1on1 VS Group RP

This forum is for General topics not otherwise covered in other forums.
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Oor » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:57 pm

Glaucon wrote:Have you ever read a play or a screenplay? I am sure you have. In a written play, there is nearly no description beyond the character's dialogue. No references to background, no description of feelings, inner monologue, inner perceptions, and all that. Even outward actions (expressions, body-language, objects) are typically left without description. Even so, a written play (I mean, just the text) can express plenty of depth, feeling of the characters involved and so forth. It just does it in a different way. Rather than narrating someone being angry or despondent or horny or desperate, it contains dialogue by those characters that convey those things. Often over time, as the story builds. You might argue that this is 'indirect', which would be true, but, for the reader, it can convey their emotional state far more poignantly than might have been the case if the emotions and such were narrated.


Actually screenplays and plays tend to come with outlines, sometimes very detailed ones (especially in TV writing) and while a very good screenplay or play script with very good dialogue (far beyond the ability of your average hobbyist writer/RPer) can convey emotion, these are pieces of writing that are meant to be coupled with directors' and actors' interpretations to create a more full picture that will meet the eventual audience who are supposed to pick up on that emotion and depth. Scripts don't often do that in isolation, and the directors and actors add the sort of flavour we add with narrative, in SL role play.

Indeed it's an apt analogy though, for if you eschew narrative entirely unless it is action, and you otherwise type only dialogue - yes. You are asking someone to look at your screen play without the directors, producers and actors, and you're telling them that they should be as moved, invested and immersed as if they were reading a novel.

Glaucon wrote:If you want to tell someone about something that happened to you. Something sad, something shocking, something funny, want them to empathize, it is typically better to just describe what happened, rather than directly telling them how you feel now, or tell them how you felt at the time. They call this 'show, not tell', sometimes. And it is a pretty important factor in modern fiction.


This... what? No it's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most fundamental "rules" of writing fiction. You "show" within the narrative, not within the dialogue. You "show" (character emotions) by writing physical mannerisms, tone, expressions. Not by writing about a past event in pure dialogue and hoping they correctly infer how you felt about it. And "tell" is different again - "tell" is where you explicitly state what an emotion is and why it's there.

"It was awful," she said. = Dialogue
"It was awful," she said, feeling sad and recalling how it reminded her of her father's death. = Tell
"It was awful," she said, and seemed to fill the whole room with her melancholic pause. = Show

Both "show" and "tell" are used in good fiction (with plain dialogue interspersed), and I would argue can be used in role play, but "show", in my humble opinion, is usually a lot more interesting in role play because a "show" narrative often acts in its own right as a hook-maker. In the above example the "show" method leaves you wondering what's made "she" sad. The "tell" method leaves nothing to the imagination, and the dialogue only method gives you nothing.

Glaucon wrote:Stephen King's Misery comes to mind (since I brought Stephen King up in another thread). And the differences in style exhibited in that book. The captive author writes romance novels that practice 'show' regarding the heroine's emotional state. Stephen King himself goes for 'tell' with the book's female antagonists. I think it is fair to say that she (the antagonist) comes across a lot more memorable. And not as 'superficial'.


You have "show" and "tell" mixed up here, too.

Glaucon wrote:And John Norman... well, I won't go claiming he is the world's greatest author, here. But I don't think his stuff is always that devoid of emotion. Not at all. And there are other writers that, stylistically, use a similar template that can still make me, manly Glaucon the Terrible, cry.


Norman uses an inordinate amount of "show". That, and the repetition, are what makes his fiction (almost objectively) poor. It's not the world, nor the story. It's the style of prose and how flat it is. It's not devoid of emotion, certainly - but it is devoid of an apt level of emotion, in many places.

Glaucon wrote:And I don't see how things would be any different when it comes to RP. In my experience, it isn't, really. The form doesn't matter that much, when it comes to whether or not RP has emotional depth. The players matter a lot more.


People that can write dialogue with enough skill to convey depth and emotion are very, very rare. Even among professional writers. In my experience, "tell" players tend to write superficial character, become involved in superficial plots (if any at all) and verge on godmoding or powergaming a lot of the time with the way they embellish other people's character's motivations from dialogue (even if the player has been very explicit about tone/actions/etc in narrative).

