I don't think I'm fond of the concept. I have a hard enough time finding RPs that catch my eye, and being forced to play a character I didn't conceive means it's likely not going to be one I feel invested in. I've played canon characters in 1x1 RPs due to partner requests, and I felt extremely confined the entire time. Having a pre-determined character murders player creativity and choice.
And let's say you have a game with rigid roles, what happens when someone playing an essential role drops? You just sabotaged your own RP. I've been in a few games where characters had to fill roles like a prophecy or whatever and as soon as the GM lost a few of these characters who were supernaturally selected to save the world, it completely derailed the entire RP's plot.
I treat games like no singular character is essential. Everyone can come and go and the plot remains intact, and all of the RPs I've been in that have been multi-year runs have involved highly involved players who went through an audition process and came up with some really incredible characters with a lot of emotional and personal investment. I can't imagine that same community forming from a game where the GM decided who everyone is before hand and players are forced to puppet the GM's husks.
Not really into the concept. I have done it in the past and it has worked but over all, not my favorite thing to do. Now having say a list of positions needed filled is one I do more often. Example: We need a pilot, engineer, doctor, etc. I will have to restrict allowing in certain genders from time to time if things become too lop sided. I try to keep a general over all population of no more than 40%/60% gender. Just don't want too much of one or the other to stay true to general population. Now, if it say a certain government type or religious fraction, it would sway over all more one way or another for various reasons but over all I like to stay as close to 50/50 down the line. (Might not seem like a big issue but I have had runs where we'd have like 12-15 females and like 2 men, lol. It's a bit unbelievable if you are trying to stick to a ~realistic scenario~ Used to get bad but for the most part these days I don't have to worry, my peeps are good at gender swapping.
My thoughts: Premade characters created by the GM are a major turnoff
Now however if there is one or two characters I really like I might overlook my distaste for it, more than likely I won't read the GM made characters at all.
Now however if there is one or two characters I really like I might overlook my distaste for it, more than likely I won't read the GM made characters at all.
uhhh... how would you like one or two characters in a roleplay full of pre-made ones if you're not gonna read the pre-made characters
Part of the appeal behind roleplaying is character creation. However, seeoing how many people end up spamming the forum with characters and following through on none of them, I can see the potential in this idea. I have no interest myself though.
Premade roles, themes, ideas on age, gender, and occupation, all of those I think are viable. I personally dislike the railroading of character development, but it is a simplistic and effective set of tools for GMs while giving sufficient player flexibility in creating their own works. There is more than enough potential to be vested in a character of your own creation with such guidelines, and for some GMs/roleplays, this is just outright necessary for things to function.
Now, premade characters I will not do for the same reason why I rarely, if ever, play canon characters from a particular 'verse. The main reason is investment. There's branches, but really, if I don't create the character and thus know every niche of the character's personality, then I don't actually care. A canon character was made with various inspirations and interpretations involved. I'm slightly more open to playing them, but unless I made the character have depth from a shallow base or interpreted the character from a wide enough baseline, it won't be the same. More rarely, I may believe I understand a canon character enough to present them in true form. That is the only case where I'm inspired enough to play a premade character in the same field as the sort that I think is being discussed in this thread.
But there are other issues I have; - I don't join roleplays to play your characters. Play your own characters, or write a book. The more you want to railroad a plot, the less likely I am to be interested. Lack of creative liberties in deciding who the character is I believe strays greatly into this territory. - Building on the above, the reason why I like some canon characters and no premade guild characters is because I've never seen a character on the guild beyond my own that I actually connect with. Additionally, a popular canon character is already rife with interpretations and media expansive enough for me to get the full image of who the character is, while a rando made for the sake of a guild roleplay I find lacks the background to truly invest in who the character is. - If a cast of premade characters is necessary for the GM to function, I'm not interested in the game, and I'm likely also skeptical of the GMs ability to hold a plot together as premade characters is a sure sign to me of a lack of improvisation skill (necessary to an extent when handling player-built characters I would think).
Then again, I don't play group games on the guild, nor am I likely to do so unless something particularly special catches my eye. My day of going out and joining group roleplays on the guild are dead, so take this as you will. I think I've already strayed too far from the ideal roleplayer anyways.
Part of the appeal behind roleplaying is character creation. However, seeoing how many people end up spamming the forum with characters and following through on none of them, I can see the potential in this idea. I have no interest myself though.
Nothing to do with the actual characters made (by GM or by player) and everything to do with the disease of 'I'm interested! next week, hangover glaze aaaah, shit, what did I do, I don't like this after all'
If anything, you can argue that making your own character adds a minuscule level of investment as compared to having the character built for you. But, as evident by most of RPG, that doesn't matter one bloody inkling.
