saeran
cooking like a chef i'm a 5 star michelin
that's not how i was raised, gender roles are disgusting. you can't just force someone to do smth cuz they're male/female. it is what's common yeah, but it's definitely not the right thing.
Experiences Whats making you angry today? Rp pet peeves
- Thread starter iMeisaki
- Start date
- Status
Syntra
Baba Yaga
Tbh, I don't think it's that deep. I suspect most people who are like 'I can't play men/women' merely don't want to play as those characters. I doubt they worship gender roles or something (most of them, anyway.)
saeran
cooking like a chef i'm a 5 star michelin
that's what i said, but some people think that that is what's it about, that was the reason of my explanation ^^
nerdy tangents
One Thousand Club
I think you might be misunderstanding what I am talking about. Gender roles aren’t about forcing people to do anything. It’s about assumptions.
The idea is because your a girl you will act a certain way or because your a boy you will act a certain way.
No one is saying you have to follow that assumption though. If a girl does more traditionally masculine things it’s not bad. It just goes against the assumption.
My original point is that a lot of times people are just assuming that if they play a specific gender that gender has to act a certain way or it’s not “realistic”.
But once they actually start writing the specific gender they realize their wrong. Because there is no real assumption for how a character has to behave in roleplays.
Im not saying they are being deliberately harmful to others.
saeran
cooking like a chef i'm a 5 star michelin
yes, gender roles are harming people though.
nerdy tangents
One Thousand Club
Gender roles don’t harm people because they are assumptions not expectations. Just because someone thinks a man will make a better mechanic than a woman doesn’t automatically mean they don’t want women to become mechanics.
So you and I are meaning too different things when we use the term (which is entirely possible it’s got a pretty subjective meaning).
we’re also getting off topic. I had only intended to give you a explanation for why people play specific genders not to go on a tangent about gender politics.
CecilDMMasters
Member
Yeah, people I know who do groups seem to find a story like that. Some are hilarious though I imagine they were quite annoying for the GM and their groups at the time.
"This guy tried to join our super hero cadet RP and have Captain America! Yeah, they badly changed the name but didn't alter the back story! BTW all the characters were suppose to be CADETS!"
"I'm so sick of every animal RP having people trying to turn it into MLP or TLK! Like how about read the lore and leave Pridelands and Ponyville off the character sheet at least"
"Someone tried to submit a good guy Jason Voorhees to our RP."
FrogKing101
New Member
When they always reply with "yeah" and that's it, its so irritating
saeran
cooking like a chef i'm a 5 star michelin
gender roles do harm people, you can see examples of it everywhere. even though they're just assumptions, they harm people mentally and needs to be stopped.
also yeah we're getting off topic.
to finish this off, i click off the thread whenever i see i only play females/males, it's a red flag for me. i hate stereotypes and all kinds of gender roles, which was what the thread was about. you didn't need to give an explanation, it will always be ridiculous for me.
grimmmy
holy work
This doesn't make me mad and isn't even close to a "bad thing," but I don't personally like the trend of specifying a character's sexuality because (a) I have a very fluid understanding of sexuality to begin with so I rarely know what my character's preferences are aside from "queer or not queer" and (b) it's for shipping, isn't it.
Fuck shipping, all my homies hate it. This has become an anti-shipping post. Build the relationship in-character or perish.
Fuck shipping, all my homies hate it. This has become an anti-shipping post. Build the relationship in-character or perish.
GojiBean
Your resident irradiated Kaiju King
My ultimate pet peeve right now is the fact that there are GM's out there who actually require a "post length" in their RP's.
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to this topic, but when you get right down to it the length of a post has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the post itself, nor is it an accurate representation of the writer's skill. Worse still, the length of a post literally means nothing on its own. So if a GM tries to say there's a "method to the madness," call "bullshit" on them then and there. When someone fails to meet the requirement, or just barely manages to meet it on a consistent basis by writing the bare minimum required, they are often the subject of criticism from the GM and other players in the RP and usually end up leaving because of it. And that's bullshit as well.
In my not so humble opinion, GM's who issue a post-length requirement should be avoided like the plague.
In role-playing, quality of the post is everything. Not the quantity of words. The quality.
Quality of the content in a post comes largely from two sources:
1) The role-player's adherence to the axiom "Show, Don't Tell," which warns against substituting passive explanations (like monologuing or narrative info dumps) for dynamic dramatization (characters experiencing the information first-hand).
