City of IF

[Key]

What do you think about posting storygaming responses in character? Have you ever tried it? Does it feel like roleplaying?

For those of you who have roleplayed before, does storygaming have a different appeal to you than a roleplaying game, or is it similar?

[ethereal_fauna]

Some stories and decision points lend themselves to posting in-character responses. Whether I post in-character or not depends on the nature of the discussion.

Other discussions that have taken place here at IF, but have not involved a story, were easier for me to assume a role in- namely the debacle leading to the creation of this forum, involving the antics of SchoolMarm!.

Posting in-character creates a greater sense of immersion and role-play, and as a storygame author I take great delight when the players repond in that manner, although I appreciate regular discussion as well.

[Reiso]

Except as a gag once or twice, I don't usually respond in character for a storygame, but I definitely see how it can enhance the fun of the storygame. I avoid it though, because I am never sure I've got a character down right and would just end up embarassing myself.

As to whether it helps the immersiveness of the experience, this is something that you touched on in your most recent installment of the history of the City of IF. For me, the answer is no. I habitualy game for roughly twelve hours at a time. This isn't just making decisions one a time, this is a string of decisions, spotaneous interaction and seat-of-pants roleplaying that hasn't been sterilyzed by editing, or simplified into a handful of choices that time can be taken to consider. These aren't bad things, they're just differences - I like storygaming. But it's not roleplaying, and it doesn't come close for me. There is no replacement for personal roleplaying, and while Storygaming can not match it for intensity, that doesn't mean it can't take off as it's own medium, or even find a larger audience. It's like the difference between an RPG and an RPG Video Game. They are completely different from each other, but they are both great. I wouldn't want one to share some traits with the other. Storygaming is like that.

It allows for more thoughtful, organized and planned out stories too, which is usually a step up from gaming. It's easy for a game to get out of control faster than the GM can keep up, but with a storygame, you limit the damage the players can do without restricting their role. Ultimately, I think this allows storygaming to function well as a stepping stone between gaming and serious writing, as Archer's Flight is a testament to, and frankly, that is what has been the most significant about it for me.

[Smee]

*Wanders in to the IF Tenchical Institute.*

"Wow it already feels like home." :wink:

I've only done a handful of IC posts for storygames. Like Reiso, I don't always feel comfortable doing IC until I know the character better. However I do enjoy it, hence my occasional IC flourish when I vote or nominate for SGOTM, and could be tempted to do it more.

We're are going to have an entire questionnaire for newbs when they arrive soon.

- Do you want grammatical corrections on your work?
- Do you want in character suggestions for your storygame.
- Will you commit to at least a chapter per month?

I've done very limited proper roleplay, but from my knowledge of it, these IC posts are probably the equivilent of opening the costume box and just sticking a hat on, rather than the full costume. You spend maybe a few minutes absorbing what you know about the character before leaping in and making the comment as best as you can.

Maybe not quite as much fun, but you at least still get to 'dress up'.

[Guyron]

Roleplaying can be quite organised , with two or three GM-s . I experienced quite some excelent RP stories on the UGO forums , even with only one GM . I think it depends on the author what kind of story he feels like writing .

P.S. Smee , I personally appreciate your corrections . They improve my english quite a lot .

[Key]

Good discussion. It's interesting that some people say that they feel uncomfortable about responding in character because they're not sure if they have the character right. I wouldn't have expected that.

As an author, I definitely like it when people respond in character, even when their idea of the character is different than mine. I like to see what other people are thinking, and I don't see myself as owning the character. If anything, the players own the character, and it's up to them to decide what's right.

[Key]

ethereal_fauna wrote: Some stories and decision points lend themselves to posting in-character responses.

What would you say the difference is between the ones that lend themselves to in-character responses and the ones that don't?