<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>
@Mara you do know that does not mean every time right? You can figure it out from there. If not I guess you’ll just never know.
Try figuring this one. You state "Now however if there is one or two characters I really like I might overlook my distaste for it", indicating that you check without a definition of frequency, and then "more than likely I won't read the GM made characters at all."
A backwards system, wouldn't you say, when you check for characters you might really like - an open course where you're seeing what's up and then dismissing accordingly if it's boring garbage - but then say that usually you don't even give that benefit of the doubt in the first place. By that logic, most of the time you don't even check for the premade characters you may really like.
Just don't want too much of one or the other to stay true to general population.
I'd argue the general population is filled with imbalanced scenarios, so staying true is to in fact have a wide range of this happening across multiple roleplays. But I digress.
Now lets go to the next issue. The application process to roleplays. I think the primary reason why the fast majority of roleplays die within a few months is the total lack of any form of application process. GMs tend to focus entirely on their awesome story/plot ideas and world concepts but totally forget to think about what kind of players they want in their game. They almost always forget to ask themselfs that simple question and generally roll with whomever expresses their interests. The most likely outcome of the lack of application process is that a group of people with totally different expectations about the roleplay start a journey. In that journey many will find out that player A posts to frequently to keep up with, player B posts way too little and drags the roleplay, player C likes to write these 10 paragraph over 9000 words posts which player D responds to with a one-liner. Player E is totally into same-sex romance and he's constantly persueing player F's character much to his annoyance because he's totally not into that and just wants the plot to move forward. In the end for many players the roleplay does not live up to their expectations and they will lose interest and drop out. Eventually the roleplay dies and the GM will start a new one and will repeat the above process over and over again until he is lucky and by accident stumbles upon a group of players that are more or less on the same level. Or he will lose his confidence and just persue a carreer of writing mediocre fanfiction :)
In short, the GMs have a process, but the process itself is hollow when the GM fails to maintain his own standards when looking over characters.
It's a tempting hole, to simply accept people and look nice. To have the expectation that people will probably make characters that at least somewhat fit, and then expect them to work out in the end. And before you know it, your thread is dead... although that's dependent on many other factors too.
Related to this topic, ongoing roleplays could have auditions for characters who's players left them if things are far enough along and the character is important enough. This feels like a really good way to let new players join an RP with a character that is already integrated into the story. If they drop out, you're not stuck with extra dead wood. If they like it, one less person the GM has to unceremoniously remove.
Fun idea, and yet, I think the least hassle is a system where the roleplayers are 'modular'. In effect, they can be put into the game at relatively easy checkpoints, and they can be removed by simply encountering vague GM circumstances (fell sick, injured, sent on a subtask where they return SoonTM, etc). In effect, people can bring in their own characters through those checkpoints and make sense, and old characters by design can be phased out. I don't believe in roleplays where characters are so essential that the roleplay literally collapses in character without them (except for the GM, but if the GM is dead, you're buggered anyways).
I mean yeah I like the idea in principle but how would you go about making the selection process fair??
The same way any other process in roleplaying ever is made fair. In short: It isn't and it won't be, because it's up to the GM's judgement and quirks of logic and motivations always. You'll just have to trust that the GM can handle things appropriately, and if you can't, the roleplay probably won't go well in any case.
I've done this for the first time (well, half-done this) where I basically made players follow a certain theme for the team they'd be on in the IC. I can tell from the lessons I learned from that that this is something I will do in the future as well (and possible double down, pre-selecting themes I want to see and/or character types).
One thing I worry about is that, with certain niché RP's, you might force people a certain way that they don't want to go in and thus diminish the already small playerbase. Could be (easily) offset by just having smaller invite-only RP's, but people don't seem to like those.
If players can't set things aside a bit and follow a theme for an otherwise interesting roleplay, perhaps they weren't all that suitable in the first place. And if that results in a diminished playerbase to the extent the game won't run, perhaps you can take assurance in the hypothetical idea that caving in and accepting people who fail to match the roleplay's themes would just result in a game dead by page 2 anyways.
And as for people not liking invite-only roleplays, who gives a damn? I'm curious who legitimately dislikes those. By definition, they don't even concern others.
For a GM this is a delight. You can create characters types and roles that need to be filled and simply let others work within a boundary to sell the character right and boom you've got a coherently directed story. But for the player you'd have to be down for seeing the story and characters the GM is making come to life without intruding beyond the subtle actions and turns the characters can make.