Glaucon wrote:Please note that this isn't a rant against para, per se. I know there are para-RP-ers that, in spite of the long form of RP they use, don't typically RP stuff that the other characters would not be able to observe, that don't do inner monologue, thought-emoting,references to background, emotional states and such. They still practice 'show' rather than 'tell'.


"Tell" is very widely regarded as a writing tool used by writers who are not skilled enough to "show". I don't necessarily buy that, in all cases. I think a little tell every now and then can be a great thing. But the things you talk about here; inner monologue, thought-emoting, references to background, emotional states and such... these are all, every single one, "tell". "Show" would be attempting to convey these things through action and dialogue,trying to conjure enough curiosity (hooks!) to have other characters dig a little deeper. Some will and some won't, and consequently, as should be the case, some will know a lot about your character and some will know a little, and what people do know will vary. That is "show" play.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Glaucon » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:51 pm

I could get into the 'what does show, not tell really mean' discussion, quote some examples/texts to be found on the internet. Then again, if I quoted someone or something, you might think they were wrong, as well. And you might quote someone and I might say they were wrong.

Let me just mention this one:

"It was awful," she said. = Dialogue
"It was awful," she said, feeling sad and recalling how it reminded her of her father's death. = Tell
"It was awful," she said, and seemed to fill the whole room with her melancholic pause. = Show

The third of these, to me, isn't 'show'. It is 'tell', still, if less directly than the second. It is much better written than the second, but the fact that a pause was described with an adjective, a metaphor used, doesn't make it 'show'. I agree that it would be wrong to say that 'tell' is necessarily bad in fiction, but clearly, we disagree about the fundamental difference between 'show and tell'.

But hey. I can agree to disagree. And you won't agree with me, so that seems best.

As to how top-notch film-scripts look, these days... I am not sure. I did happen to see how a few made for actual movies looked, originally, but those were for movies made a long time ago. Classic films, but ... maybe the script-writers would be considered amateurs, these days. I don't know. :?

Oor wrote:Norman uses an inordinate amount of "show". That, and the repetition, are what makes his fiction (almost objectively) poor.


At least we agree that he uses a lot of 'show'. We must be talking about the same thing, at some level, after all. :thumbup:

I would not dare disagree that his writing is poor. I don't think it is poor BECAUSE he uses 'show' almost exclusively (especially in the parts where the story progresses) but I will agree it does appear to be a clear limitation. Like I said, though... I have read other writers that use a somewhat similar style, that do manage to convey plenty of emotion. Norman was inspired by other pulp writers such as Robert E. Howard (Conan), Edgar Rice Burroughs etc. Books in that mold aren't exclusively 'show' or anything, but they are generally very much 'show' rather than tell. Very much focused on describing actions rather than thoughts, emotions, etc. Not unlike the comic books of that time. And books of this mold set a standard for some genres. Including science fiction and fantasy. Maybe it is a matter of taste, but I'd argue that someone like Glen Cook (Black Company), who I'd argue is extremely 'show don't tell' most of the time still manages to convey plenty of emotional depth to his characters, though I will admit it tends to be understated. You have to progress through the story to 'get' at the depth.

And sure... plays are meant to be played (well, most, anyway). My point was that I have read plays that weren't performed, and were just dialogue. Maybe I am especially 'emotionally gifted', but I did manage to 'get' the sort of stuff Sasi more-or-less said I would not be able to 'get' out of it, just reading dialogue.

And hey. If you want to compare RP to anything, I'd say it resembles improv acting, most of all. Sure... body movements, voices, expressions, etc... we can't do those all that well in SL. But even so, those actors don't NEED a little thought-emote balloon beside their heads with lots of narrative stuff for the audience or the other actors to 'get it'. I'd argue we don't necessarily NEED that, either.

Let me just point out... usually, you can point at me saying this or that way of RP-ing is 'wrong' or 'bad'. Now you seem to be doing it. I don't think you really mean it, but you seem to be agreeing with Sasi when she is saying that RP without plenty of emotional narrative description is always going to be superficial.