[ethereal_fauna]

Key wrote: What would you say the difference is between the ones that lend themselves to in-character responses and the ones that don't?
Probably my own perceptions of the character and what is happening at that point in the story. If I have trouble identifying with the character, or if I don't clearly understand the actions or decisions the character needs to make, then it is simpler to extract myself from the story and look at it from a third person point of view. I'd tend to reflect on what I logically thought would happen or where I'd rather see the story go, than take on the role of the person in the story. Perhaps it's related to the comments made about feeling uncomfortable because your not sure if you have the character right.

Another aspect regards the discussion that is already underway on the story thread. If several other readers have already responded OOC then it seems odd to respond IC at times. If I respond immediately after reading the chapter, before reading what others have posted, then it's easier for me to think like the character would think. Otherwise I find myself responding not to the story, but to what other readers have posted.

It would be easy enough for me to adopt this persona: when responding to other posts on the same chapter, where that player's opinion or ideas conflict with mine, I could be warring with opposing thought processes within the character- often I have trouble deciding what's best or making up my own mind. It would be as if the character was weighing his options, just that those options are literally presented by different 'parts' of him. I am just uncertain how other players would accept such a response to something they've posted.

[The Powers That Be]

Key wrote: What do you think about posting storygaming responses in character? Have you ever tried it? Does it feel like roleplaying?

What does posting in character mean, exactly? Normally I would think of it as "speaking in the character's voice." But here, of course, the character isn't generally speaking, he or she is making a decision.

I actually had to go back and look at my responses to see what I've been doing. In one case (Pirates, etc.), my post was clearly in character, but largely for (attempted) comic effect.

In the other cases, my responses fell along two lines:

1. I would do this, because I feel such-and-such and because of this, that and the other thing.
2. He/she would do this, because he/she feels such-and-such and because of this, that and the other thing.

I guess I would consider both of those to be "in-character" responses, independent of pronoun choice, meaning that I was making the choice from the character's point of view. In that case, "out-of-character" would be making a choice based on what I think makes for a better story, or trying to influence the way a character is developed.

Of course, particularly early in a storygame when the characters aren't fully developed, what's the difference between playing the character from the inside and defining the character from the outside?

Key wrote: For those of you who have roleplayed before, does storygaming have a different appeal to you than a roleplaying game, or is it similar?

I think it's different. Perhaps it's the difference between creating a character and figuring out a character. Perhaps it's more than that. I'll think about it a bit more.

Of course, storygaming brings in another aspect that role-playing lacks: meta-decision points. But that's part of the answer to your other question.

[Key]

The Powers That Be wrote: What does posting in character mean, exactly?

What I originally meant was the difference between

1) writing in the character's voice, as the character might talk to himself in this situation (e.g. "What a terrible ogre! I must save Felicity from his awful clutches."), and
2) writing using in character reasoning and knowledge, but not in the character's voice (e.g. "We/he should choose to fight the ogre because the love of Felicity is the most important thing to us/him")

But you point out that there's another possibility:

3) writing from the viewpoint of the story author/contributor (e.g. "We/he should choose to fight the ogre because it will be a climactic fight scene that will be great to have in the story.")

For me, both in terms of what I like to see my players posting and how I like to post, #1 is better than #2 is better than #3. Some decision points, however, are meta-decision points based on the course of the story rather than a particular character's action, and in that case the only kind of feedback possible is #3.

What do other people think? Do you prefer to receive or give suggestions of types #1 and #2? Or is that just me? :D

[Smee]

I tend towards #2, and #3 more, but as I said I have done the occasional #1. I do enjoy that kind of reponse, and maybe more inclined to try another #1 in the near future. :)

[Mother Goose]

I have done some #1-type responses, but as fauna says, it's easier to do that if you're the first post. It feels strange to go in-character after several out-of character messages. I generally don't do #3 since I don't consider myself an author, or an expert on what makes a good story. But #1 is fun, if maybe harder to do.

[ethereal_fauna]

I like the #1 responses, both from the players of my SGs and in my own postings. Sadly I donít submit #1 responses as often as I think them, due to the reasons addressed above, namely getting the character wrong or concern for how other players might feel about such a response.

