RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

V'aleera · **10-19-2016, 02:25 PM**

(10-19-2016, 02:05 PM)Roderick Wrote: No one is going to get on and hunt people down for not following the lore.

You'd be surprised.

Aaron · **10-19-2016, 03:38 PM**

I've seen a trio of people in game who do it quite frequently.

Saravahn · **10-19-2016, 04:54 PM**

Fair enough. My sincerest apologies.

I retract my statement in that regard and offer advice in its stead: blacklist is a thing, both in game and here.

Seriphyn · **10-19-2016, 05:43 PM**

I'm going to echo Virella's post that an outlandish background for your character won't save you if you're just not very interesting to RP with. Like a DRK whose brooding ways make it the equivalent of RPing with a brick wall.

Hyrist · **10-19-2016, 05:49 PM**

(10-19-2016, 02:25 PM)V Wrote:
(10-19-2016, 02:05 PM)Roderick Wrote: No one is going to get on and hunt people down for not following the lore.

You'd be surprised.

No offense but that's kinda appalling. Â And tantamount to harassment to boot. Fortunately the wider community is like to isolate extremists on both sides for being drama mongers.

It is becoming more clear with each of these heated discussion, however that some greater reconciliation between the gameplay and the lore my be called for. Â There may be somthing said for roleplayera coming together and writing something in the margins of the lore to keep things player friendly to build upon while at the same time marginalizing extreme cases of bending.Â

All optional of course. Â But finding middle ground would help slow and at time repair some damage to the goodwill of the community. Not to mention give more avanues for creativity.

Verad · **10-19-2016, 05:49 PM**

(10-19-2016, 05:43 PM)Seriphyn Wrote: I'm going to echo Virella's post that an outlandish background for your character won't save you if you're just not very interesting to RP with. Like a DRK whose brooding ways make it the equivalent of RPing with a brick wall.

Counterpoint: Lore adherence is frequently used as a defense for uninteresting characters, and "correctness" is often, wrongly, seen as inherently interesting.

Domri Blackblade · **10-19-2016, 05:53 PM**

(10-19-2016, 05:49 PM)Verad Wrote:
(10-19-2016, 05:43 PM)Seriphyn Wrote: I'm going to echo Virella's post that an outlandish background for your character won't save you if you're just not very interesting to RP with. Like a DRK whose brooding ways make it the equivalent of RPing with a brick wall.

Counterpoint: Lore adherence is frequently used as a defense for uninteresting characters, and "correctness" is often, wrongly, seen as inherently interesting.

Uh, no. Good personality makes a good character. IDK if you're Lord Jesus Christ reincarnated in Eorzea or a merchant that sells moldy popotoes.

Verad · **10-19-2016, 05:56 PM**

(10-19-2016, 05:53 PM)Domri Blackblade Wrote:
(10-19-2016, 05:49 PM)Verad Wrote:
(10-19-2016, 05:43 PM)Seriphyn Wrote: I'm going to echo Virella's post that an outlandish background for your character won't save you if you're just not very interesting to RP with. Like a DRK whose brooding ways make it the equivalent of RPing with a brick wall.

Counterpoint: Lore adherence is frequently used as a defense for uninteresting characters, and "correctness" is often, wrongly, seen as inherently interesting.

Uh, no. Good personality makes a good character. IDK if you're Lord Jesus Christ reincarnated in Eorzea or a merchant that sells moldy popotoes.

I take offense to that, sir. My popoto stock is merely differently-colored.

Regardless, good personality means nothing if good personalty is badly portrayed through bad writing. And bad writing occurs regardless of whether or not one adheres to the lore.

I don't care if your character has passed the perfect correctness checklist - if you write poorly (with the usual caveats about style and taste applied to that), nothing will help.

Leggerless · **10-19-2016, 06:28 PM**

Wait. I think I get it. It's like making a basic character

You can comply with all basic rules and have the most basic character of them all. However, even though you are correct on all basic fronts, people would rather RP with someone that isn't basic!

Hope thats right.

Oli! · **10-19-2016, 06:43 PM**

Idea:

If "following the lore to the letter" is seen as uninteresting by large groups of people, perhaps it's not the fault of players on either side, and is instead just a side-effect of SE's lore being hot garbage.