That would be... emo-para bigotry. :thumbup:
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Oor » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:43 pm

Glaucon wrote:I could get into the 'what does show, not tell really mean' discussion, quite some examples/texts to be found on the internet. Then again, if I quoted someone or something, you might think they were wrong, as well. And you might quite someone and I might say they were wrong.

Let me just mention this one:

"It was awful," she said. = Dialogue
"It was awful," she said, feeling sad and recalling how it reminded her of her father's death. = Tell
"It was awful," she said, and seemed to fill the whole room with her melancholic pause. = Show

The third of these, to me, isn't 'show'. It is 'tell', still, if less directly than the second. It is much better written than the second, but the fact that a pause was described, a metaphor used, doesn't make it 'show'. I agree that it would be wrong to say that 'tell' is necessarily bad in fiction, but clearly, we disagree about the fundamental difference between 'show and tell'.

But hey. I can agree to disagree. And you won't agree with me, so that seems best.


I mean I'm a writer with a first class honours degree in creative and professional writing. You can disagree with whatever the hell you want but it won't stop you being wrong.

Glaucon wrote:As to how top-notch film-scripts look, these days... I am not sure. I did happen to see how a few made for actual movies looked, originally, but those were for movies made a long time ago. Classic films, but ... maybe the script-writers would be considered amateurs, these days. I don't know.


You missed the point. On purpose. Again. And if your suggestion is that your average SL RPer is as adept with dialogue as a "top-notch" screenplay writer would be, you're dreaming. But of course I covered this in my original response, where I allowed that very good dialogue writers might be able to create a lot of emotion with dialogue only.

Glaucon wrote:At least we agree that he uses a lot of 'show'. We must be talking about the same thing, at some level, after all. :thumbup:


Actually, the very heavy insinuation in your initial post was that he uses a lot of what you were calling show, which is actually tell. He doesn't.

Glaucon wrote:I would not dare disagree that his writing is poor. I don't think it is poor BECAUSE he uses 'show' almost exclusively (especially in the parts where the story progresses) but I will agree it does appear to be a clear limitation. Like I said, though... I have read other writers that use a somewhat similar style, that do manage to convey plenty of emotion. Norman was inspired by other pulp writers such as Robert E. Howard (Conan), Edgar Rice Burroughs etc. Books in that mold aren't exclusively 'show' or anything, but they are generally very much 'show' rather than tell. Very much focused on describing actions rather than thoughts, emotions, etc. Not unlike the comic books of that time. And books of this mold set a standard for some genres. Including science fiction and fantasy. Maybe it is a matter of taste, but I'd argue that someone like Glen Cook (Black Company), who I'd argue is extremely 'show don't tell' most of the time still manages to convey plenty of emotional depth to his characters, though I will admit it tends to be understated. You have to progress through the story to 'get' at the depth.


This might make some sense if you didn't have your terms arse-backwards.

Glaucon wrote:And sure... plays are meant to be played (well, most, anyway). My point was that I have read plays that weren't performed, and were just dialogue. Maybe I am especially 'emotionally gifted', but I did manage to 'get' the sort of stuff Sasi more-or-less said I would not be able to 'get' out of it, just reading dialogue.


That you managed to "get" that stuff - presumably without ever hearing anything about the play before - says nothing but that you were reading the dialogue of a skilled dialogue writer. But skilled dialogue writers are few and far between. Dialogue is one of my strongest areas, and even I'm not confident I could convey a full and vibrant, emotive character through dialogue alone, let alone run a full story with it.

Glaucon wrote:And hey. If you want to compare RP to anything, I'd say it resembles improv acting, most of all. Sure... body movements, voices, expressions, etc... we can't do those all that well in SL. But even so, those actors don't NEED a little thought-emote balloon beside their heads with lots of narrative stuff for the audience or the other actors to 'get it'. I'd argue we don't necessarily NEED that, either.


The narrative doesn't serve to convey emotion. It serves to convey the things that actors and sets do - expression, action, mood, etc.

Glaucon wrote:Let me just point out... usually, you can point at me saying this or that way of RP-ing is 'wrong' or 'bad'. Now you seem to be doing it. I don't think you really mean it, but you seem to be agreeing with Sasi when she is saying that RP without plenty of emotional narrative description is always going to be superficial.