I find this is an absurdly easy slope towards railroading people so you just present your own story. And that, I believe, is the counterthesis of roleplaying. Why don't you (the hypothetical GM, mind you) just write a book if you're making characters fill things and expect them to do things in exact ways that prod along the one plotline you're trying to make? If you cannot be flexible in that sense, I could not call you a good roleplayer. Perhaps some can walk the line, but it is a line easily and frequently crossed.
I think it's a neat idea. Though it might seem a tad controlling to some players, others, like me, look at it like answering a casting call. I mean, in essence, we do audition for RPs with our own characters, so these seem like the reverse of that. Instead of us auditioning with our characters for the RP, we are auditioning our writing skillset for characters/roles already made for us. That, in itself, is highly interesting to me.
I considered doing it myself for one of the games I have GM'd in the past. Maybe I'll do it in a future one.
As an idea that purely explores the concepts of players fitting into character shoes, I'd say this is viable. As a normal thing across the guild, it doesn't just seem a tad controlling, it usually is. Assuming we are specifically talking about premade characters, as roles and themes leave quite a bit of creative leeway.
I hope you didn't just sit there and read through my entire wall. Save your eyes
Try figuring this one. You state "Now however if there is one or two characters I really like I might overlook my distaste for it", indicating that you check without a definition of frequency, and then "more than likely I won't read the GM made characters at all."
A backwards system, wouldn't you say, when you check for characters you might really like - an open course where you're seeing what's up and then dismissing accordingly if it's boring garbage - but then say that usually you don't even give that benefit of the doubt in the first place. By that logic, most of the time you don't even check for the premade characters you may really like.
You are assuming things are read in the order you say. Now try the intelligent way.
Read the plot summary. Find premade characters. Decide if the plot is worth it. If the plot is worth it, read the characters.
If anything, you can argue that making your own character adds a minuscule level of investment as compared to having the character built for you.
Although I agree that this site is plagued by players with inadequate attention spans, I don't see how you came to this conclusion in particular...
Now, premade characters I will not do for the same reason why I rarely, if ever, play canon characters from a particular 'verse. The main reason is investment. There's branches, but really, if I don't create the character and thus know every niche of the character's personality, then I don't actually care.
After saying this, not a moment earlier.
It was this potential I had mentioned though; I do believe that if players join an RP while knowing they are limited to a specific set of characters to chose from, it's likely they may end up more invested. This idea assumes that people enjoy the act of role playing, more than the act of creating characters. Creating a character, when contrasted with actually acting that character out over a long period of time, is something easy and enjoyable that people can do. I would say that a great deal of people on this site enjoy creating characters much more than actually fleshing them out, or playing as them for long period of time.
I assert that it's for this reason - Character creation is fun and easy - that there's an endemic of people losing interest forum wide. The characters they create may be the only things that they're invested in, even if they're usually inspired by a particular RP. But since they have no hand in the functions of the universe they're role-playing in, they're far more likely to bail.
Now this might sound selfish...But that's because it is.
This is also why 1x1's are so successful. They're more often than not, a collaborative effort in both character creation, and world-building. This is also why the idea of predetermined characters has some merit, as it retroactively weeds out those people who aren't actually all that interested in role playing, but rather, character creation.
It's also worthy to note that Roleplaying and Writing are NOT mutually inclusive. Some people enjoy Writing more than they do Playing a Role.
You are assuming things are read in the order you say. Now try the intelligent way.
Read the plot summary. Find premade characters. Decide if the plot is worth it. If the plot is worth it, read the characters.
If you want to talk about the intelligent way, convey yourself better in the first place.
It was this potential I had mentioned though; I do believe that if players join an RP while knowing they are limited to a specific set of characters to chose from, it's likely they may end up more invested. This idea assumes that people enjoy the act of role playing, more than the act of creating characters. Creating a character, when contrasted with actually acting that character out over a long period of time, is something easy and enjoyable that people can do. I would say that a great deal of people on this site enjoy creating characters much more than actually fleshing them out, or playing as them for long period of time.
Fundamentally, I think a discussion on this point will merely end at us agreeing to disagree on the merits of character sheets/building characters as a means of getting the muster of a player before the actual gameplay. At that point, an argument could easily be made that effectiveness boils down to the individuals involved, and from there the topic could only continue by discussing what course seems more likely to result in success over the other. I'll try and avoid that outcome and say that the act of creating a character, for me, is fundamentally built into the act of roleplaying. By having a character built that I can invest in, a character that I'm intimately familiar with as compared to a character where expectations of presentation are hoisted on me, I'm better able to do the act of actually conveying thoughts and proceeding with a story. But that - and indeed, the second part of what you quoted - is how I worked. The rest of the matter is me trying to project my experiences into getting a gist of how people in general work.
