Experiences Fairytale vs Grounded (edited post)

[nerdy tangents]

So this is sort of an extension of a character conversation I had awhile back. I have noticed this comes up a lot in relationships where people either write tropes or base their character interactions on real people. So I thought I would create a thread and ask people which they prefer? Trope/Fairytale writing or Grounded writing?

FAIRYTALE (tropes)
This is a trope heavy relationship that usually borrows a lot of story beats from other mediums. Whether that’s TV, movies, books, etc. Characters according to archetypes or tropes, usually with the goal to create heightened emotion. A good example is 90s Rom Coms or soap operas.

GROUNDED (real people)
This ship usually features more grounded circumstance and characterizations. Writers want their characters to mimic real people in how they approach falling in love, interacting with their environment, etc. Despite the preference for grounded portrayals this can cover any genre and situations might be somewhat absurd. A popular trope here is "slow burn." For cinematic examples think Wandavision or Doom Patrol.

EXAMPLE
(thanks to Saurosian for the suggestion to add an example for clarity)

Fairytale Trope : She’s Not Like Other Girls is in love with Most Popular Guy. She has a few makeover montages and a Meet Cute and the two are in love. (Additional plot added as needed)

Grounded Ship : A cosplayer meets up with the most popular guy at school during a convention. The two start up a conversation about their shared love for a specific series.

Thread Updates
1/28/2022 - Update to clarify differences between trope and grounded.

 

[Saurosian]

My gut reaction to this is that these ideas aren't that different. Obviously there's a very broad spectrum of how people interact and how romances develop. And there is also variation in what we aspire to? Plus I think that often we create characters who are a mixture of what we are and what we want to be.

So the aspirational vs. grounded dichotomy doesn't feel like a dichotomy to me. I write characters that I think are real. A lot of them are characters I would never (or could never) want to be, but they're real, and I want them to get what they want, what they aspire to. So this sense of 'aspirational' romance then comes into play. It's wish fulfillment but it's by proxy, I guess? The wishes aren't mine - I'm just wishing for a good story! - but for these characters, and their wishes, this is what we need to produce.

I think I'm getting a little bit muddled in this explanation. But I don't think grounded and aspirational are separate things. I'm emotionally invested in grounded characters and grounded relationships, but I also do get an aspirational (not quite the right word here) enjoyment out of tropes you've categorized as 'grounded', like "slow burn".

But! You've identified that you have issues with partners where one of you wants a grounded relationship and the other aspirational. And I think I've maybe experienced this too. But when I look back on those experiences, I think what I'm seeing is, more often, that one element of the two (the grounded desire to tell a real story, and the aspirational desire to tell a fun story) was ignored/forgotten, and the balance was lost.

I don't think that experience is exclusive to relationships/romance. The balance between writing something real and something fun is always a challenge - especially when we have different ideas of what's real and what's fun. Thankfully that's what interest checks are for - pairing up well-matched partners.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Saurosian I think you misunderstood the distinction, as you seem the sort to actually want a grounded relationship.

if it helps I might change aspirational to fairytale as that’s a better descriptor.

Fairytales are aspirational in nature, not in the sense that the CHARACTERS have aspirations but that the READER is suppose to aspire to certain behaviors.

In terms of relationships this usually manifests in characters that are idealized versions of a reader/writers ideal partner. I say idealized because these are not supposed to be actual people. In the same way Snow White is not meant to be representative of an actual person, she’s an idealized princess in a fairytale.

Grounded relationships in contrast are meant to mimic real world relationships. So they are meant to feature characters that behave in the same manner as people in real life.

A good litmus test for the difference is ;

Beauty and the Beast

The fairytale version is about a broody man who falls in love with a nerdy girl

The grounded version is a toxic relationship where a girl thinks she can change a man’s toxic personality through a romantic relationship.

 

[Saurosian]

nerdy tangents I think that Beauty and the Beast example makes a much better distinction than the example tropes of "Love at first sight" and "Slow burn".