That would be... emo-para bigotry. :thumbup:


You have misread my points, and accused me of bigotry - and that is rather rude, considering the pains I went to to include possible exceptions to the rules I was writing about.

In your impressively relentless quest to be the most argumentative shitheel on the boards, you've switched from promoting the "show" (actual "show") role play that most people here engage in, to promoting dialogue only merely because it allows you to continue being afore-mentioned argumentative shitheel.

I'm not of the opinion that every post needs internal narrative, emotion, etc, and as a general rule I despise nothing more than reading reams of backstory that my character (and therefore me) shouldn't know (even though the odd little tidbit that sparks curiosity can be a nice touch). This is not the way I play, so it would be odd for me to think it was the only way to play. But I do think that some posts benefit from all that stuff, even in groups, and some situations can just be two people enjoying slinging lots of that stuff back and forth. And despite your desire to say otherwise - if that's what they like, that's okay.

And since we're in the group RP thread, one other point I thought about...

"Group RP" doesn't have to involve everyone in the group equally. If a free woman is being stripped of her clothes for slave-like behaviour (for example) and being paraded naked through the streets, escorted home with nothing but her face veil on - that free woman and the man stripping her are the "main" characters in that scene, and it's perfectly alright for them to post longer posts that are more narrative-driven and emotive - and it's kinda rude to post reams unless you're ICly interjecting for some reason.

See, as much as we all seem to want to pin down RP to this idea that X lines is the sweet spot, you mustn't write about Y unless in situation Z, you should only post this many lines when there's that many players and that many lines when there's this many... the truth is that the real skill involved in role playing is in being able to write to your audience, being able to adapt (within the confines of what you find enjoyable), and being able to realise when you've happened upon a venue/scene/player that you won't find enjoyable or easily fit into, and leave it the hell alone.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Glaucon » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:35 pm

I don't know. I thought I understood which one was the 'show' and which one the 'tell'. And when I did some searching to make sure I hadn't somehow gotten them mixed up, all I found seemed to confirm it. But since you have a phd in it, I guess I must be wrong. And the stuff I am looking at must be wrong. Or I am reading that stuff wrong. I could argue that invoking an argument of authority isn't really a knock-down argument (especially on an internet forum) and that you didn't actually offer any arguments about just how I got things the wrong way around, but hey... who knows, right? People that happen to read this can google 'show, not tell' (if they are interested, and don't already know) and form their own opinion. (Not a terrible idea, in general.)

Oor wrote:Glaucon wrote:At least we agree that he uses a lot of 'show'. We must be talking about the same thing, at some level, after all.
Actually, the very heavy insinuation in your initial post was that he uses a lot of what you were calling show, which is actually tell. He doesn't.

I am lost. Too many accumulated double negatives.

What I meant (and I think I wrote originally, can't be bothered to read it back) was that Norman goes for 'show' in most of his story-parts. But then again, maybe you think that to mean I meant to say he went for 'tell', since you say I got them backwards. It is terribly confusing.

As for the dialogue having to be 'top-notch' quality in order to be able to convey emotion/depth, and thus too exceptional to support my argument: I think that is a load of crock. Was that in some text-book, somewhere? I sure hope not. :shakehead2: Sure, if you want to convey that someone is 'sad', it is easy to do if you if you just narrate a person being sad. "Esmaraladia of Randomonium was sad." Yeah. That does the job. You can throw in metaphors, do the 'show' thing descriptively, write it better, but just 'telling' it is enough. You have established she is 'sad'. But the dialogue writer can go: Esmaraladia of Randomonium: "I am sad." Job done too. Unless she was lying. Some guessing involved. But probably not, all things being equal. And, yes, that can be improved upon as well. Not harder to improve upon it than when you use narration. Same thing with emotional depth.