At a simplistic level, the first statement you quoted was my assumption that people will be more likely to invest in a roleplay by actually making something for it as compared to a 'pick up and go' which leaves players with virtually no background investment and thus little reason to think twice about going away. This changes by person, of course, but in my experience it is more likely for someone to stay if they do something that involves investment - in this case, making a character sheet - than if they simply do not play a part in the initial creation process. It's why I consider drop-in the most turbulant form of roleplaying as compared to something where you apply or otherwise prove yourself to enter. At the GM level, I think it actually helps vetting when a GM has a very basic idea of what the applicant is capable of at the design level as compared to someone just saying 'I want this character' and no other safeguards are put in place to indicate they can properly present the character.
You could circumvent this and say that perhaps a writing prompt, some piece of practical in character roleplay, would help. I would agree if that was your case. I'd follow by saying that it would still miss something at the design level, as I believe the sort of character people submit is telling for the person's intentions. It isn't foolproof, and sometimes it's totally inaccurate, but in light of no perfect solution to the vetting problem beyond finding people who you trust and just making a private group with them (I'm partial to that these days anyways), I figure you have to settle at something. Apologies for going on a GM tangent to all this.
I assert that it's for this reason - Character creation is fun and easy - that there's an endemic of people losing interest forum wide. The characters they create may be the only things that they're invested in, even if they're usually inspired by a particular RP. But since they have no hand in the functions of the universe they're role-playing in, they're far more likely to bail.
Now this might sound selfish...But that's because it is.
Character creation is only as fun and easy as you make it. I make it into a form of work by theorizing too long about how a character works. Some casually spend time thinking about what their character will do. Others are totally lazy arses that rip off a character that looked good in another thread. There's many ways to approach character creation in that sense.
Having prebuilt characters I do not see as a viable counter to the idea of making one's own characters in the context of what you're arguing. A character already built for you is even less investment than being obliged to make some sort of character in the first place.
At the end of the quoted paragraph, you mention having a hand in the 'verse being roleplayed in. I think that is honestly another discussion, but I'll word vomit on that point anyways. I think a hand in how the roleplay works is perfectly viable, and I think giving players an opportunity to contribute to that is a good way to stir up investment. I'd also say it's not really relevant to the issue of characters being built beyond players vs characters being built by GMs, beyond me saying - if players are given a hand in the creation of the roleplay's dymanics, why suddenly move to GM made characters instead of making your character on top of other things you've contributed to the roleplay?
This is also why 1x1's are so successful. They're more often than not, a collaborative effort in both character creation, and world-building. This is also why the idea of predetermined characters has some merit, as it retroactively weeds out those people who aren't actually all that interested in role playing, but rather, character creation.
You have me until the line about predetermined characters. I cannot connect how players are given vested interest in the character creation (ideally, the player proposes a character concept, and the partner says 'yeah, this looks cool, but I'd say this') and worldbuilding process, and then you saying predetermined characters having merit. Predetermined by who in 1x1s, exactly? And to what extent are we predetermining the characters, and not just their roles (ex, "we should play a knight and a princess because they fit this plot, the princess is a queen bitch and the knight is a gruff guy who's there to tame her"). In the example I quoted, I think you'd move beyond premade characters and instead go into premade roles. It stretches into personality, which I don't like to predefine, but at such general levels I do think it's fine. I don't see where a partner would take jurisdiction of both sets of characters played in a game and end up deciding more than that for both of the players, at which point it really does become an effort where predetermined characters are a thing.
On the matter of roleplaying vs character creation, I'll try to be short and just say this - character creation can be as simple as providing an outline of what you want to do, and then sticking to it. I don't believe that takes a great deal of investment, and I think there's a problem if a roleplayer is unable to do that much.
It's also worthy to note that Roleplaying and Writing are NOT mutually inclusive. Some people enjoy Writing more than they do Playing a Role.
Certainly, but neither are they mutually exclusive. It is a matter of balance. One who specializes in A should have a broad knowledge of B. a Roleplayer should be able to Write well enough to convey his creative concepts as far as a character goes. Again, this doesn't need to be complicated. To go on a bit of a tangent, a Writer should be able to Roleplay, just a bit, so that the characters are less obviously the construct of the same person with the same personality, and thus look like they're just the same thing bouncing off each other in an echo chamber.