So yeah, I agree that it's definitely... incompatible, when people want to use entirely different tropes than each other in the same story. That disconnect isn't going to work. But it's probably an even easier thing to sort out from an interest check or a pre-roleplay conversation about tone, genre, etc. At least I would hope this could be sorted out! There are clearly two very different stories being told and partners are going to need to have a better understanding of what each other wants.

 

[nerdy tangents]

nerdy tangents I think that Beauty and the Beast example makes a much better distinction than the example tropes of "Love at first sight" and "Slow burn".

So yeah, I agree that it's definitely... incompatible, when people want to use entirely different tropes than each other in the same story. That disconnect isn't going to work. But it's probably an even easier thing to sort out from an interest check or a pre-roleplay conversation about tone, genre, etc. At least I would hope this could be sorted out! There are clearly two very different stories being told and partners are going to need to have a better understanding of what each other wants.

Thanks I will add the Beauty and the Beast example. I was trying to think of tropes I have run into with partners who exhibited the two distinct styles. And overwhelmingly grounded partners always picked slow burn romances. And fairytale partners wanted more of a love at first sight kinda vibe.

And sadly it's not that easy to determine writing styles by interest checks. Most interest checks just list pairings or prompts. Plus a lot of people tend to assume ship style is a lot more universal than it is. I have talked to both types of ship writers and they always approach it from the perspective that "well naturally everyone writes romance THIS way."

Now personally I don't have anything inherently against either style, although I tend to do grounded over fairytale. But that's more dependent on tropes then anything. Like if ya wanted to write a Beauty and the Beast story as a fairytale then fine. If you wanted to write a Jock x Nerdy girl story as a fairytale then that's probably gonna be a no from me.

 

[Saurosian]

Thanks I will add the Beauty and the Beast example. I was trying to think of tropes I have run into with partners who exhibited the two distinct styles. And overwhelmingly grounded partners always picked slow burn romances. And fairytale partners wanted more of a love at first sight kinda vibe.

And sadly it's not that easy to determine writing styles by interest checks. Most interest checks just list pairings or prompts. Plus a lot of people tend to assume ship style is a lot more universal than it is. I have talked to both types of ship writers and they always approach it from the perspective that "well naturally everyone writes romance THIS way."

I definitely perceive myself having this approach. Unless my partner and I had planned so beforehand, I would always default to a more grounded approach. Although even if we intended for it to be fairy-tale like, I think that my writing style would just push it to have 'grounded' elements in spite of itself.

Now personally I don't have anything inherently against either style, although I tend to do grounded over fairytale. But that's more dependent on tropes then anything. Like if ya wanted to write a Beauty and the Beast story as a fairytale then fine. If you wanted to write a Jock x Nerdy girl story as a fairytale then that's probably gonna be a no from me.

Yeah I think there's a place for both of them.

The main difference I see in how people approach relationships boils down to this:

1. No romance, no possibility of romance, etc.
2. Romance can emerge from the story if it feels natural, but the story exists - and the relationship exists - before the romantic element
3. Romance is planned from the start. May often include a specific trope to be played out (eg. enemies to lovers, fish out of water, etc.) or a specific 'pairing' with a romantic element (including characters already in a relationship pre-roleplay - but this must be a very rare version)

Does this have connections to the dichotomy you've laid out? Is one approach more likely to favour fairytale vs grounded?

 

[nerdy tangents]

@

Does this have connections to the dichotomy you've laid out? Is one approach more likely to favour fairytale vs grounded?

Yes and no.

It's about suspension of disbelief. So it doesn't actually have to do with romance directly. This can be used for any kind of character interaction, it's just finding romantic examples is easier.

I would say fairytale stories are more trope-y in general. As that they favor more idealized storytelling. Princess fairytales are a prime example of this. It's supposed to be a fun romp where you don't think too much about logic or realism.

For grounded stories tend to be more about capturing realistic reactions to things. So they do tend to lay out what will be the main elements of the story (i.e. romance, platonic, adventure, slice of life, etc.) at the jump but let the actual relationships among characters progress in real time.

