Dominant, indifferent, or passive? How do you play and which do you prefer?

[julia]

I've noticed, while roleplaying in and GMing several different roleplays, that the way a character behaves usually falls into one of three categories. I've noticed very strong, leader like characters, even from those who are not the GM's character, their foils (followers, easy to boss around characters), and the ones who are just kind of there. They don't obey and follow, but they don't lead either. They are just kind of off on their own, and they are rather hard to react to and interact with.

What kind of character do you play as? What kind of character do you like to play with? Is there any type of character you can't stand? What characters fit best where (like in fantasy genres, do passive characters just stand in the way?)?

Lemme know! I'm curious.

[Kagamine]

Really loners don't quite belong in an RP at all... if you can't interact with them, then there's not much point in them being there.

[Lillian Thorne]

Lol, I actually have taken to putting a "no loners" rule in my RP's just because I've had to many people play them then complain that no one is interacting with them.

But otherwise what I play depends on what seems to fit when I write the character and what is needed based on what other people are playing in the RP. So it really depends for me.

[Nightwing1]

For me, it kind of depends on the mood being set on the role-play.But I don't roleplay loner's.Although I do Roleplay dominant and passive characters.Sometimes both at once, but that does complicate things...Although it adds an extra 'touch of magic' to a character.Especially because characters do change over time, and mostly through their brash and or passive ways.But, most like to stay in control.I have to admit its tempting, but I know from experience that it only causes other roleplayers to have a certain disliking to your character.So, I mainly 'go with the flow~'

[Genkai]

Too many passive roles in a story can be boring and kill a story quick.

Too many dominant roles can also make things too combative and make people none too eager to post.

Loners never get accepted in my stories, as many have pointed out, they don't lend themselves well to progress.

I tend to play out going types more, but as a GM I play two characters so I try to make one the "leader" type with the other more of a follower for the sake of balance.

[julia]

I never play loners. They kill RPs with a big rusty blade, then let it bleed out while people just fade away. I think that a 30-70 split on characters makes it workable. A few different leaders, and more followers with different personalities. I've also noticed a misconception that a passive character can't be as aspiring as the dominant types. Or that a passive character has to just lay down and let things happen. That tends to kill a roleplay as well.

A dominant character that is forced to be more passive than another is an interesting thing though. I'm currently in a roleplay that has been going on for 9 months I believe... anyway, a demon is forced to be a servant to a very brash and rough princess. It's been my most successful roleplay thus far, and I think that the contrast in the characters makes it work well.

[Ellri]

many of ours are dominant, yet not leaders. They like having power, but not using it unless the need is extreme.

[Jannah]

I think most of mine tend to be passive.

[PlatinumSkink]

I am able to play both passive and dominant characters. It usually depends on if there is someone even more dominant than me in the same roleplay. If someone is more dominant than I am, I follow. If there is none, or my character is simply not the type to simply be following, I lead.

That's just the way it goes. It depends a lot on my character. But I am sure capable of leading~

Loner...? I have no idea what that means. Though I am capable of playing independantly, as far as I know.

[Kestrel]

Too many dominant roles can also make things too combative and make people none too eager to post.

Which would, ironically, make them passive.

@topic most people are more passive. You'll notice this difference between active and passive players very quickly when GM'ing for a decent amount of time. Or when you work in groups early college or high school or whatever. That's the term you're looking for BTW; active, not dominant or leader. An active player is not per definition leading or dominating. They just push the game forward (whereas passives do not or barely.)

The problem with active players, if you have one, tends to be that because they push, they're not always on one line with the GM or each other (passive players are much more careful about that.) As such, you often have to pull certain persons back or deal with a lot of questions. Or everyone splits up and you've got that loner issue. However, you'll rarely have an RP filled with actives because people naturally become either competitive, which quickly leads to some parties becoming more passive, or people go straight to passive. Or they stay competitive while in good spirits, which really is the best you can hope for.

Room full of passives never moves anywhere. Insert tavern-meeting.

Me, I RP because I want to go somewhere. I'll always be active, I'll contribute to the story's progression because if I can't, quite frankly, I'm bored out of my mind and it's like I'm posting filler.