2) Clever use of basic storytelling elements like foreshadowing, dynamic use of language to accentuate the mood of the scene, setup and payoff moments from scene to scene over time, etc.
The longer you make your posts, the more likely it is to be filled with exposition, filler, or worse yet, meaningless fluff that does nothing for the scene, the characters, the story, or to advance the plot.
In short, longer posts aren't better. Period.
For example, if a character named Roy in a fantasy RP enters a cave system with a friend of his and see ancient paintings and carvings on the wall, and then Roy starts monologuing: "It's the history of our people. For thousands of years our ancestors recorded their history on these walls using stone tools and paints made from various plants ground into powder and mixed with water. You can see here a tale of the hunt where they're banning together to kill a buffalo and bring its hide back to the clan. And here they were joining a rival clan for mutual benefit and hunting a wholly mammoth. Such cooperation was rare. But when it was utilized they were seldom unrewarded for their efforts."
That's a whole lot of blah blah blah blah blah-shut up, Roy.
A far more natural and dynamic way to convey that same information would be something like this:
Roy entered the cave in silence with his friend Jeoff as vast washes of paint and carved rock opened their eyes to the world of the past.
"Incredible." Roy whispered to himself.
"Over here!" Jeoff called.
As Roy joined him, he beheld the image of hunters surrounding a buffalo.
"Looks like they were hunter gatherers." Jeoff said.
"Yeah. And look here," Roy said as he moved to another painting depicting two different clans surrounding a mammoth. "Looks like they worked with other clans." He continued.
"Maybe. But... I don't see any other pictures like that on the wall anywhere." Jeoff noted.
Roy looked around. Jeoff was right.
"What do you think it means?" Jeoff asked.
"Well, there's a bunch of paintings of one clan hunting an animal. So maybe clan participation was rare back then?" Roy offered in response.
"Huh. Not like today. Clans work together all the time now." Jeoff added.
Roy nodded, and the pair continued to analyze the images.
The above information, though it's lengthy due to dialogue exchange, is vastly superior in presentation to the monologue from before not because of how much text there is. But because of what the text shows you as a reader. In this example, Roy and his friend Jeoff are actually experiencing the story of the past as they examine the paintings and carvings. And unlike the monologue, they aren't acting as if they know exactly what the paintings and carvings are saying like some kind of omnipotent narrator who understood it all at the briefest glance. They can only speculate and guess what they mean. The best example above is the fact that there's only a single instance of clans working together which made them think that perhaps it was a rare occurrence, unlike today where it's commonplace. A logical conclusion based on observation. Not some kind of "this is how is was" nonsense as if you just know from the start which is what a lot of "post requirement" GM's will have their characters do (which is another reason to avoid them).
So by simply not taking the omnipotent narrator route in a monologue, we've added yet another layer to the worldbuilding of the scene by including modern day differences to the story of the past that's depicted on the walls rather than just monologuing about what's seen on them as is.
However, because this example wasn't done in "paragraphs," it would likely be criticized by any GM with a post-length requirement since dialogue, especially when it's spaced out neatly like this, doesn't look like paragraphs. And if it doesn't look like a paragraph, chances are that GM's who want paragraphs won't count them as such and will demand that you write two narrative text paragraphs to "meet the requirement."
So in summary, post-length is entirely arbitrary and should never be used as a measure of a post's quality, nor should it be used to measure the skill/worth of the writer. If you encounter a GM who has a post-length requirement, avoid them. No matter how fun their RP looks, avoid them. The fact they're issuing a length requirement in the first place is proof positive that their priorities as a role-player, let alone a GM, are screwed up and not worth the headache.
Cheers!
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to this topic, but when you get right down to it the length of a post has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the post itself, nor is it an accurate representation of the writer's skill. Worse still, the length of a post literally means nothing on its own. So if a GM tries to say there's a "method to the madness," call "bullshit" on them then and there. When someone fails to meet the requirement, or just barely manages to meet it on a consistent basis by writing the bare minimum required, they are often the subject of criticism from the GM and other players in the RP and usually end up leaving because of it. And that's bullshit as well.
In my not so humble opinion, GM's who issue a post-length requirement should be avoided like the plague.
In role-playing, quality of the post is everything. Not the quantity of words. The quality.