 

[Daisie]

Ahh, so in a way, this largely seems like fluff vs grit!
I actually have a really fun story about this.

I love romantic drama. I don't keep that a secret
But a while ago, as I was getting my "romance sea legs" as it were, my partner and I decided to try our hand at a relationship between characters.
These two were BUILT for a fairytale relationship, as you put it. Nervous, analytical, and polite nerd falls for a wealthy, proper, and delicate young lady. And at first it was SUPER fun! It was filled with sweet, cavity-making moments. It was cliche and we both knew it, but sometimes you just need shameless fun like that.

But gradually we began to realize that yo... Both these people have some serious issues. Yeah, they're all lovey-dovey for each other. But that does not change the fact that my nerd was abusively clingy in his last relationship, and that their lady runs from every issue she faces.
It naturally just started turning downwards as we realized how bad of an idea it was for these two to get together. Well, it was half for that reason. I think the other half is my partner and I being angst cravers lolol!

Now the relationship has broken up in a violent manner, but our characters are recovering and picking up the pieces. They know they aren't good for each other... not in their current state, at least. But they still care for each other. It's an interesting thing to navigate.

So yeah. I tried to do something fluffy and I stuck with it for 2 hot seconds before realizing I needed to burn it to the ground to be properly invested. Hehehe, burrrrrnnnn....

 

[Saurosian]

Ahh, so in a way, this largely seems like fluff vs grit!
I actually have a really fun story about this.

I love romantic drama. I don't keep that a secret
But a while ago, as I was getting my "romance sea legs" as it were, my partner and I decided to try our hand at a relationship between characters.
These two were BUILT for a fairytale relationship, as you put it. Nervous, analytical, and polite nerd falls for a wealthy, proper, and delicate young lady. And at first it was SUPER fun! It was filled with sweet, cavity-making moments. It was cliche and we both knew it, but sometimes you just need shameless fun like that.

But gradually we began to realize that yo... Both these people have some serious issues. Yeah, they're all lovey-dovey for each other. But that does not change the fact that my nerd was abusively clingy in his last relationship, and that their lady runs from every issue she faces.
It naturally just started turning downwards as we realized how bad of an idea it was for these two to get together. Well, it was half for that reason. I think the other half is my partner and I being angst cravers lolol!

Now the relationship has broken up in a violent manner, but our characters are recovering and picking up the pieces. They know they aren't good for each other... not in their current state, at least. But they still care for each other. It's an interesting thing to navigate.

So yeah. I tried to do something fluffy and I stuck with it for 2 hot seconds before realizing I needed to burn it to the ground to be properly invested. Hehehe, burrrrrnnnn....

See, that's what I mean about this comingling of the idealized and the realistic approach. We have this desire to get the feeling of the 'fairytale' relationship but then, in the midst of it, the interest comes from treating that trope with a grounded, realistic lens. It's like when you put a plot together, but once you throw your characters in you're suddenly considering whether it's in their character for them to act as the plot demands. Sometimes you have to adapt, make sacrifices, contrive other ways to get what the plot needs... all in the pursuit of the balance between what ideal you want and what your 'grounded perspective' permits. But when the clash between the ideal and the 'realistic' creates a really interesting narrative (as it seems to have done in your case), that's just the best.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Ahh, so in a way, this largely seems like fluff vs grit!
I actually have a really fun story about this.

I love romantic drama. I don't keep that a secret
But a while ago, as I was getting my "romance sea legs" as it were, my partner and I decided to try our hand at a relationship between characters.
These two were BUILT for a fairytale relationship, as you put it. Nervous, analytical, and polite nerd falls for a wealthy, proper, and delicate young lady. And at first it was SUPER fun! It was filled with sweet, cavity-making moments. It was cliche and we both knew it, but sometimes you just need shameless fun like that.

But gradually we began to realize that yo... Both these people have some serious issues. Yeah, they're all lovey-dovey for each other. But that does not change the fact that my nerd was abusively clingy in his last relationship, and that their lady runs from every issue she faces.
It naturally just started turning downwards as we realized how bad of an idea it was for these two to get together. Well, it was half for that reason. I think the other half is my partner and I being angst cravers lolol!

