Actually, I'd argue that because an RP is primarily interactive, making sure people can easily pick up on the interactive elements in your posts is beneficial for all parties. Most of these can be short and sweet, barely distracting from the atmosphere in a post. If this information is obstructed by flowery wording, that is a valid point of criticism. It means you either need to find balance or structure, not that you should let your writing style swing to one extreme of dull and clear or another of flowery and incomprehensible.

Rilla said
That's why, Derpy, you don't continue with the fight unless they change it. I do(used to) a lot of Arena stuff. And for the most part that doesn't fly.

Yeah, but it was in a group RP, not a 1v1. So the GM's call the shots, not the players...Blech.

I'm at work, so Ill make this one short. Just like low standards can dilute a roleplay, overzealous literary techniques can, too. This I agree with. But that line is personal preference and even more so (in my case) is often different from my communication style. The primary "difference" between solo writing and roleplay is interaction, but obviously all one-liners isn't the highest quality. Obstruction and distaste or laziness are not the same.

When people don't bold (and less so) underline the categories on CSes.
Seriously, it just becomes a wall of text.

Well, that difference changes the entire experience, but that's another topic altogether.

However, if someone gives you the critique you mentioned, it probably meant "Your posts are difficult to understand to me." It may or may not have been communicated clearly, but that's beside the point. Either how, you can choose to respect this, or dismiss it. However, respecting it doesn't automatically mean going full-on one-liners. I mean, as I mentioned in my previous post, it's probably fixed by putting small descriptions of what is most essential to know before the expositions each paragraph. Like for example; "The room smelled of roses." Before going into detail about the effect the smell has on your character, the nuances of the smell on the atmosphere, or whatever you want to portray. Just adding this sentence before the exposition will make things clear to co-players; they can easily understand and identify the building blocks you're giving them.

So yeah, I'm not really sure where you're coming from when you point out it's all just preference. Unless understanding an entire post or not should be counted as preference, but that'd be rather silly a statement, don't you agree?

There was no actual given context. Not everyone enjoys Shakespearean literature, nor even understand it, but that doesn't lower its quality. It is preference. In roleplay, there is a juggling act for literary elements and roleplay elements, but personal preference still exists.

Derpestein said
Yeah, but it was in a group RP, not a 1v1. So the GM's call the shots, not the players...Blech.

Did you bring it up to the GM? Because that shit there, just can't fly.

Inuyasha said
When people don't bold (and less so) underline the categories on CSes.Seriously, it just becomes a wall of text.

^^^^^ This shit here. I hate it too, it bugs me to death.

Prince said
There was no actual given context. Not everyone enjoys Shakespearean literature, nor even understand it, but that doesn't lower its quality. It is preference. In roleplay, there is a juggling act for literary elements and roleplay elements, but personal preference still exists.

You're seriously losing me here. I understand not every roleplay has the same level of accessibility, but if you put purple prose above clear interaction between players you're moving away from the very concept of roleplaying itself as you're making interaction and communication more difficult on purpose. Unless you have a super niche group or whatever. The arguments over the symbolism in flowery literature for one have been plenty. Well that and the curtains were fucking blue. Which is fine discussing when it's a non-interactive art-form but... Well... You need people to understand your stuff to work with it, y'know? Drive it too far and you'll end up alienating people. Which is silly when you can have literary elements and not alienate people (as much) by structuring your post and... I'm repeating myself. Here's a tl;dr version.

The entire point here was that someone insinuated my specific style of wordplay was too much, and I disagree. It is nowhere near the top line of acceptable and hardly hurts interaction. The onlu conflict here came from some time ago when someone had no method of combating the content of my statements, so they attacked my method of communication.

Edit: I'm actually home now and on a computer instead of my phone.

Right, well that was pretty confusing then. Minimalism and wordplay both have their own fans and that's fine. The reason I put my arguments forward was because you kept using absolutes and said you had to 'juggle' two elements, suggesting sacrifice on one part or the other. Fortunately, that's all cleared up now.