If you want to talk about the intelligent way, convey yourself better in the first place.
Or people could use their brain for critical thinking instead of being dependent on having every little detail given to them like free samples of crack.
Fun idea, and yet, I think the least hassle is a system where the roleplayers are 'modular'. In effect, they can be put into the game at relatively easy checkpoints, and they can be removed by simply encountering vague GM circumstances (fell sick, injured, sent on a subtask where they return SoonTM, etc). In effect, people can bring in their own characters through those checkpoints and make sense, and old characters by design can be phased out. I don't believe in roleplays where characters are so essential that the roleplay literally collapses in character without them (except for the GM, but if the GM is dead, you're buggered anyways).
Yeaaaaaa no.
In your first few paragraphs, you said yourself that you don't like playing other people's characters because there wasn't enough material to work with. If an RP is half over, you can't possibly expect anyone to care as much about the new guy as they do the character who's ceased activity a month ago into a year-running RP. Sure, the easy thing to do is to fade out characters with a generic death, generic get sick, generic dismemberment, what have you. But it's never that interesting. Because most of the time it's predictable.
That type of treatment can be done well, but I've found it's more interesting if I take control of the characters for a while. Sometimes they die right away, or sometimes they live until the end of the RP. the players don't roll their eyes every time an imminent ailment/death/quest splits up the party. And if I'm going to control them, why not let someone else do it?
Also, the really cool thing about characters is that they can change. Is the character too cheerful? The loss of a friend or a horrific accident can change them. Is a character too edgy for your liking? Try to reverse engineer that attitude by making them fall in love or otherwise replacing what was lost.
I don't run RPs to be hassle free, I run them to create memorable experiences.
<Snipped quote by ArenaSnow>Or people could use their brain for critical thinking instead of being dependent on having every little detail given to them like free samples of crack.
Once more into the loop. Or you could just cut the crud and articulate yourself properly without leaving room for people to easily misinterpret a bad sentence, and if you do it anyways, have a slightly less bitchy attitude about it.
Yeaaaaaa no.
In your first few paragraphs, you said yourself that you don't like playing other people's characters because there wasn't enough material to work with. If an RP is half over, you can't possibly expect anyone to care as much about the new guy as they do the character who's ceased activity a month ago into a year-running RP. Sure, the easy thing to do is to fade out characters with a generic death, generic get sick, generic dismemberment, what have you. But it's never that interesting. Because most of the time it's predictable.
That type of treatment can be done well, but I've found it's more interesting if I take control of the characters for a while. Sometimes they die right away, or sometimes they live until the end of the RP. the players don't roll their eyes every time an imminent ailment/death/quest splits up the party. And if I'm going to control them, why not let someone else do it?
Also, the really cool thing about characters is that they can change. Is the character too cheerful? The loss of a friend or a horrific accident can change them. Is a character too edgy for your liking? Try to reverse engineer that attitude by making them fall in love or otherwise replacing what was lost.
I don't run RPs to be hassle free, I run them to create memorable experiences.
I can only throw opinions, and if that system works better for you, roam free. There are easily argued merits for either way you slice it that boil to preference in the end.
But I would contend that you'd need to put a good bit more effort into doing your way properly than having a roleplay conductive to easy ins and easy outs in the first place. If you can put that kind of investment in, and not see the game crash from logical errors, then more power to ya.
Having prebuilt characters I do not see as a viable counter to the idea of making one's own characters in the context of what you're arguing.
I think you've misunderstood a great deal of what I'm arguing, and what I merely believe to be possibilities. Possibilities which, to be perfectly clear, I don't identify with, as evident by my earlier commentary. It may be unclear, but the only argument I've put forward thus far is:
I assert that it's for this reason - Character creation is fun and easy - that there's an endemic of people losing interest forum wide.
To which your response has been, by-in-large, anecdotal. Which, if we're to treat this as a legitimate argument, and not a general discussion, makes all of our current points moot. The majority of your responses have been anecdotal, in actuality, as have most of my own comments.
If there's any argument to be had here, it would reference contention on the point that I've quoted above. Although I've offered a fairly general anecdotal argument myself to begin with,
P1. Character creation is fun/fulfilling; P2. Creating a character sheet is less difficult than creating multiple posts; C1 ∴Character creation is relatively easy P3. There are a myriad of examples on this website where people put a great deal of effort into their sheets, but drop out of role plays regardless; P4. Lazier individuals are more prone to taking on easier tasks; P5. Humans are generally self-serving P6. There are hundreds of failed roleplays, but thousands of completed character sheets; C2 ∴ Writers on this site are likely to be more invested in content that they create, than they are in content that others have created; C3 ∴ Once an individual has completed the easiest self-invested task required to enter a role-play, further investment is not related to the initial character creation. P7. Without further investment, people will abandon RPs. C4 ∴ Due to the ease of character creation, and the comparative difficulty of writing posts consistently, players are more likely to create a plethora of characters, rather than remain dedicated to a single RP.