Now the relationship has broken up in a violent manner, but our characters are recovering and picking up the pieces. They know they aren't good for each other... not in their current state, at least. But they still care for each other. It's an interesting thing to navigate.

So yeah. I tried to do something fluffy and I stuck with it for 2 hot seconds before realizing I needed to burn it to the ground to be properly invested. Hehehe, burrrrrnnnn....

So the reason I didn’t go with fluff vs. grit is because I didn’t want to focus solely on toxic relationships. As that feels a bit too much like yucking someone’s yum.

I have absolutely written fluffy grounding relationships. Usually by basing them on the relationships of people I know IRL. I am especially fond of amiable divorce narratives.

So there is nothing to say you can’t do a gritty fairytale (tragic backstories anyone?) or a fluffy grounded relationship (just do friends growing closer please).

But you did hit the nail on the head of where the difference manifests. It’s when you stop seeing tropes and start seeing real people.

As fairytales are relationships between tropes, that’s literally the whole point of the story structure.

Grounded ships are relationships between “real” people.

Now you can combine the two sure, but almost always it’s an underlying grounded perspective. Where you take the fairytale tropes and turn them into real people.

And I don’t necessarily think it’s a forgone conclusion this will happen. In 1x1 romance especially I have had like 60% of my partners leave because I wanted to write a real person and they wanted me to write a trope.

Which is where I started to notice the difference. Because personally I refuse to do toxic relationships at all. I don’t care if it’s fairytale or grounded. So the only ships I do at all are fluffy ones.

I just tend to default to more grounded characters and I end up paired with people who prefer tropes.

Which is how I know you can’t mix the styles really. Grounded allows for more fairytale elements but fairytale does not allow for grounded at all.

 

[GojiBean]

Hoyo!

I prefer realistic relationships myself.

To me the realistic relationships just feel more compelling and well-earned. Take Aladdin for example. The street smart street rat showed a sheltered princess a big beautiful world beyond the walls and borders of her home (*cough* prison *cough*) and displayed self confidence and asked for her trust. But he betrayed that trust through his lies and deceit, only to redeem himself in the end when he owned up to his misdeeds. While still very much a fantasy tale, this romance is quite grounded and believable given the time it was allowed to breathe between each plot point which is one of the reasons Aladdin is still one of Disney's best and most successful animated films from the 90's. Kids, teens, young adults, adults, and the elderly can all observe, respect, and appreciate this tale because of how truly human it is. There's something everyone can relate to.

True fairytale romances, such as the Beauty and the Beast example, are less compelling because the suspension of disbelief is stretched far too thin to be appreciated or respected in the same way Aladdin is. Unless bestiality is your kink, the idea of a woman falling in love with an actual furry beast just because he used to be human and showed a few tiny hints of being able to change from the loud, aggressive, angry man he once was is quite the stretch of the imagination. Women aren't so easily charmed as to fall for a man just because he was able to calm down and stop yelling all the time. Especially when she knows going in that the only way for him to break the curse on himself is to have a woman fall in love with him. That known condition would create a subconscious block in 99.99999999% of women because they'd know that if they fell in love it was just to break his curse. Not because he was genuinely in love with them. Obviously the story isn't limited to that. But the point Bell obviously started falling for him was during the ball/dance sequence when all he'd really done was dress nice, calm down, and dance with her.

Sorry gents. But we're not going to get a girl to fall for us just because we clean up well and dance with her one time. It's just not gonna happen.

So yeah. I personally prefer the realistic relationships. Or at least the ones which are close enough to realism that they can be appreciated and related to more easily than the more fairytale ones which are basically force-fed to us because "plot" needs to happen.

Cheers!

 

[nerdy tangents]

GojiBean in fairness I wouldn’t say that Aladdin the fairytale is any more realistic then Beauty and the Beast.

As the idea that royalty is allowed to marry based on personal feelings over what is good for their country is kinda fairytale logic in general.

But that is definitely what I meant about there being a difference between grounded and gritty.