Quality of the content in a post comes largely from two sources:
1) The role-player's adherence to the axiom "Show, Don't Tell," which warns against substituting passive explanations (like monologuing or narrative info dumps) for dynamic dramatization (characters experiencing the information first-hand).
2) Clever use of basic storytelling elements like foreshadowing, dynamic use of language to accentuate the mood of the scene, setup and payoff moments from scene to scene over time, etc.
The longer you make your posts, the more likely it is to be filled with exposition, filler, or worse yet, meaningless fluff that does nothing for the scene, the characters, the story, or to advance the plot.
In short, longer posts aren't better. Period.
For example, if a character named Roy in a fantasy RP enters a cave system with a friend of his and see ancient paintings and carvings on the wall, and then Roy starts monologuing: "It's the history of our people. For thousands of years our ancestors recorded their history on these walls using stone tools and paints made from various plants ground into powder and mixed with water. You can see here a tale of the hunt where they're banning together to kill a buffalo and bring its hide back to the clan. And here they were joining a rival clan for mutual benefit and hunting a wholly mammoth. Such cooperation was rare. But when it was utilized they were seldom unrewarded for their efforts."
That's a whole lot of blah blah blah blah blah-shut up, Roy.
A far more natural and dynamic way to convey that same information would be something like this:
Roy entered the cave in silence with his friend Jeoff as vast washes of paint and carved rock opened their eyes to the world of the past.
"Incredible." Roy whispered to himself.
"Over here!" Jeoff called.
As Roy joined him, he beheld the image of hunters surrounding a buffalo.
"Looks like they were hunter gatherers." Jeoff said.
"Yeah. And look here," Roy said as he moved to another painting depicting two different clans surrounding a mammoth. "Looks like they worked with other clans." He continued.
"Maybe. But... I don't see any other pictures like that on the wall anywhere." Jeoff noted.
Roy looked around. Jeoff was right.
"What do you think it means?" Jeoff asked.
"Well, there's a bunch of paintings of one clan hunting an animal. So maybe clan participation was rare back then?" Roy offered in response.
"Huh. Not like today. Clans work together all the time now." Jeoff added.
Roy nodded, and the pair continued to analyze the images.
The above information, though it's lengthy due to dialogue exchange, is vastly superior in presentation to the monologue from before not because of how much text there is. But because of what the text shows you as a reader. In this example, Roy and his friend Jeoff are actually experiencing the story of the past as they examine the paintings and carvings. And unlike the monologue, they aren't acting as if they know exactly what the paintings and carvings are saying like some kind of omnipotent narrator who understood it all at the briefest glance. They can only speculate and guess what they mean. The best example above is the fact that there's only a single instance of clans working together which made them think that perhaps it was a rare occurrence, unlike today where it's commonplace. A logical conclusion based on observation. Not some kind of "this is how is was" nonsense as if you just know from the start which is what a lot of "post requirement" GM's will have their characters do (which is another reason to avoid them).
So by simply not taking the omnipotent narrator route in a monologue, we've added yet another layer to the worldbuilding of the scene by including modern day differences to the story of the past that's depicted on the walls rather than just monologuing about what's seen on them as is.
However, because this example wasn't done in "paragraphs," it would likely be criticized by any GM with a post-length requirement since dialogue, especially when it's spaced out neatly like this, doesn't look like paragraphs. And if it doesn't look like a paragraph, chances are that GM's who want paragraphs won't count them as such and will demand that you write two narrative text paragraphs to "meet the requirement."
So in summary, post-length is entirely arbitrary and should never be used as a measure of a post's quality, nor should it be used to measure the skill/worth of the writer. If you encounter a GM who has a post-length requirement, avoid them. No matter how fun their RP looks, avoid them. The fact they're issuing a length requirement in the first place is proof positive that their priorities as a role-player, let alone a GM, are screwed up and not worth the headache.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Lorsh
Varlot
I hate it when I'm making up random ass words and find out Warhammer has already done it, has literally happened 4 5 times.
-Mortarch
-Necrarch
-Aurox
-Skalf
-Aelf
-Mortarch
-Necrarch
-Aurox
-Skalf
-Aelf
Last edited:
CecilDMMasters
Member
I think I mentioned this somewhere, but seriously it's one of my instant step away from the computer and calm down pet peeves.