Now, from here, there are several points of contention.
If you agree with premises 1 & 2, as they are subjective, then you cannot realistically disagree with conclusion 1. The closest point of contention here, is what scope 'relatively' involves. This however, argues nothing but semantics. If we can agree that 'relatively' refers to the comparison between creating a character, and posting regularly with that character, we can move on from here. If not, then further premises are required to support the first conclusion.
No in regards to premise 3, my sample size is in fact, anecdotal and unclear. Unless I were to scan the entire forum, and bring up multiple citations, you can't take this statement at face value. However, if we can both agree that it is common for players to put effort into characters, and bail on role plays despite this, then I believe that's enough support to affirm this premise.
Premises 4, 5 & 6 are just statements of fact.
The second conclusion may be a major point of contention despite the dependent clauses offering a fair amount of support. This is where the discussion should be complicated, otherwise we'll just end up breaking off into uncoordinated tangents.
Conclusion 3 is, again, fully supported, I feel.
Premise 7 seems factual, but some people remain dedicated, even without investment. Still, I feel they are outliers.
Conclusion 4 is essentially my argument, in a nutshell.
Certainly, but neither are they mutually exclusive.
Two things cannot be mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive at the same time. Unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology, which I'm fairly sure isn't the case, this seems redundant.
Whoops, I'm wrong. I don't know why, but I'm often confused by mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive events, which is silly because they're fairly simple concepts.
While I do agree that being able to act as a writer, and write as an actor, are both very good assets, they are not necessary to perpetuate one another. Some people are better at writing than others simply because they understand the science of language and literature to a greater degree than others, and the same goes for those who act/role play. I can assert myself that having experience in both fields does not automatically translate to improved results. It depends on the individual.
The variance from person to person is exactly why I think the concept of pre-made characters has potential, in theory. I cannot possibly account for everyone who isn't me, so I don't. But, I also don't take that variance into account as a tool for argumentation, because it is worthless as evidence.
I think you'd move beyond premade characters and instead go into premade roles.
In regards to 1x1s in particular, I think that the similarity between pre-made characters and pre-made roles could act as support if structured in an argument for the effectiveness of pre-made characters.
Ah, I'm sorry for disregarding a great deal of your post. I feel that most of it was based on misconceptions of my beliefs, which is why I chose to clarify rather than address your individual points.
I think you've misunderstood a great deal of what I'm arguing, and what I merely believe to be possibilities. Possibilities which, to be perfectly clear, I don't identify with, as evident by my earlier commentary.
Then that is fine. I tried to cover as many bases as possible and didn't expect all or most of the comments to be applicable. Pick what makes sense, base the conversation around that and we'll be on our way to a decent conclusion.
To which your response has been, by-in-large, anecdotal. Which, if we're to treat this as a legitimate argument, and not a general discussion, makes all of our current points moot. The majority of your responses have been anecdotal, in actuality, as have most of my own comments.
And this is why I expect we'll end up at an agree to disagree point. Our experiences clearly differ. What we see and expect clearly differ. Without detailing every anecdote that we can possibly concieve, I don't think that can be reconciled in the end. It would be nice to get something established, but for this reason that you mention, I think we're just throwing out words because we've little better to do. And hey, that's fine too.
If there's any argument to be had here, it would reference contention on the point that I've quoted above. Although I've offered a fairly general anecdotal argument myself to begin with,
P1. Character creation is fun/fulfilling; P2. Creating a character sheet is less difficult than creating multiple posts; C1 ∴Character creation is relatively easy P3. There are a myriad of examples on this website where people put a great deal of effort into their sheets, but drop out of role plays regardless; P4. Lazier individuals are more prone to taking on easier tasks; P5. Humans are generally self-serving P6. There are hundreds of failed roleplays, but thousands of completed character sheets; C2 ∴ Writers on this site are likely to be more invested in content that they create, than they are in content that others have created; C3 ∴ Once an individual has completed the easiest self-invested task required to enter a role-play, further investment is not related to the initial character creation. P7. Without further investment, people will abandon RPs. C4 ∴ Due to the ease of character creation, and the comparative difficulty of writing posts consistently, players are more likely to create a plethora of characters, rather than remain dedicated to a single RP.