I am not saying I am AGAINST narration. I use it in my own RP. Even defended it here once, against someone arguing against people using thought emotes in RP. But it just silly to claim that trying to convey emotional depth through other means than narration is so much harder, to the point that this should be left to literary Gods and professional writers and that we, mere mortal RP-ers should not attempt it. And if we are inadequate enough not to be able to convey emotions with solid dialogue, I don't get how you could consider us adequate enough to master writing semi-legible coherent 3 paragraph posts in under 15 minutes, without revision. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

And as for the snobbish bigotry about what you appear to say is the right RP style (got to use a lot of narration to get to the deep emotional stuff, apparently) being negated because you pointed out 'possible exceptions to the rules'... no, it doesn't. Conceding there may be 'possible exceptions' ("some gays might be fine people, but...") doesn't negate what you are actually saying. (And no, I am not calling you a 'bigot' in any significant sense of the word, of course... happy to call you a snob, because... well, why would you mind me calling you that? I think you'd normally embrace that description. And someone throwing out their degrees around on a forum fits that description, typically. :hrm: ).

Oor wrote:In your impressively relentless quest to be the most argumentative shitheel on the boards, you've switched from promoting the "show" (actual "show") role play that most people here engage in, to promoting dialogue only merely because it allows you to continue being afore-mentioned argumentative shitheel.


Maybe you should not worry so much about my evil one-man-conspiracy meta-forum post agenda. I was reacting to something Sasi said, above, about RP without the narrative style she described necessarily being superficial. I disagreed with her. You decided to jump in. I am not talking about how you RP. And I am not even sure you agree with the point she seemed to be making (given what you say above, about other forms of RP being 'okay' too).

And agreed with the last two bits.
Tantus
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:55 am
SL Name: Inactive
Caste: Scribe

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Tantus » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:02 pm

Sasi wrote:Because at the end, it's not how we get our roles, which is important. It's the background on which our characters are based. If someone has a very good backstory, I don't care if he is a ubar, a high slave, a commander... It's what is important.


We roleplay with different perspectives. If I was to respect everyone's assumed background, then I'd have to accept BTB'ers from Torvaldsland being the fierce warriors they all want to portray. Likewise for assassins, for warriors, and just about anyone strapped with a sword. Either you will understand why I would post a 'lol' to this, or you won't.

I can follow backgrounds to an extent, until the roleplay shifts gear and then I'm expecting characters to live up to their promise.

If I encountered a high slave in the game(I don't believe I have yet), the circumstance would determine whether we roleplay or not


Sasi wrote:About the zone of comfort, I think this statement you made speaks volumes:
Tantus wrote: The fourth one wanting to be magistrate, I couldn't see him taking it seriously beyond abusing authority. Which is fun roleplay, but also means more work for me eventually and I expect people to do part of their job properly.


Sorry, but it's clearly a reluctance at leaving your zone of comfort. This guy would have caused IC issues with which your character would have had to deal. I suppose you're not the exception and it's why in SL Gor we only have nice honest magistrates, never corrupt who dispense justice based on their Earth principles...


IC'ly, my character is calculating enough to know this appointment would cause him more issues than solve them. So he ends it there. He'd need to be an idiot to say 'You're hired! Go out there and start pissing people off who're all going to run back to me."

Sasi wrote:Well, actually, if your plot is ruined because OOC gossips, if those involved in it let the OOC information conduct their reactions, are these people worthy of your time...? Plus, it's why the dices exist, when we have a decision to make for our characters, one that could impact their future, eh let's the dices decide for you.
Also, the risk of being ICly reported by the slave, is, well, a risk. So, a danger added to your scheme. The slave heard the plot, she knows... Maybe should she be detained, secured... It's unlikely that her owner, if he is part of the plot, will sell her. You have to make sure she won't be stolen. Eh, you just added another risk in your story, a difficulty to deal. All for more fun. See, I think you may need, to push your creativity, instead of wanting to keep some players away. Leave your zone of comfort, Tantus, welcome the risks and the unexpectedness and too, give a chance to slave players, even just for the sake of some good scene which may be not linked to your current schemes.


When my character roleplays... no one is in their comfort zone after 5 minutes ;)

I don't know why but stuff just starts flying around.


Sasi wrote:Also, let's face another reality, Tantus... I gathered you were very reluctant at playing with these lame slave players, (although, I tend to think you don't even give a chance to most slave players). But you have no issue in engaging in role play with the guys who play their master... And it puzzles me.....

Because see, when I see a player whose IC master/slave is some lame dude/wench, I have immediately low expectations about that player... If a player enjoys the RP of some uncreative lame player and has him or her as regular RP partner, I consider it happens because his own RP matches the one of his/her partner... In this case, I won't waste my time...


