| Roleplay Dynamics | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 5 2009, 10:44 PM (56 Views) | |
| weji | Jun 5 2009, 10:44 PM Post #1 |
|
vv
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I. Hooks and Entry Points (here) - a tool for RP creators to use to give players an easier time joining an RP. II. Metagaming and Advanced Control (here) - an explanation of the meaning and uses of metagaming. III. How Much Should They Know (here) - the give and take of keeping information hidden from, or sharing it with, other players. Edited by weji, Jun 12 2009, 02:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| weji | Jun 5 2009, 10:44 PM Post #2 |
|
vv
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I. Hooks and Entry Points Many times an roleplay author will have a spark, yielding a great character, an exotic setting, an ingenious plot. An roleplay will be created, and, unfortunately, will fail. While there are many reasons for an roleplay to fail before it gets off the ground, there are some preventative measures that creators should take right in the intro post. One of these measures is the inclusion of hooks for entry points. Entry Point When a player creates a character and drops that character into an roleplay, where ever that character appears is the entry point. The problem with entry points is that not every player can automatically think of a good one. So, no matter how good the ideas behind that roleplay were, if players can't think of a way to join it, then they wont! Hook Any extra detail included that may foster an entry point. More specifically, it is a detail designed to do just that; a logical conclusion to that detail is the presence of another character, meaning that any player may grab that hook and jump right into the roleplay. Additional This might all seem easy, except when it comes to actually writing hooks, the author's mind goes blank. A hook may have a variety of easy to imagine entry points, or it might serve to spawn some obscure ones. Regardless, the hooks give interested players immediate options of where to join. It is necessary to note that hooks can be employed by other players as well, but should be kept towards the beginning of a roleplay. If each player drops one or two hooks in their introductions, the desired number of roleplayers will accumulate quickly enough. It is also possible to use hooks to revive dying roleplays where one or more players have left and their characters were left behind. Whoever is using this technique would only write the hook. The entry points are up to the players joining to imagine and employ, should they choose to do so. |
![]() |
|
| weji | Jun 5 2009, 10:44 PM Post #3 |
|
vv
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
II. Metagaming and Advanced Control Metagaming is the act of overreaching the bounds of the character. Past the introduction, given that a player controls only their own character, any changes to environment or plot occur as perceptions of that character. Metagaming, then, is overstepping a character's perceptions and tapping into the knowledge and power of the player. This can either be used correctly, or incorrectly, with an incredibly fine line between the extremes.
Leading is the process of moving the action of a scenario forward by some short interval without explicitly acting out all portions of the scene. The leader makes some small logical leap forward, thus prompting all other players to make the same leap to arrive at the new point in time. Leading is used to skip over elements like necessary dialogue, occurrences which are inexplicable now but can be explained later, etc. It is necessary that all skipped events be mentioned by the leader, and be easy for others to understand how the missed events could have happened. If the player leading requires that others' character perform in some way that is precedented and natural to their personality, then the leader may imply that those characters did indeed perform in just that, or a similar manner. The leader may only imply that the events were accomplished, not how the other characters accomplished them. The other players would then pick up on the missed events, and fill their own portions in to match the leader's plot. Pushing is akin to leaving breadcrumbs for other players to pick up. While leading is reliant on active metagaming, pushing makes use of passive metagaming. Often times the action of the roleplay might stagnate, or take a turn towards the degenerate. Times like those, but also when a player just wants to develop their character, or introduce the next "act" of the plot, pushing is a non-invasive control technique. The actual work done to push something is akin to hooking, the player pushing writes a series of details that at the present moment are unused. It is different from hooking in that hooks are open ended details, added to give players a starting point. The details left as a result of pushing are quite the opposite, they are all tied together by a common goal or consequence, whichever goal or consequence the pusher intends. The technique of pushing has some merits and pros over other control techniques. It is non-invasive, meaning that it does not require any direct control of other characters. As well, it leaves the actual work up to other players, while giving them the illusion that they came up with the goal or consequence that results. Passive metagaming may come into play if the pusher describes a new element as "within reach" or "easily observable" by some specific character, prompting them to act on the element. This is passive because the other players do not have to respond. Contrarily, active metagaming, like that used in leading, requires that other players respond with complementary action to fill in the time skip. Since the trail of breadcrumb details is only clear in your mind, players might misinterpret the desired consequence, and go off in another direction altogether. Players might also not use all breadcrumb details present. The trail left might be too loose, and thus hard to follow, or it might be too tight and obvious, and consequently boring. The moral behind metagaming is to find a a comfortable median. Active metagaming is more invasive, but more direct, thus more likely to accomplish what you might see necessary. Passive metagaming is not invasive, but is very indirect, so while other players will not be unhappy, the metagaming is less likely to accomplish the intended task. The level of appropriate metagaming should always be decided by any group of roleplayers collaborating on a roleplay, so that players who wish to make use of advanced control techniques know where their limits lie. |
![]() |
|
| weji | Jun 5 2009, 10:44 PM Post #4 |
|
vv
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
III. How Much Should They Know Whether you create or you participate in an RP, there may be certain facts, concepts, plot points, etc, all of you know and plan to employ, but no one else knows. These things known only to you I will describe as the Private Sector. On the other hand are details which are shared with the other players, whether through the out-of-character, in-character dialogue or thought, or in-character description, and thus part of the Public Sector. Should each detail stay hidden for now, until it is necessary, and thus be private, or should it be divulged and thus made public? There is no overarching answer, as each detail is different, each roleplay is different, and every group of roleplayers is different. When revealing a detail, there must be a reason, and thus something to be gained. "What can be gained from revealing this little bit of information?" It might be a bit of secret biography about your character, or a plot point you have in mind that you haven't gotten to yet. "What benefits can you or your roleplay profit from?" "Will this detail guide fellow roleplayers in your intended direction?" "Will the new revelation give players a burst of interest and get the roleplay back on its feet?" Yet, where something is gained, something else is lost. Every time you fill a hole with a detail, you prevent someone else from doing it. A roleplay is a joint story being told, and everyone wants to tell it. If you reveal this detail prematurely, you add constraints. "Will players become frustrated?" "Will this detail counter any development they might have been trying to foster?" Knowing what you lose is just as important as what you gain. Most importantly, you must consider the risks of either revealing something or keeping it hidden. If you reveal the necessary details one by one, and not all together, than there is always the risk that someone else will contradict the next private detail of yours in line. "Would you be able to work around it?" "Would it completely ruin your character, or destroy your planned plot?" If yes, would you be able to bounce back? How flexible are your ideas? If they are rigid and linear, then revealing the private sector is a security measure. Everyone knows what will happen, but they have to play out how it happens. Or if your ideas are vague or so far removed that they would work in almost any situation, revealing them now might remove the excitement they might cause later. Maybe saving those kinds of details until the right moment is key. Always guess at how much your ideas can suffer from the actions of someone else, and always judge your decision to divulge them on your own ability to adapt to changes. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Guides · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



1:28 PM Jul 11