People who ignore style preference! Seriously! I clearly list third person paragraph with " " proper punctuation around words like written in a novel! NO SCRIPT and I am tired of these people that supposedly read my rules, act all fine with everything in talks, then after I post a starter reply with script!
If you don't like a writing style preference then go find someone that does like your style! Don't ignore what someone else says and be shocked they don't continue the rp!
People who ignore style preference! Seriously! I clearly list third person paragraph with " " proper punctuation around words like written in a novel! NO SCRIPT and I am tired of these people that supposedly read my rules, act all fine with everything in talks, then after I post a starter reply with script!
If you don't like a writing style preference then go find someone that does like your style! Don't ignore what someone else says and be shocked they don't continue the rp!
nerdy tangents
One Thousand Club
CecilDMMasters
had that happened with someone about my “no abusive backstories” rule. Now first I clarified because that’s kinda vague and it’s on me if you didn’t know.But once I specifically said “I am not comfortable with this because X reason.”
Don’t keep pushing it on me. It’s rude.
CecilDMMasters
Member
But once I specifically said “I am not comfortable with this because X reason.”
Don’t keep pushing it on me. It’s rude.
I hate that people actually try to challenge comfort zones. I know some creeps and overly pushy people who try to shame or pretend they are trying to help someone overcome comfort zones just to get their way.
If someone says they are uncomfortable with something then that should be the end of the discussion. A RP is suppose to be fun and is not the place to push challenging a comfort zone. And some random person on the other end of a screen is not the person who should be telling someone to go past their comfort.
Jannah
Barely holding on.
This is true. If a person is not comfortable with content I'd like to RP then I just respect their wishes and find a different partner. It's the respectful thing to do.
Stray Cat
Regal Queen
This has probably been preached to death, but I wish people would be more upfront about roleplay. What I mean is don't request a partnership and then poof out of existence. Or promise that you're going to reply but never do. Just tell me you don't want to roleplay anymore or you can't. It's getting annoying at this point. Woke up this morning to find out a potential partner deleted our server on discord and unfriended me without a word. Jeez, a simple goodbye would have sufficed.
Cealen
★彡
ok, warning everyone, i think this is more a very very personal pet peeve than a more...general thing? maybe? :’)? i just kinda wanna vent.
there’s a very specific reason why i don’t do m/f romantically in romance rps. platonic m/f besties? sure! just no romance.
i used to allow m/f romance pairings when i was a younger rper, just saying it was the one of my least preference, but i’m open to doing it as long as we don’t do stereotypical m/f. i would also write “i only write lgbt+ characters, as i like representing myself in my characters, sometimes that being a huge focus and sometimes that just being a very background thing depending on what we’re doing”. so, if you were doing m/f with me, i was going to make my character bi/pan and/or trans, because those are lgbt+ characters that can exist in m/f.
the amount of disrespect and hatred i got flung at me for daring to have a lgbt+ character in our m/f rp was astounding. i think people were very convinced “m/f” means “cishet characters only, none of that lgbt+ stuff”. like some even said “i thought we were doing m/f” when i brought up playing a trans character. Yes, we are. Care to explain to me in detail why you thought we weren’t when I bring up trans characters?
i guess my major pet peeve is that people mean “cishet pairing” when they say m/f, when that simply isn’t the case. of course, they’re scared to put “don’t play any lgbt+ character with me” on their interest checks, because it’s not a good look. instead, all they did was make me feel like shit in pms where no one would see them! :-).
so yeah, that’s why i don’t do m/f anymore romantically, because people really have commonly meant “cishet characters only” when they ask me to that rather than my other preferences. i obviously know that people aren’t the same, and there’s people fine doing non-cishet m/f, but the fact that i had such bad bad experiences with this in the past has not made me ever want to do it again. i’d rather not have someone who is “uncomfortable” or even “grossed out” with my irl existence try to rp with me.
ooof, kinda heavy huh? sorry about that, but yeah, very personal rant here. just wanted to get that off my mind. i promise i’ve had good past rp experiences even though i post a lot in here xD.
there’s a very specific reason why i don’t do m/f romantically in romance rps. platonic m/f besties? sure! just no romance.