Unlike Mother Goose, I think #1 responses are easier to do, if I understand and identify with the character. Otherwise I think most of my suggestions or thoughts dealing with actual play, are submitted as a #2. Some authors seem to like feedback on their writing style, etc. which is separate from in-game; for instance the author wants to know if their descriptions or dialog read well. The only way to respond to that is #3, or completely OOC. Then I have separate concepts presented in one post, part IC and part OOC.

Would it be too much to ask that some of the more frequent and ëvocalí players attempt #1 responses for awhile? (Key, Reiso, Smee, Ravenwing, Powers- just to name a few.) Of course I donít want anyone to attempt something that they think would detract from their enjoyment of the site, but it would be interesting to see how the active SGs would continue for the next few chapters with the majority of the players responding in this manner.

[Ravenwing]

Smee wrote: I tend towards #2, and #3 more,...

Ditto. I guess I just like my characters to make moral decisions or something. It could be also that I rather be the observer than the one taking the hits.

ethereal_fauna wrote: Would it be too much to ask that some of the more frequent and ëvocalí players attempt #1 responses for awhile? (Key, Reiso, Smee, Ravenwing, Powers- just to name a few.) Of course I donít want anyone to attempt something that they think would detract from their enjoyment of the site, but it would be interesting to see how the active SGs would continue for the next few chapters with the majority of the players responding in this manner.

I could try. But even after reading all the previous posts, I still don't really understand what a #1 response be. From my own responses, I can see that I tend to do perhaps the #2 or #3, probably because I am afraid that I would view the character totally differently than the author.

[Smee]

I'll give it a go. :D

[Key]

I'll try it, too.

[Mother Goose]

And me. But I may not be around for a while. I'm going on vacation soon.

[The Powers That Be]

ethereal_fauna wrote: Would it be too much to ask that some of the more frequent and ëvocalí players attempt #1 responses for awhile? (Key, Reiso, Smee, Ravenwing, Powers- just to name a few.)

I don't know, I'm not sure my in-character posts have been all that popular. 8)

I think I'll go over and read the latest chapter of Finite Cosmos now, and make an in-character response. But first, maybe I'll have a cookie. And a nap would be nice. Hmm, I wonder if this is a little too-much in-character?

[Ravenwing]

Just had a thought.

Could we assume that most posts that pertain to characters are and/or should be in #1 responses?

And that ones that pertain more to the general style of the story go under the title of OCC?

Or two. 8)

[my self]

I could do number one responses I suppose, after all I do roleplay a lot :p. I don't know about doing it on here though, but eh. Smee, I call you crazy once again. Writing in character responses, if you ask me, depends on the aspect of the story itself :p. Sometimes it feels appropriate sometimes not, at least in my opinion.

I need to get more people to read my chapters, and respond in character too :p. But mainly just read them :D.

[Muaddib]

I personally feel the RPing bit should be left out. You don't really need to get a feel of the character. If you feel you can't understand the character's personality, then the author isn't doing his job and this should be hinted, albeit politely. I personally dont like text RPing.... except when its wacky.

[ethereal_fauna]

Reviving an older discussion...

Now that we have discussed, and some of us even attempted this for awhile, I believe this could use a revisiting. :D

I enjoyed making responses in-character, but notice that I have fallen back to mostly #2 responses (see this post for explanation of the numbers.) I also appreciated the efforts made by Key, Smee, Rave and the others who volunteered to this little experiment. The IC responses are a lot more fun to read, more interesting and more immersive as I read the chapter and the posts below.

I suppose one of the largest factors in my returning to the #2 response, involved the fact that I was often the only one on a particular thread responding in that manner. For some authors and players, this seemed confusing. I'd rather have the discussion centered around the story, albiet OOC posts, than have the discussion centered around my having posted IC.

Anyone else with thoughts on this?

[Smee]

Now I've experience receiving comments a lot more I can say I do enjoy #1 type's, but am quite happy with #2's.

I don't think I've had any that really match the #3's and don't think I make that sort of comment. I try to stick to just the characters pov even in #2 comments.