I do infact roleplay with slaves too! And those I encounter have no issues in how I roleplay with them. However, during a time-limited IC meeting I prefer not to have extras in that session roleplaying about themselves.


Sasi wrote:Also, it's dangerous to put a pressure on people for they provide RP for others because an IC leadership. It's a way to tell them, for example: I don't care about the storyline you're having with that woman you just collared. Organize that, play that, engage X people... The result? These players are quickly burned out and end up resigning because their personal story is ruined as they have only to focus on being a sim entertainer. I agree that some important roles will require a commitment. But no one would have to stop playing a few hours with his slave girl just because he is head of caste.

Most people in SL Gor, too, should remember that often, the role they play don't require they have often interactions with some IC V.I.P. I can't count the number of times when I see people OOC'ly complaining in sims where I played, that the ubar was always in his palace. Where should he be? Strolling in the streets like the average dude, or taking a paga with the baker and the smith in the next tavern? Or in his palace, summoning important people, building schemes to secure his power and run the state? Or even, in his pleasure garden with his slave girls...?

I prefer the scribe who will FTB his caste work and put the focus on some intrigue and plot which will impact my character than to play with the scribe who will just be able to write some contract on a NC in always following a process, and after, will continue with some mundane RP.


I totally agree there should be a balance. Through my observations, it tends to swing towards inactivity than any leadership at all. People only want the tags for a list in their profile, "I've been the Head something of this city and the Chief whatever of that city" Then spend the remainder of their tenure inactively.

If an IC leader needs to make a choice, it should be the sim over his slave or FC. As harsh as this sounds, when people make the wrong choice their sims fall apart soon after.

Sasi wrote:But there, you will hate what I will say, but I consider that 90% of scribes and physicians of SL Gor are the most uncreative RPers in this genre... The best proof? Slave registrations and slave exams. You know, these notices you suddenly receive, which require from citizens of your city that they register their slave (but weirdly, never their other assets...) and get them examined by the local physicians... Two lame imposed RPs, ininteresting, even not supported by the books. Just because your lame local clique of scribes and physicians have nothing to RP.... And they will RP these scenes in filling a NC between 2 posts that are tossed following a perfect little boring process, or for the scribe, just get your NC, then drop it in some scripted furniture....
So, 90% of scribes of SL Gor don't even deserve a position such as magistrate or ambassador (and nothing even supports in the books that these positions are their due, anyway...)


My problem with scribes now, are the amount of them carrying around Gorean Campus certificates. When it all started, Janice(?) had a focus on IC/OOC separation for the purpose of roleplaying trials. Which is all well and good, except now so many of them are using their OOC certificates as IC accreditation.

And then you have the 'wandering magistrate/advocate' with GC certification to back them up.

Anyway, I'm all for NC paperwork in roleplay. I know many cities are becoming paperless now, but it takes away from roleplay. It shouldn't all be about slave papers, when you can keep records of debt, trade inventories, taxes, city budgets etc etc. But all of the focus of paperwork always comes back to slave papers, because cities don't have the templates or the initiative to push their scribe roleplay further.

Another reason slaves are a nuisance! ;)
Tantus
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:55 am
SL Name: Inactive
Caste: Scribe

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Tantus » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:06 pm

Can we agree a paragraph in SL is 850 characters(without spaces), before a viewer cuts to the next paragraph. It gives you a definition for semi-para(anything less than 850 characters), double and triple paragraph emotes!

Qingwen wrote:In my original reply I asked what you meant by "good ol'Gorean roleplay with a slave or two", and why that would be considered downtime (if that is indeed how you meant it). I've played the mistress role plenty of times too and I know how demanding roleplay with a slave or two can be. I've also led storylines for a group - not a whole lot different.


It is just that, recreational roleplay. I would personally see it as downtime if my character was involved in it.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Glaucon » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:16 pm

Tantus wrote:Can we agree a paragraph in SL is 850 characters(without spaces), before a viewer cuts to the next paragraph. It gives you a definition for semi-para(anything less than 850 characters), double and triple paragraph emotes!