As what you described is very much the fluffy version of Aladdin vs. the Gritty version of Beauty and the Beast.

Both are definitely realistic though versus just the kinda trope-y “Princess falls in love with peasant because Fairytale plot.”

 

[Cosmo]

Beauty and the Beast Fairytale : An arrogant man falls in love with a nerdy bookworm
Beauty and the Beast Grounded : A nerdy girl tries to change an abusive man through a romantic relationship

Neither one of those is more realistic then the other. In fact, I've seen more of the Fairytale one of 'How are you two together? That's crazy.' then I have seen Debbie 'I totally fall down the stairs whenever the Broncos lose Football Sunday and hit a doorknob with my eye'.

Being 'edgy', doesn't make the relationship more grounded. Honestly, if I came into an RP and the first fight between an in-character couple was because one of them was too tired to go out that night like they promised.. yeah, that would stun me because that is real. Not to say, 'Honey, I beat the kids again,' isn't real or doesn't happen. But I wouldn't call that 'grounded' if we are using 'realistic' as grounded.

Edgy =/= Real. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with edgy relationships, you know, Dave here was hit as a kid and so sees violence as the natural solution to his problems while Becky was abused by her father and sees every abusive man as a subconscious attempt to reform her father and win his affection, but that doesn't make them inherently more 'grounded' then Dave, the football running back, who is handsome and cocksure falling for Becky, the nerd, at the library who slipped him her homework onetime and treats him as a person rather then a cutout.

So... assuming that is what this debate is about, neither, because relationship dynamics aren't so easy to describe.

Now if you mean like the scenario or setting? Cause what is fairytale about Beauty in the Beast isn't an arrogant man falls in love with a nerdy bookworm, it's a cursed prince turning into a monster, surrounded by talking furniture that kindaaaa makes it a fairytale. That one is just personal preference.

 

[Melpomene]

I think the difference between "grounded" and "fairytale" really come down to how the author is treating the romance and what they are concentrating on in the romance. Grounded doesn't necessarily mean a gritty or abusive relationship. The only time I can think it is a fairytale is if like... it is so incredibly forced and there is so little chemistry that it is obvious this romance is only a thing because the authors want it to be and you would go: "Why tf are these people together??" in real life.

It is actually really hard to compartmentalize something as complex as human emotions and relationships. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly times when something feels more real than the other. But truthfully I think it all comes down to framing.

Like... a toxic relationship can be very realistic to play, but then there are people who will romanticize toxic dynamics in their romances. "This horribly abusive man kidnapped a young woman and they both fell in love and lived a happily ever after."

Ahem... Yeah... I can't think of one real life story where that happened. So... actually to be honest I think the "grittier" romances are where you get more of the fairytale from.

Btw, I am not judging anyone who enjoys those types of romances to RP, I am just stating they are pretty unrealistic.

In contrast the fluffier romances are probably themore real ones, I would say. I would totally believe two wholesome people fell in love and went on to have a wonderful, wholesome loving relationship. Of course I guess there is the Disney love at first sight trope but... I would faster believe that than several gritty romances.

 

[Onmyoji]

It is actually really hard to compartmentalize something as complex as human emotions and relationships. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly times when something feels more real than the other. But truthfully I think it all comes down to framing.

This, pretty much.
Can fluffy romances be realistic? Yes, they can be. Can gritty romances be realistic? Yes, they can be. So I don't really like to put a line between the two. As it was already mentioned above, sometimes toxic relationships get romanticized so much they're no different from 'fairy tale' tropes.
And to be fair, actual human relationships sometimes feel a lot less realistic than some of the fairytales.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Edited. Clarified it better below.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Thread Update
Cosmo , Melpomene , Onmyoji

So I updated the opening post but I wanted to reiterate what I think was the misunderstanding. The difference between a fairytale romance and a grounded romance is in how realistic the characters are portrayed.

So to give perhaps a better example of the character writing we'll use something I am familiar with "Shy clumsy nerd"

Trope - a shy girl who maybe likes to read or craft, she prat falls whenever her love interest is around, and is treated like comedic relief until her clumsiness magically goes away once love interest takes notice of her.

