Quite a simple question but there's been times when every one of us have noticed a part of a roleplay that has been neglected and forgotten. From the premise of a motivational plot to character sheet where sections are never used; what aspects of a roleplay do you feel that players and GMs forget the most?

Obligatory dedication comment goes here.

Joining and posting with the intent to move past 5 IC posts.

Joining and posting with the intent to move past 5 IC posts.

...Or it can go here too.

Oh, far too many to name...

...but I'll name a few.

@BrokenPromise Agree with all of that. (Minus the blood contract, but that's totally how I gather souls. So of course I have to disagree on that one.)

@BrokenPromise hit some good beats. Here are some more:

1. It's the GM's story, not yours. You can participate in it as it is, or you can make suggestions to the GM in the hopes that he'll change something. Or you can leave. He doesn't owe you anything, so don't be mad if your attempts at backseat-GMing aren't well-received.

2. A GM can kick you anytime he likes. He doesn't need a reason (although he probably has a pretty good one anyway). If it's clear you're unwelcome in a thread, take the hint. Arguing, flaming, or trolling will only prove him right about you.

3. The GM's job is to draw the blueprints, not to singlehandedly build the house. If you're not willing to actively participate in designing the plot, if you're "just along for the ride," if you and your character offer nothing to the group dynamic, then don't sign up. First it's a sign that you'll get bored easily and quit sooner than the other players (since you have no emotional investment in the story), and second, the story will be fucked when the GM is gone due to vacations or sickness or whatever, because none of the thread's player-base will have the chops to keep it running until he returns.

4. Embrace spontaneity and change. The character who either never grows and matures at all, or who does so according to a pre-written script, is just as damaging to an RP as a GM who "railroads," forcing the plot in the direction he likes because improvisation is haaard.

5. And here's one for my fellow GMs, for fairness's sake: the incentive you give to a player to read your thread is called a "hook." The hook begins with the title, and it ends with the introductory paragraph. If I know what your RP is about just from reading the title, you have failed to create an intriguing and engaging hook, and doubly so if, when writing a genre piece (Western, Sci Fi, Horror,...), you have done nothing to add anything interesting to the genre. We know all the tropes by now. Dare to be daring.

I might have to comment on one thing in particular, as otherwise the majority of my comments are said by @BrokenPromise and it relates explicitly to how collaborative posts are done. The remark is simple, but it is the absolute root of my own disdain for it because while it is a good tool for character and plot development, I seldom see it employed correctly; I still have not in my three plus years here. So, without further delay, the one addition I have to make.

If you are going to do a collaborative post, do not make it all about you and whoever else is involved. Removing the opportunity to engage, involve, act or react by non-participants is not fun; not everyone wants to passively read your joint, multiple page essay that denies their involvement. That is just as bad as assuming control of their character, because by proxy your prevention of their actions is control. Having the metaphorical door closed on the opportunity and ability to interrupt or reply becomes tiresome.

I might have to comment on one thing in particular, as otherwise the majority of my comments are said by @BrokenPromise and it relates explicitly to how collaborative posts are done. The remark is simple, but it is the absolute root of my own disdain for it because while it is a good tool for character and plot development, I seldom see it employed correctly; I still have not in my three plus years here. So, without further delay, the one addition I have to make.

<Snipped quote>

One thing I suggest on collab posts is to solely use them when no one else could potentially join in the conversation. For example, an RP that takes place in a setting of an entire city. You call up a friend and go to an ice cream parlor. The likelihood that someone else would magically go to the same parlor is fairly low, unless it is an already-set location in the RP. In the stated case, the conversation does not unfairly omit anyone from the conversation.

An example of a bad time for a collab post: Everyone is gathered together for a party (or after a battle in tabletop style games). You decide that your friend and you will have a conversation together when there are six other people within earshot. Sometimes these conversations are about other people who could overhear, and sometimes they lead to the pair leaving the area for privacy and not allowing for someone to have the opportunity to tag along.

In my opinion, collab posts can be extremely rewarding in RPs of any sort. I have seen them used almost exclusively in an RP where everyone was okay with the method. Collab posts limit short responses that do little more mechanically than respond to someone else's direct question. If two people have a specific conversation, especially outside of earshot from anyone else, it makes perfect sense for them to work on a post in tandem rather than write a dozen individual posts for the same content (or be cut off because others get annoyed with the dozen posts, and they are asked to cease). But, as Broken Promise mentioned, they are a tool and can be easily abused.