Wow. So, para-RP would be like... long posts. And semi-para shorter and single line-RP even shorter (and 10 letter RP reserved for the Chinese).

That would make total sense to me. So logical, simple and clarifying.

So... of course we can't agree on that. Don't be silly. :popcorn:
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Oor » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:29 pm

When you were speaking to Sasi, you were speaking in an authoritative voice about something you obviously don't know anything about, since you got it ass-backwards. I corrected you, so that people who hadn't come across "show don't tell" before, or who might take your authoritative tone as meaningful, wouldn't end up believing incorrect information. But hey, if you'd rather accuse me of argument-from-authority fallacy than change your understanding to be correct, sure. Fill your boots.

I just googled, myself, and you're still wrong. So you're either misunderstanding what the sites you're being linked to are saying or you did a very poor job of conveying what you thought "show don't tell" meant.

What you said: "If you want to tell someone about something that happened to you. Something sad, something shocking, something funny, want them to empathize, it is typically better to just describe what happened, rather than directly telling them how you feel now, or tell them how you felt at the time. They call this 'show, not tell', sometimes. And it is a pretty important factor in modern fiction. "

From Wikipedia: "Show, don't tell is a technique often employed in various kinds of texts to enable the reader to experience the story through action, words, thoughts, senses, and feelings rather than through the author's exposition, summarization, and description."

Chekhov's famous "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass." seems pretty conclusively to value descriptions of the effects of the thing rather than "just describing what happened".

An example from another site:

Tell:

► Show Spoiler


Show:

► Show Spoiler


Another:

Tell:

► Show Spoiler


Show:

► Show Spoiler


"Show don't tell" is nothing to do with dialogue. Nothing at all. It's nothing to do with "just tell them what happened instead of how you feel", nothing to do with negating all description, thought and feeling and writing as though you were writing a screenplay, and it is certainly not the suggestion that dialogue-and-action alone writing is better than narrative with more. It's simply a narrative style where you "show" (by describing actions, tone of voice, emotions, thoughts, etc) rather than using outright exposition. If anything, someone who is trying to "show" and not "tell" is more likely to post the type of longer posts that you rant against than someone who is using a more "tell-y" style.

As for which is best - neither IMO. I'm of the opinion that if you use "show" type writing all the time it becomes quite difficult to make moments of setup, exposition of climax stand out (and usually gets real purple real fast). And particularly in role play, where you're not the only person waiting for the story to move along, a not inconsiderable amount of "tell" - which is conducive to shorter, more conversational scenes and posts, can be a good thing, saving "show-y" writing for 1on1 scenes.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Oor
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:33 pm
SL Name: Oor Breen
Home Stone: ROIAF: GoT RP

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Oor » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:32 pm

Glaucon wrote:
Tantus wrote:Can we agree a paragraph in SL is 850 characters(without spaces), before a viewer cuts to the next paragraph. It gives you a definition for semi-para(anything less than 850 characters), double and triple paragraph emotes!


Wow. So, para-RP would be like... long posts. And semi-para shorter and single line-RP even shorter (and 10 letter RP reserved for the Chinese).

That would make total sense to me. So logical, simple and clarifying.

So... of course we can't agree on that. Don't be silly. :popcorn:


By that definition, I'm probably mostly a semi-para player.
I call my vagina "New Yorker cartoon" because it's dry and a handful of people have laughed at it.

Flix
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: 1on1 VS Group RP

Postby Glaucon » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:28 pm

@ Oor: So, I didn't get it backwards (the wrong way around), so much, as that I got it wrong because stressed actions and words in the 'show' bit (leaving out thoughts, senses and emotions).

That makes sense. You are right. I did get this wrong and mispresent this, at least partially. Or at least when it comes to writing. I will admit that I got this more from talk about film (where it is directly linked to 'actions speak louder than words' and more about telling the story cinematically (visually, through actions, mostly) rather than through exposition (mixed in with the dialogue, or even through the crux of a narrator) than from how it is used in talk about writing. Now I get some of what you said better. And can agree with most of what you said before. Fair enough to call me out on that. Mea Culpa.

Why didn't you just explain this like you did above, in the first place? :shifty:

(And still disagree with what Sasi said, naturally).

Return to “General RP Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron