an rp. As I can see, you're one of those players. And that's not to say that you or those players don't enjoy a nice fun twist.

I tend to think that making your rp fun using the elements of a game, since they tend to be similar, engages your players and makes them want to stick around because the rp is fun for them. But I agree that everything at least takes some effort. And if you wanna discipline yourself for the sake of your favorite hobby, then by all means, please do it.

Allow me to quote a certain greek play:
"You´d be a fine king in a desert"

Tyrant or demagog, no one is so able that they can actually impose their wills on others. Power is something that is given- the choice is ultimately in "the people" to aknowledge said ruler or not.

This applies even more where the other person can´t even affect you to begin with, such as the case with RPs. The most the GM can do is threaten to make you quit the roleplay, but seriously, who wants to be in a roleplay where you purposely do things you know will get you banned? This isn´t to say, though, that the GM has no responsability to make things into a good experience. But this has an important limit. No GM should ever go out of their project entirely for the sake of appeasing the players. If I want to make a certain fandom, I will not do a different fandom that I don´t like just because my players want to do a different one. GMing is not easy work and I shouldn´t have to waste my time GMing an RP that is not the RP I set out to create. The GM is there to make their RP- not the RP of "the voters".

Common sense still applies of course. Lacking in respect, making tyrannical pointless rules, being dick, those are all things a GM shouldn´t do. But the GM should be allowed to craft their own thing, or try at least. And one more thing: If the GM is a dick, the player has the option to quit. If the RP they are trying to make is just not something that can work, the players can quit. The GM fucks up, they get fucked up. But if even a couple players quit prematurely, the whole thing could fall apart for EVERYONE. Regardless of who is in the wrong, the GM always gets hurt by players leaving, unless they have such a basis to begin with that it doesn´t matter. But that is pretty much a pretty successful RP already, which is not the topic of discussion here.

Why is the burden almost entirely on the player?
*Because they are the ones who can decide to leave or stay
*Because it´s hardly ever possible to appease everyone, and it´s rarely recommendable that the GM ruins the experience and roleplay for themselves for the sake of demagogy
*Because leaving has a disproportional impact on the player versus everyone else, especially the GM. The player can jump around in any number of roleplays, but the GM has a limited pool of options to begin with, making the punishment be rather overboard compared to the crime of not appeasing the player´s every want.
*Because when players make the meta- the player´s choice in what to participate in and for how long define what many GMs will attempt. By leaving prematurely and for the wrong reasons, the players may end up destroying the very thing they are looking for in the roleplay landscape. Of course, it´s not one person alone- but a mentality defined by this attitude can.