Prince said Not everyone enjoys Shakespearean literature, nor even understand it, but that doesn't lower its quality.

"Brevity is the soul of wit." -William Shakespeare.

---

On-Topic: When someone confuses quantity for quality. No I don't care that you needed to spend three paragraphs to describe how a brush moved in the wind as you gently caressed your dead lover's locket: Unless that brush is coming up again in the future, it's merely an unfired Chekhov's Gun, and you are wasting the time of everyone reading it.

Detail has its place in fiction and is dependent on the scene, which is in turn dictated by the author. Isaac Asimov is as wordy as he is because he has to describe fantastical inventions that nobody could really grasp with a one liner description. He used his descriptions to suck you into worlds typically full of vacuum tubes and magnetic technologies. On the other hand, take world of warcraft role playing: The entire world is painted out in great detail for you. Having massive expository dialogue would be a waste of time there, the only thing you should be focusing on are subtle actions and dialogue. Same goes for movies: The rule is show, don't tell.

There comes a time for detail and exposition. Think of it like... Food, and your story is your child. If you stuff your child nonstop with food, especially sugary purple prose, your child will inflate until they have coronary heart failure and need to be moved with a bulldozer into their grave. At the same time, if you don't feed them enough, they become anorexic, without detail or substance or flavour, and they die.

tl;dr: Posts are children. Feed them a good diet please, it's hard enough to take care of our own children, leave alone when your 300 pound scooter riding fuck gets stuck in the door so nobody can get past it.

My habits suck.

Seriously. I'll get stuck with a craving for one game, when I have plenty of others to write for.

Sheesh.

Ruby said
My habits suck.Seriously. I'll get stuck with a craving for game, when I have plenty of others to write for.Sheesh.

This.

LowKey123 said
This.

Write a short story. You resolve your cravings and improve your writing skills.

-Not sure if this has already been said but i dislike the type of people who create a new character to change the fate of their already existing character when the fate is what it is suppose to be because the GM said so >>. Not sure if that is considered God modding but it sure is close

-Long term RP partners who forget of your existence over some stupid sh!t

Prince said
I think I'll let the beast return to its shackles after the last thread. I see no reason in provoking Brovo, as I'm sure he would love a 'bout with the Gentlemen Beast. He can be president, anyway. Princes have far more fun. ;)

^This. Unless you're the prince in Frozen

Brovo said "Brevity is the soul of wit." -William Shakespeare.

Only an excerpt from:

"Polonius:
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . ." which is just one line of Hamlet, specifically Act 2, scene 2, 86–92

You're real bad about taking an excerpt to make a point out of context. You ought to work on that before being taken seriously

---

: When someone confuses quantity for quality. No I don't care that you needed to spend three paragraphs to describe how a brush moved in the wind as you gently caressed your dead lover's locket: Unless that brush is coming up again in the future, it's merely an unfired Chekhov's Gun, and you are wasting the time of everyone reading it.

Detail has its place in fiction and is dependent on the scene, which is in turn dictated by the author. Isaac Asimov is as wordy as he is because he has to describe fantastical inventions that nobody could really grasp with a one liner description. He used his descriptions to suck you into worlds typically full of vacuum tubes and magnetic technologies. On the other hand, take world of warcraft role playing: The entire world is painted out in great detail for you. Having massive expository dialogue would be a waste of time there, the only thing you should be focusing on are subtle actions and dialogue. Same goes for movies: The rule is show, don't tell.

There comes a time for detail and exposition. Think of it like... Food, and your story is your child. If you stuff your child nonstop with food, especially sugary purple prose, your child will inflate until they have coronary heart failure and need to be moved with a bulldozer into their grave. At the same time, if you don't feed them enough, they become anorexic, without detail or substance or flavour, and they die.

tl;dr: Posts are children. Feed them a good diet please, it's hard enough to take care of our own children, leave alone when your 300 pound scooter riding fuck gets stuck in the door so nobody can get past it.