Now, from here, there are several points of contention.
If you agree with premises 1 & 2, as they are subjective, then you cannot realistically disagree with conclusion 1. The closest point of contention here, is what scope 'relatively' involves. This however, argues nothing but semantics. If we can agree that 'relatively' refers to the comparison between creating a character, and posting regularly with that character, we can move on from here. If not, then further premises are required to support the first conclusion.
No in regards to premise 3, my sample size is in fact, anecdotal and unclear. Unless I were to scan the entire forum, and bring up multiple citations, you can't take this statement at face value. However, if we can both agree that it is common for players to put effort into characters, and bail on role plays despite this, then I believe that's enough support to affirm this premise.
Premises 4, 5 & 6 are just statements of fact.
The second conclusion may be a major point of contention despite the dependent clauses offering a fair amount of support. This is where the discussion should be complicated, otherwise we'll just end up breaking off into uncoordinated tangents.
Conclusion 3 is, again, fully supported, I feel.
Premise 7 seems factual, but some people remain dedicated, even without investment. Still, I feel they are outliers.
Conclusion 4 is essentially my argument, in a nutshell.
Ah, the meat of the argument.
1 and 2 I can agree with in many circumstances, but not all. It's not always particularly fulfilling or fun, but it is more often than not. The effort in a CS can exceed the effort of multiple posts, but that depends on the roleplay and circumstances. For the sake of argument, I'll slap an easy 'yes' on both, and simply speak for myself to say that I consider character creation relatively easy.
P3 I'll attribute an easy 'sure', as it fits my experience as well. Note that at this stage, I think it's simplifying a large issue into a funnel. A huge part of the funnel that I think is missing is the element of interest. I make no argument that a minimal investment is a sure chance of success in a roleplay. I only consider it a small modifier that can result in more success than games that simply provide characters for you. There are no stats to back me up on this, and you'd probably disagree, so if that's where it ends, then I guess that is where this conversation can end. Otherwise, I'll move on, and say that I think what the true killer of roleplays is not preliminary investment, but in longer term interest. Simply put, I believe people join many roleplays, actually invest in few of them, realize that life catches up or that they have a new whim next week, and go off to pursue that thing.
In other words, I think people are just flat out whimsical when joining roleplays. That is the core reason I attribute to game failure. I believe that investment is partially an issue that can more often than not be remedied by people actually making something, but I also believe it's a small bean compared to the above. Moving on, P4, P5, P6 are obvious.
C2, in fact, I feel to be a perfectly reasonable and completely evident conclusion. It's exactly why I think making characters yourself is more viable of an investment than filling shoes already made for you. We have a huge logical breach between us somewhere if this semi-paragraph doesn't fit together.
C3 is reasonable, and yet, this is where I introduce the concept of lingering investment. It clearly doesn't work with everyone, and it is easily dismantled by interest apathy later on (as per the above), but I believe it is a small factor that is better present than not. There is not a need or a logical grounds for further investment here - it's just based on my own style of thinking that once you do something for something, it's a shame to simply leave it unused. If you make something, without using it, would there not be a sense of wasted time resulting from that investment actually going nowhere?
P7 is fair, except I don't think it's just about investment, it's also about interest in the core concepts involved, and ideally some sort of motivation to keep posting, be that momentum from the first posts (quite reliable at the start, until it starts to die because there's no push from anyone to keep it going and things slow to nothing) and/or activity OOC where people are given semi-frequent reminders that yes, the roleplay does exist - which, hopefully, might just tie into the idea of lingering investment that I mentioned above. The idea that you made something to do something, and you might as well continue. Of course not everyone will subscribe to it. I like to think in my own games, I try to avoid the people that totally dismiss it.
Despite ^, I do fully support C4. Interest burns red hot throughout the character creation stage most of the time. It often carries through the first page of posting. And then the momentum simply vanishes. Not all roleplays die right after character creation, by any means. They often die later, or at different points, when collective interest is lost from lack of motivation. So yes, there is a high chance of characters being created, and there is a low chance of lingering dedication. For the sake of continuing with your format, I will introduce P8, P9, and P10, which go towards C4, and my logic for treating investment as a small variable that is not disproved by the fact that roleplays fail despite it. By itself, it will assuredly fall. But that does not mean it can't help, and if I'm being bold, can't help more often than not. P8: Player motivation is built on the obligation to continue (getting a ping, GM poking you, OOC chatter to jog your memory). It is slightly dependent on investment to keep it fueled, but in far greater part, it depends on interest. P9: Interest, what I believe to be the most critical piece of roleplay success and failure, is something that is easily gained and easily lost. It is only reliable after reflecting for a while and making a thought out decision if you really want to do something in the long term (not a decision you can reasonably make on day 1, in my opinion). If such reflection isn't done (from what I see? It almost literally never is) then the interest is frequently proven to burn out, and the resulting lack of interest (the thing that built the roleplay's core in the first place) makes the rest of the variables collapse like a house of cards. P10: Lingering investment, which I just brought up. It's situational to be sure, not everyone has it (and again, I try to avoid those that simply don't, because I think that makes people less dependable in general). Alongside motivation, it's the idea that you've just done something, and so you should ideally see it to the end. It's a very small factor, sure, but I think it's a relevant one to keep in mind.