@JBRam2002, I actually argue for the dozen some-odd posts provided they still have useful content, are appropriate in forwarding the character or story's plot, and are of reasonable length. If they are rapid, short and to the point that they could make up one reasonably long post, that I would take more issue with; a collaborative project would work best there. The reason I say this in whole as I do is because activity on a topic is an enormous uphill battle. You not only need a proactive Game Master who keeps the plot moving and interacts with small details, in-character and out-of-character, but a cast of participants who are willing to be active and also are active.

You are right about the scenarios when they should be employed; a scenario wherein no one else has reasonable ground for interruption, there's not much issue to be had. In an environment where there are multiple participants who are in some proximity, or have the likelihood of walking in on the conversation or event, that is where it should be avoided.

I have still yet to see them done well with any frequency.

I'll admit that I don't go around looking at other RPs very much. But some of the best writing I've ever seen in an RP came from a collab. I have yet to see a really bad collab post. I have yet to see one that limits interaction. There's almost always some form of plot advancement, be it characters becoming closer/further apart or some type of reveal.

Do they always involve the other characters? No, but very few solo posts do this either. In my ten plus years of collaborative writing (most of which was not here), I have seen very few bad collaborations. The ones that were bad usually took too long to write and were no longer relevant, or the characters didn't really have anything worthwhile to discuss. The problem was never the collab, but the planning of its execution.

Collabs are definitely a tricky subject, one that probably deserves its own topic. My goal here was just to take collabs back to basics. They are a tool. Not a cure all, but certainly not a poison.

...now I want to make a guide for the site on how to properly collab.

Any cure improperly administered could be as deadly as a poison, @BrokenPromise.

Having multiple posts, with opportunities to respond by others in between, is going to result in a natural mechanism that is denied by the nature of collaborative posts. For example, if you are in a roleplay with five other members and two decide to constantly post together as one unit, it is hard to edge in word with just one, especially if they keep spinning off into their own focuses between them rather than opening up the inclusion. To put out an incomplete dialogue, one requiring a response by another player, gives that delay an opportunity to be broken into or stopped. Without it, a character who needs to or wants to intervene or participate has to wedge themselves in retroactively, which of course feels rightfully artificial.

As someone who has nothing but bad experiences with collaborative posters, as in those who have it as their preferred means of roleplaying, they tend to boil down to this. First the two, sometimes three, characters become obsessed with themselves and each other, often ignoring even comment or reaction to the rest of the party at hand; their posts focusing on those who are involved rather than those not and devolving into cliquish tropes. Second, they tend to write - not just a bit, but a lot, with a majority of it being fluff. When I say fluff, what does that mean to me and what is it exactly? It was almost consistently unrelated dialogue exclusive to the participants where no one else could get a word in edgewise. We legitimately were forced to sit through every one of their long speaking and interaction events like some unskippable cutscene that videogames get so lambasted for when they do it. The end result was, "They had a conversation with and about each other for what amounted to at least a couple of minutes while our characters were forced to stand there as we could not legitimately interrupt them."

Third, it was not fun or active, as it slowed the topic down. You now have a wall of text, usually with colored dialogue but that's another matter altogether, that you have to try and read through so you do not miss anything. What separates it from two or more separate posts is that each is an independent, encapsulated timepiece of sorts. There's a delay between each and tends to remarkably show subtle differences and variations. No less, if they are in the midst of dialogue, the posts tend to be shorter, making them more rapid in succession and giving the feeling of a more lively roleplay by constantly requiring responses and reading. It is more dynamic and alive.

Again, not all collaboratives are bad, just that I have not see them executed well on the Guild.

I get the feeling that the big collab discussion deserves it's own thread rather than this one.

I get the feeling that the big collab discussion deserves it's own thread rather than this one.

Meh, I don't really think that will be necessary. @The Harbinger of Ferocity and I were just expressing our view on the subject, and I think we're done with that now. I could go on to mention all the things that come up when you have these big 5-15 character groups in earshot of each other posting one at a time, but that's more the fault of the dynamic of the situation than it is trying to solo post it out. If I have something else to say, I'll save it for my guide.

Anyway, some more basics...