Although this lacked any brevity in itself, I do have to admit that I agree with it. I have ALWAYS hated the people who write and write and write then go back and edit then just one final run through to add whatever superfluous detail they can to a post. It's annoying, pointless fluff work that doesn't add to the plot or interaction. There are few exceptions, such as an exposition to set an atmosphere or a post to set the atmosphere in general. I do believe that flowery words and overzealous literary techniques used in the correct (and honestly, where skipping would not hurt the roleplay or interaction) places. The fact here is it definitely shouldn't be consistent. If you don't give your children a desert every now and then, what kind of parent are you?

"Anorexic" is defined as either a state of poor diet or a state of "anorexia nervosa" which is an eating disorder associated with intentional food restriction, poor eating habits and an obsession with having a thin figure. I would say it is a poor analogy in this case, as it to be"anorexic" has little correlation with actually being fed enough. Anorexia is a behavioral thing. I do digress, however (but found it slightly appalling that someone would compare a severe eating disorder to the concept of a roleplay being 'skinny'), and move on to say that each roleplay will most likely be different with different needs, themes, roleplayers, so on and so forth all with different expectations. And, to top off all of that, there are vastly different preferences that can shape the needs of a roleplay. What makes a roleplay healthy is not necessarily universal.

Addition

-Not sure if this has already been said but i dislike the type of people who create a new character to change the fate of their already existing character when the fate is what it is suppose to be because the GM said so >>. Not sure if that is considered God modding but it sure is close

That is an attempt at a Dues Ex Machina, which not only is considered a diluted literary technique (even though it is still highly used and highly effective) but is dull and normally the mark of a desperate writer. They are annoying as fuck and a roleplayer trying to get around 'fate' itself is just as annoying, as long as such is reasonable, well-plotted and fitting. Nothing should be set in stone, but there are a myriad of players that do this, and it is annoying to an antagonizing level.

When I personally write a character I think of what I want to happen to them and how it may/can/will be changed due to the actions in roleplay or otherwise. Some characters or NPCs are destined to go from good to evil or the other way around. Some characters have pre-planned plot points in their story that I either decide when I want in or ask the GM about such as my Naruto Character Mitsuhide Senju. I won't go into detail in order to prevent possible spoilers for roleplays I have with him.

On the other hand I build characters like Harry Lancer or Galen Dracos whom both exist to just evolve as the story goes on. I'm not sure if that this is what is considered in what Prince is talking above but it's how I roll with things. My motto for the former character is this, "Destiny is predetermined but events can change it slightly." due to the one trigger that is going to turn the character into what he is supposed to be late term games. My motto for the latter is, "Just go with the flow." While they have their own strict personalities Galen and Harry would have simply adapted and gone with the roleplay as it happened they have no predetermined destination.

I believe you're on track, Vance. In essence, my belief is that if the fundamental difference between roleplay and writing is interaction, then no single individual should determine the fate of all characters. This is why I believe Moderators or GM's that believe their word is law or their final decisions are 'best' are often terrible. People are people, they make mistakes and everyone should have to throw in a little penance for it. If there is a loophole in some rules and it causes an issue, a one-time exception isn't going to kill a healthy roleplay. Plot-based stupidity is something I genuinely hate. Plot-invulnerability even more. Nothing should be set in stone. I believe this down to the point that I would, under the right circumstances, kill of a central antagonists if the situation called for it, despite it being far too early.

True enough I haven't gotten the chance to but normally I make my villains end game strong from the start to make sure they last that long but if by some miracle the players manage to get to him or her, unless absolutely it's going to end up ending the rp early, I let them die. In that case I'd pick an earlier villain increase them to major villain status and let that person take their place. However I do my best to keep my villains alive sometimes doing rather ridiculous things but in all fairness if they died well then the whole plot of the rp unravels and I can't continue. If someone wants to try to change something in my roleplays or wants to do something differently I at the very least try to consider it but most of the time it can't fit into what I have planned and I can't explain without ruining half the surprises I have in store about my roleplay.