Verad · **10-19-2016, 06:46 PM**

(10-19-2016, 06:28 PM)Leggerless Wrote: Wait. I think I get it. It's like making a basic character

You can comply with all basic rules and have the most basic character of them all. However, even though you are correct on all basic fronts, people would rather RP with someone that isn't basic!

Hope thats right.

Somewhat. I think in that circumstance some people would argue that those other players are also bads because they should value basic characters. But the character above could be completely appropriate to lore and quite common, yet fail to attract attention because of problems with the portrayal. That could include but is not limited to any number of stylistic errors that are common RP preferences like the use of purple prose, including character thoughts in posts, writing too much/too little at once, aggressive use of "would," amongst other stylistic concerns.Â

It could be something harder to determine like a failure to use appropriately evocative and interesting language - which, as I mentioned in the last post, is subject to caveats about tastes in writing style being subjective - or difficulty in providing and responding to plot hooks. The character may well have a rich, lore-appropriate inner life and a sparkling personality on paper, but still get passed over for play because of an ineffective portrayal.

Verad · **10-19-2016, 06:47 PM**

(10-19-2016, 06:43 PM)Oli! Wrote: Idea:

If "following the lore to the letter" is seen as uninteresting by large groups of people, perhaps it's not the fault of players on either side, and is instead just a side-effect of SE's lore being hot garbage.

It's more an issue of style and content being seen as similar-to-identical when they're discrete elements of writing.

But you see that in how we discuss the lore as well. Check the 3.4 spoiler thread for a number of posts to the effect of "This would have been much more interesting if the content was portrayed more effectively."

Oli! · **10-19-2016, 07:11 PM**

(10-19-2016, 06:47 PM)Verad Wrote: It's more an issue of style and content being seen as similar-to-identical when they're discrete elements of writing.

But you see that in how we discuss the lore as well. Check the 3.4 spoiler thread for a number of posts to the effect of "This would have been much more interesting if the content was portrayed more effectively."

I would argue that style and content being near identical is not the issue, and that it is instead presented in your second paragraph: poor portrayal.

Media with identical style and content can still be interesting (see: self-referential and parody media).

Verad · **10-19-2016, 07:32 PM**

(10-19-2016, 07:11 PM)Oli! Wrote: I would argue that style and content being near identical is not the issue, and that it is instead presented in your second paragraph: poor portrayal.

Media with identical style and content can still be interesting (see: self-referential and parody media).

I'd argue in kind that self-referential and parodical media tend to have significant, if subtle, differences in portrayal, and those are often present in the style being used.

Final Fantasy itself, as an extremely self-referential series, is a pretty good example of that - it constantly refers back to itself, but does so to greater or lesser effectiveness depending on style.

But for the sake of argument, if portrayal is a third axis of fiction, how would you see it as different from the other two elements?

Oli! · **10-19-2016, 07:50 PM**

(10-19-2016, 07:32 PM)Verad Wrote: I'd argue in kind that self-referential and parodical media tend to have significant, if subtle, differences in portrayal, and those are often present in the style being used.

Final Fantasy itself, as an extremely self-referential series, is a pretty good example of that - it constantly refers back to itself, but does so to greater or lesser effectiveness depending on style.

But for the sake of argument, if portrayal is a third axis of fiction, how would you see it as different from the other two elements?

Generally in parody, Amplification is the only difference in portrayal from the source material; the actual ratio between the two facets in parody work itself is often unchanged, meaning that style and content can still be near identical within the work itself. Parody in particular is only required to refer to something else, and not necessarily itself (self-parody would fall into self-reference).

Comparison between the three axes:

Style: the backbone undertones of something that categorizes a work (ex. Color, cinematography, word and phrase usage, visual design).

Content: elements of a piece of media independent from (yet added to by) style (ex. Characters, story, world, mechanics).

Portrayal: the light in which a piece of media is to be taken, or the way or order that style and content are put forth (ex. Tonality, genre, narrative position, presentation).

Portrayal is often confused with the others because various styles automatically lend themselves to certain portrayals Â (ex., bright cartoons of happy animals being portrayed in a positive and lighthearted way), but the fact Â they can still be subverted (Happy Tree Friends) shows the difference between them.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (19): « Previous 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next » Jump to page:

[Discussion] Welp Dragoons, it was a good run, but we are all now either retired or dead

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes