My point was that role playing and writing are two different things, and should be acknowledged as such.
Finally Tex says something I can agree with.
<Snipped quote by Odin>
No. I think that - "I would include any post that overuses fluff for no mechanical purpose, posts that dump piles of pace-breaking exposition, and posts that break 3000-4000 words."
So disregarding that bad writing = long posts, which makes no sense to me but I guess falls under the misnomer of 'too long,' 3000-4000 posts could accurately describe a post as 'long' without inherently having a value judgement attached to them. I'd say that that is an accurate cut-off point, but I'm not sure since I rarely go around measuring wordcount.
The primary appeal of shorter, or more concise posts, is to allow more prompt and effective reaction from other players.
Fair. But I have had no problems doing this even with longer or drawn out posts -- in fact, the greatest measure I've been able to do this in was in longer posts. I think this comes down to 'writing style' more than just length, but I'm not sure.
For example, if one of your characters goes on a 30 second spiel about how much they love oven mitts, I cannot assume that a chatty character who likes to butt into other people's conversations wouldn't cut them off 15 seconds in. While there's always a margin for error and control here, it's these moments of 'what if' that should be taken into consideration by all parties.
There are ways to do this effectively -- atleast, there are ways in which
I do this effectively -- beyond having shorter posts, though. Besides, when I am writing my character, I want to play their role, and so I want them to be able to say what they have to say.
Another example: If a post describes somebody running 15 KMs, and then describes what they're doing by the time they reach the end of that route, what happens if another character intercepts them half-way? Does half of the post get invalidated?
Depends on the GM. Short answer, if I were the GM, and the interception was reasonable (i.e. no free roleplay style interceptions because heuheu randum xD reasoning) then yes, it gets invalidated, assuming that the other person is OK with it. Collaborative writing, and all.
Were other characters simply not allowed to interact with this character because 'too bad I don't want to'?
Yes,
but at that point I'd probably kick the person who doesn't want to interact with the others because I don't want people playing in their own corner of the world in my roleplay, no matter whether it's free, casual, or advanced.
Why would it be acceptable to put such a broad seal on a character's ability to interfere with another? It's these huge leaps that make it difficult to play a role. There's some level of balance to be agreed on, and I believe that longer posts do little to find a middle ground on an issue like this.
Just discuss it with your roleplaying partners, or other players in a thread. You ask why it would be acceptable to place such a broad seal and in contra-argument we can also just ask why is it okay to place such a broad seal on forcing people to accept interference. You are right that there is a balance, and that balance is to be made up by the GM in question. I know the answer would be simple for me -- if its agreed on by two parties, or the subject in question doesn't object to it, why would it have to be an issue? Let the players figure it out for themselves.
I think there's a disconnect somewhere. To condense does not mean to invalidate. It's important to decide on what details to include, while also taking into consideration your fellow players, and not barring off their ability to play a role. Ultimately, the difference in experience is decisive here. We clearly have different perspectives and/or have witnessed completely different examples in advanced. I myself have rarely come across longer posts which are so well executed, that they bring shame to shorter posts with similar amounts of palpable content. Additionally, I don't frequent the advanced section. Most of what I've read dates back to pre-death guild, or 2016-2017.
This explains a lot.
I think that this disconnect in both our intent, and experience, makes it difficult to argue anything that isn't anecdotal. Considering the spectrum of experiences with Advanced though, I'm willing to believe that there are varying opinions on what constitutes good writing, and a great deal of those experiences I've heard seem to agree that Advanced and casual are not all that different. But that would be an entirely different discussion altogether, and veer viciously away from the thread's topic of comparing writing levels/sections.
Cas and adv used to be very different but they are the same now, bar maybe the fact that advanced houses more of the competent
writers and casual houses the
roleplayers. Both sides can move dynamically between these two I feel like, though, so it's kind of the same, yeah.