Grounded - An introvert who likes to read in her free time and has weak ankles. She is constantly tripping because her ankles roll under her. Perhaps one day she's falling and love interest helps her get back up again. Perhaps she actually sprains her ankle and they help her to the nurses office.

There is nothing inherently gritty about either version. It's just one version is "clumsy" as portrayed in media and one is "clumsy" as portrayed by a real human being.

Now the question I was proposing is when you are creating character relationships are you basing them on how real people behave or are you just writing tropes? There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. I think both styles are fun and can be entertaining in their own right.

Hell soap operas and rom coms have endured for decades because they are fun to watch/read. So if you want to write a soap opera style romance that is not a bad thing. Any more than it's a bad thing if you want to write a gritty romance working through your trauma from a bad relationship. It's not about shaming people for what they like. It's about determining what particular style of writing people prefer.

 

[Onmyoji]

Now the question I was proposing is when you are creating character relationships are you basing them on how real people behave or are you just writing tropes? There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. I think both styles are fun and can be entertaining in their own right.

I agree that both can be fun but tbh they're not that different from each other. I've experienced a few of those fairytale soap opera tropes in real life even though I'm not a sitcom character (I hope lol)

 

[nerdy tangents]

I agree that both can be fun but tbh they're not that different from each other. I've experienced a few of those fairytale soap opera tropes in real life even though I'm not a sitcom character (I hope lol)

Well yeah but that behavior in real life is treated very differently then it is in the actual soap operas/movies.

Like I am currently watching a Soap Opera where Character A has just murdered Character B (who had previously murdered Character A’s mom so Character B’s daughter could marry Character A’s dad.)

Pretty simple soap opera plot honestly. Well the reactions by everyone who isn’t Character B’s daughter is more or less “meh she was the villain so whatever.”

And Character B’s daughter is clearly being set up to be the new villain of the show cuz she’s having a justifiable freak out over her mom being murdered.

So that is what I meant. Is it possible such a scenario could happen IRL? Sure. But everyone involved would be some degree of traumatized and Character B’s daughter would not be treated like a villain cuz she’s justifiably upset

** edited cuz autocorrect is illiterate

 

[nerdy tangents]

Like do shy clumsy girls exist in real life? Yep I am one. Do we act like Bella Swan? Not unless we are clinically depressed and have gone off our meds. And that is usually treated like a pretty big deal not just “lol that’s Bella (cue laugh track)”

So tropes are obviously based on real life, but how they are treated varies significantly between writing styles. And that is usually down to whether your treating things realistically or like it’s a sit com.

** to head off the arguments **

I am not saying anything against Bella Swan or soap operas. They are harmless entertainment and are enjoyable.

They are simply not meant to represent real people. Which is why I used them as examples. Not to be like “ugh this is bad writing” just that “this writing is different”.

 

[Idea]

It would appear I am a little late to the party, but I'd like to give my two cents (hopefully without misunderstanding the question).

Characters are not real people. I don't mean that just in the sense of them being fictional. What I mean is that there is no scenario in which you can write a real person. You can try, certainly, and characters can feel very real. But unless we get some super advanced scifi AI on the job we will never have a character that is sufficiently complex to even close to being a real person. Ironically from my experience there is actually something of an "uncanny valley" effect when it comes to realness: The same way that we recognize the visage of a person such that we see people even in simpler of more stylized forms, but as the realism and faithfulness is increasing the differences become increasingly noticeable, a character who's traits are increasingly based on real people becomes lost in the sea of the real complexities and nuances of real life, and rather than this being a boon this can very easily be a pitfall wherein the character is intended to be complex, nuanced and deep, but just ends up being bland and formless. After all what we see is not the complex process of a person's thoughts or actions themselves, but only their end result, and if one sticks only to the surface level of that complexity (the level where one might presume to be able to faithfully recreate it) then they end up recreating exactly what that end results looks like at a glance: An incoherent mess.