i used to allow m/f romance pairings when i was a younger rper, just saying it was the one of my least preference, but i’m open to doing it as long as we don’t do stereotypical m/f. i would also write “i only write lgbt+ characters, as i like representing myself in my characters, sometimes that being a huge focus and sometimes that just being a very background thing depending on what we’re doing”. so, if you were doing m/f with me, i was going to make my character bi/pan and/or trans, because those are lgbt+ characters that can exist in m/f.
the amount of disrespect and hatred i got flung at me for daring to have a lgbt+ character in our m/f rp was astounding. i think people were very convinced “m/f” means “cishet characters only, none of that lgbt+ stuff”. like some even said “i thought we were doing m/f” when i brought up playing a trans character. Yes, we are. Care to explain to me in detail why you thought we weren’t when I bring up trans characters?
i guess my major pet peeve is that people mean “cishet pairing” when they say m/f, when that simply isn’t the case. of course, they’re scared to put “don’t play any lgbt+ character with me” on their interest checks, because it’s not a good look. instead, all they did was make me feel like shit in pms where no one would see them! :-).
so yeah, that’s why i don’t do m/f anymore romantically, because people really have commonly meant “cishet characters only” when they ask me to that rather than my other preferences. i obviously know that people aren’t the same, and there’s people fine doing non-cishet m/f, but the fact that i had such bad bad experiences with this in the past has not made me ever want to do it again. i’d rather not have someone who is “uncomfortable” or even “grossed out” with my irl existence try to rp with me.
ooof, kinda heavy huh? sorry about that, but yeah, very personal rant here. just wanted to get that off my mind. i promise i’ve had good past rp experiences even though i post a lot in here xD.
nerdy tangents
One Thousand Club
Cealen
Omfg I hate that bullshit. I would ask if I could play a bi character in a M/F roleplay and it was always “I don’t want gay stuff or I’m uncomfortable.”Like why Karen? Because my fictional male character finds other fictional male characters attractive? He’s in an exclusive relationship with your cishet female character what more do you want?
I didn’t realize by “relationship” you meant “this character can only find a single person attractive ever and they better be a lady (more specifically my character)”
like A. that’s not even what heterosexual means that’s closer to demisexual or something in the ace spectrum. B. If your character can only be paired with mine due to a lack of other options then the relationship is poorly written or your character has some severe self esteem issues.
Edit - Bonus if they pull the whole “I’m not homophobic but (proceeds to be homophobic).”
Last edited:
Becker
“Someone else always has to carry on the story...”
GM: "Just so everyone knows, this RP is set in a post apocalyptic world where good quality equipment is worth it's weight in gold and most of your stuff will likely be kit-bashed. So have some fun creating wacky and innovative, weapons that your character could've built themselves in a shed with little more than super-glue and nails (i.e, made from scrap and salvaged items that could be found in the wastes).
That guy:
That guy:
Owlbear
Junior Member
I really hate roleplays that bans "politics".
For starters, it makes no sense as a rule. People keep insisting that's it is there to avoid arguments from breaking out between the players but if that's the case why not just have a rule that forbids all arguments in the first place?
Like, is people fighting over, say, wether a character is overpowered or not really that much better than over if they were fighting over politics?
Secondly, it's never enforced fairly. It just ends up banning whatever the opposite political opinions of whoever is running the roleplay has.
Thirdly, it's impossible to enforce because literally every story is inherently political.
Fourthly, it's always a rule in the most political roleplays. For example, I remember seeing someone having that rule in a roleplay about the American military during the Iraq war.
And lastly, it tends to be used as an excuse to avoid certain criticism. You know, stuff like "You can't point out that this roleplay is whitewashing the Wehrmacht because that's an political take and this roleplay has banned all political discussions".
For starters, it makes no sense as a rule. People keep insisting that's it is there to avoid arguments from breaking out between the players but if that's the case why not just have a rule that forbids all arguments in the first place?
Like, is people fighting over, say, wether a character is overpowered or not really that much better than over if they were fighting over politics?
Secondly, it's never enforced fairly. It just ends up banning whatever the opposite political opinions of whoever is running the roleplay has.
Thirdly, it's impossible to enforce because literally every story is inherently political.
Fourthly, it's always a rule in the most political roleplays. For example, I remember seeing someone having that rule in a roleplay about the American military during the Iraq war.
And lastly, it tends to be used as an excuse to avoid certain criticism. You know, stuff like "You can't point out that this roleplay is whitewashing the Wehrmacht because that's an political take and this roleplay has banned all political discussions".