Going back to the source argument, I think actually making a character results in a little bit of those minor factors being indulged (if interest is catered to as well is another thing entirely and so subjective that we probably shouldn't go there). Does the roleplay hinge on them? Not really. Can they help? I think so. Character sheets clearly don't determine if a roleplay can live or die, but if you play your cards right, I think they're a small bonus to a long journey as compared to having prebuilt characters that end up lacking in those little boosts. You could argue not having to write more is a boost of its own kind, but I'm going to abandon the pretense of good argument and just say that I don't like that kind of boost and I'd prefer not to indulge it in the first place.
Two things cannot be mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive at the same time. Unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology, which I'm fairly sure isn't the case, this seems redundant.
The main point I'm trying to drive at is that saying 'it's not mutually inclusive' is frivolous. I don't believe it's exclusive. You don't think it's inclusive. Ultimately, I think it sits in the middle. It's simply an element to consider.
While I do agree that being able to act as a writer, and write as an actor, are both very good assets, they are not necessary to perpetuate one another. Some people are better at writing than others simply because they understand the science of language and literature to a greater degree than others, and the same goes for those who act/role play. I can assert myself that having experience in both fields does not automatically translate to improved results. It depends on the individual.
It certainly does depend on the individual, but I find that having a minimal basis in acting as a writer for the sake of presenting information (your character) is an important baseline. If for nobody else, it is a baseline for me (although I personally do not demand character sheets from partners). Anything further than that I don't consider particularly relevant here.
The variance from person to person is exactly why I think the concept of pre-made characters has potential, in theory. I cannot possibly account for everyone who isn't me, so I don't. But, I also don't take that variance into account as a tool for argumentation, because it is worthless as evidence.
We'll have to digress. I am equally convinced that making your own character is something achievable in such a great number of people, with little cost and some benefit I've seen over time, is a boon over having a character just presented to you for you to fit into its shoes.
In regards to 1x1s in particular, I think that the similarity between pre-made characters and pre-made roles could act as support if structured in an argument for the effectiveness of pre-made characters.
I draw a line; a role is a guideline for creating a character, and a useful one at that. Once you actually make characters instead of roles to build characters into, the core of my argument comes into play at a personal level and what I perceive to be the case elsewhere.
Ah, I'm sorry for disregarding a great deal of your post. I feel that most of it was based on misconceptions of my beliefs, which is why I chose to clarify rather than address your individual points.
You disregarded irrelevant content. There's hardly an issue with doing that.
Apologies if I missed something you've corrected, just looked back in and saw you edited after I started typing. If that makes my reply to the point unnecessary, just toss it out.
I haven't read any of this besides the OP, so my post is in response to only that.
This 'pre-made/pre-determined role' thing is bullshit. I've seen it most often in casual or free RPs where the creator requires folks to play accomplices to their oh-so-special GM character. I don't see the appeal of throwing away my own creativity or player agency to be forcefed a role to prop up someone else.
Any character in one of these pre-made roles is better served by an NPC. Even then, these ought to be narrative stories and not roleplays, because chances are the creator has a very specific plan for these characters to follow. Just write your damn story on your own instead of trying to make people play your characters.
Your fine with enforcing a setting or rough idea like a male Knight, older male charceter, or other small hints to keep direction and tone.
But other than the base points. How they want to shape that idea is up to the player. You can maybe set a charecetistic or so you want, or range of those, fitting setting etc. But after that nope.
Ie.
A female lady/princess , unmarried, youngish. Grew up mostly within thr Palace.
Now plenty of room. Detailed. Ideal for a set story advanced or 1x1
A female charceter. Younger x older male chacetwcer. Some hidden aspect to past.
More vague. It's just a sketch of thr aim. There's restrictions but there not strict.
Not a set charceter, they just in that case may have to play a role. How and what they bring to it is there own.