We could even expand this beyond simply the matter of people, but I digress.

Now with all of that being said, realism is still important and valuable. In the pursuit of realism, we can make characters more grounded and put less of a strain on the suspension of disbelief. It can also make strides towards making the characters relatable. But as I said, if one pushes the pursuit too far these things end up being lost to the background of what the pursuit of realism chooses to emphasize. An overly realistic depictions of the tragedies of war may end up sounding like an edgy gorefest in an effort to not present an idealized version of war for instance, or a writer may end up making a character feel jarring in a plot because the overly realistic emphasis on their reluctance and lack of ability to contend with, say, supernatural threats may put neon lights on the question "why on Earth are they even involved in the plot?".

In my eyes, plausibility and relatability are better aims than realism. Plausibility is similar to realism but it's not trying to correspond to reality, but rather trying to be something a person can conceive, an idea they can entertain. Their "realness" is alluded to but it's not something it strives to be. For instance, a character who has taken to acting and claiming to be a character from a book they read on a semi-permanent basis. This might be unrealistic (now to be fair, there are people who would do this kind of thing, but really there's people for everything), but with due exploration given to it - perhaps a desire to escape into books, an admiration for the character, knowledge of the fame of actors, combining to generate a train of thought that could lead to those actions - and a nuanced presentation the idea can become something people can more readily entertain and believe in a character. Then there's relatability which is a topic which is due less elaboration I think - there isn't a need for a character to be very realistic to be relatable, all it needs is enough points in common in terms of their experiences as portrayed.

This is a long-winded way of explaining why I find this question a bit difficult to give a straight answer to. I suppose I tend to lean more on the fairytail/tropes side of the equation. I do, in the end of the day, prioritize narrative after all, and I am very fond of using and exploring tropes. It isn't rare that certain tropes constitute a part of how I would describe the character concept, or that tropes would be used certain situations in the premise of the roleplay (and maybe some events depending on how much into planning my partner is). But I don't leave the tropes at the tropes themselves. I explore how things happen or are in certain ways, and why. A character that is initially put together in tropes is, before I have begun writing them in the actual roleplay, fleshed out into someone who isn't acting in a way because so dictates the trope, but because they have been developed in a way such that their behavior as an individual would happen to match the trope.

For a recent example, in one of my newest 1x1 roleplays one of the NPC characters was this intended to fit this "nice guy on the surface, condescending in reality" concept. The question was posed as to why, and this brought me to 'he views girls are fragile things that need his protection and guidance' and in turn that led me to the idea that he has a sick little sister whom he has taken care of since young, and being with her for so much of his childhood he can't help but associate other girls with her, as his closest experience with one. As a joke we considered a female name for this character, just a bit of banter- then we actually ended up going with it because we realized it could help build into that previous idea as well, making the character insecure about his masculinity due to his name, and perhaps further explaining his difficulty in finding friendships that would have taken more of his time and dissuaded him from his current warped view.

Similar things happen with worldbuilding or events. I may want something typical of a story to happen, and thus I manipulate variables to make it happen -but I try to stick to those I plausibly could. I may add odd details to the worldbuilding, even cliche ones, but I try to thoroughly explore their consequences and reasons.

Like the fairytale/tropes version, I employ tropes and have the aim of a narrative that is artificially constructed to bring out the potential of the various aspects of it, be it the characters, the plot, the worldbuilding and where applicable the romance, comedy or tragic (etc..). Like the realistic version, I construct each character and situation to be plausible, and I strive to give them an adequate depth, including exploring how the situations affects them as an individual. I construct the plausible scenario by exploring and giving depth to tropes.

Now the key here I feel, is the word plausible, specifically as distinct from realistic. Because realistically, this probably wouldn't work. I probably couldn't so smoothly create these set ups if realism was truly the standard. That being said, I do think plausibility I think is realistic enough, avoiding falling into the uncanny valley of realism. So maybe this is one of the reasons -aside from my narrative aims alone- why I likely fall more into the fairytale/trope side, because no doubt be disagreement over whether this plausibility is enough for realism.