Merciless Medic
Walking Pokemon Dictionary
Lovely.... I .... I don't like this XD At all.
Politics exist. I get that people don't want to participate in politics when they are trying to de-stress from a highly politically charged time, but doing so to gatekeep arbitrary politics in an RP space? Good lord...
Granted, I add politics to my RPs because it makes it more nuanced, more interesting, and every culture and society has its politics or way of thinking that affects their paradigms/perceptions on reality. You taking that out is like having a Michael Bay movie, but without the more nuanced motives as to why the two sides are fighting. XD
Emeraude
Em
I hate when you check in with someone to see if they're still interested, and you get a "yes, absolutely, no worries" and the like, then they still don't reply to IC or OOC. Super annoying and has honestly burnt me out. So hard to find someone consistent and honest.
Werepunk
I live, I die, I live again
I generally consider myself a pretty chill roleplay partner, but I've got a couple of these...
1. I do MxM roleplays mostly, and the biggest pet peeve I have is people who come to me with characters that are clearly based on yaoi tropes. They conflate gay relationships with yaoi, when yaoi is actually full of harmful homophobic stereotypes. If yaoi is your thing, I'm not gonna get on your back about it, but you really shouldn't assume that everyone looking for MxM is into it.
2. I hate when I post a plot idea, and someone comes to me with a huge list of their own characters and tells me to pick whatever one I like. It's one thing to offer up 2-3 characters that might work, but when people come to me with a big list of dozens of characters and are like "pick whichever you like, I have no preference"... It really makes me think you don't care/
3. Others have already mentioned this, but it's really frustrating when I propose a bunch of ideas and all I get in response is "Yeah, sure, sounds good. Who's going to start?" I really like planning things out and I appreciate a partner's input and ideas. When they don't give me anything, I feel like they don't care-- and those partners usually end up ghosting anyway, since the roleplay never goes how they want it because they didn't help plan.
4. I have memory issues due to untreated adhd and some other things. Sometimes I'll forget to let my partner know I'm going to be away for a while, or I misremember things and think I've replied when I haven't. If it takes me too long to catch my mistake, people assume they've been ghosted. Instead of checking in, they often leave the chat or even block me. I understand why people feel hurt if they genuinely think I ghosted them, but it still makes me feel terrible since my memory issues aren't something I can control and sometimes my strategies to deal with it don't work.
I've started putting a little disclaimer in my rp ads and interest checks letting people know about my memory issues, so I'm hoping that'll help the issue!
1. I do MxM roleplays mostly, and the biggest pet peeve I have is people who come to me with characters that are clearly based on yaoi tropes. They conflate gay relationships with yaoi, when yaoi is actually full of harmful homophobic stereotypes. If yaoi is your thing, I'm not gonna get on your back about it, but you really shouldn't assume that everyone looking for MxM is into it.
2. I hate when I post a plot idea, and someone comes to me with a huge list of their own characters and tells me to pick whatever one I like. It's one thing to offer up 2-3 characters that might work, but when people come to me with a big list of dozens of characters and are like "pick whichever you like, I have no preference"... It really makes me think you don't care/
3. Others have already mentioned this, but it's really frustrating when I propose a bunch of ideas and all I get in response is "Yeah, sure, sounds good. Who's going to start?" I really like planning things out and I appreciate a partner's input and ideas. When they don't give me anything, I feel like they don't care-- and those partners usually end up ghosting anyway, since the roleplay never goes how they want it because they didn't help plan.
4. I have memory issues due to untreated adhd and some other things. Sometimes I'll forget to let my partner know I'm going to be away for a while, or I misremember things and think I've replied when I haven't. If it takes me too long to catch my mistake, people assume they've been ghosted. Instead of checking in, they often leave the chat or even block me. I understand why people feel hurt if they genuinely think I ghosted them, but it still makes me feel terrible since my memory issues aren't something I can control and sometimes my strategies to deal with it don't work.
I've started putting a little disclaimer in my rp ads and interest checks letting people know about my memory issues, so I'm hoping that'll help the issue!
okur
Looking for character chemistry
Someone who tries to convince me why I should like their plot. We were discussing and trying to make it work for both of us, they kept pushing a specific item I really didn't want to do, expressed as such, and tried to convince me of the reasons why I should like it.
No. Thank you.
No. Thank you.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