I have forgotten to try #1 comments though recently, and think I'll give it another try.

Happy Writing :)

[LordoftheNight]

I also use mainly number 2 responses, but I do have a reason for that. I do a fair few text-based roleplays on different sites - some of which are based on shows or what-not - and always choose to make my own character.

This is becaase I've found that when posting as someone else's character, I usually end up corrupting it to my way of thinking, their personality becoming more like my own.

I feel that if I tried posting in character here the same things would happen, with the protaganist slowly becoming more like me as I go along. Instead of putting my mind into the protagonists mindset, theirs would begin to draw close to mine, giving views they wouldn't normally choose.

[Shady Stoat]

I've tended mainly towards type #2 responses in the past. I have no problem with people trying to post in #1 methodology, adopting the character as their own. If it works, it's great, and it can provide the author with extra thoughts and material to use in their next chapter.

It's not for me, though. Hard to say why, really. When I was roleplaying a lot, I had no problem with the 'I' response to present and future actions. Here, though, we are co-operatively playing a character. We're sharing him/her. Perhaps that's it. Saying 'I' implies ownership - and ownership implies taking the character for yourself, which denies the other players the same privilege?

Not logical, maybe... but a matter of personal etiquette :)

[OmegaTerra]

But the characters are shared. Each player that responds to the story is assuming that role. Ownership is automatically implied, I'd think.

[Key]

I've gone back to #2 responses, mostly because they're much easier for me to write. Roleplaying by writing takes a lot of effort, more so than either roleplaying or writing a comment.

And contrary to what I said before, I think now I prefer the #2 responses to #1 for players of my storygames. It seems like it's easier to have a discussion between players when they're not speaking in the character's voice.

[Ravenwing]

*nods* I have gone back to #2 responses like everybody else. I feel like #1 response restricts what you want to say in your comments because you have to do in character. Also it's just plain easier to do #2 comments when you're in a rush.

Also I feel like when you write in #2, it's easier to open conversation. And that others don't have to interpret what you're saying if you were to write in-character.

[ethereal_fauna]

It does seem that the #2 responses come more naturally. It takes a bit more thought and effort to say the same thing IC than it does to simply offer it as your opinion.

Also, on some of the more active games like the Wheel or Time Before, where the viewpoints vary widely and debating and discussion occur for several posts over the same contention, it would almost appear like a bi-polar character if responses were presented IC...like the character was arguing mentally from very opposite sides.

I'd think IC posts in some cases are more amusing, immersive or expressive, but it does appear for the majority of the games and gamers that OOC discussions work best.

Perhaps someone could take up the challenge of an experimental storygame where the posts were specifically encouraged to be IC, and explore what type of story and decision points lend themselves best to IC responses rather than OOC responses. :cool:

[Ravenwing]

You know what I noticed we're also missing? It's the second-person perspective story when the story is written in the 'you.' I think it was with those kinds of stories, it was okay, even easier to write IC. Because we are the character, and so, it would make sense.

[Lebrenth]

Ravenwing wrote: You know what I noticed we're also missing? It's the second-person perspective story when the story is written in the 'you.' I think it was with those kinds of stories, it was okay, even easier to write IC. Because we are the character, and so, it would make sense.


Sorry to be so contrary, but nope. Even with the entire story in Second Person, I've had zero IC responses in Heroes Never Panic (go ahead! Take a look!). Matter of fact, I get a lot of detached responses: "Taggert should do this" or "You should do this" instead of "We should do this". I see no difference of immersion with using second person (to my disappointment) and I have found writing in it to be extremely cumbersome. Where you could have written "Taggert shoots the zombie" or "The captain shoots the zombie" or "He shoots the zombie" or something specific or circumstantial like "The last survivor shoots the zombie" or "The steadfast man shoots the zombie" is ALL replaced by one way of writing the sentence: "You shoot the zombie".

It makes it a lot harder to keep the sentences fresh and I found it challenging at times to prevent every single sentece from starting the same way: "You shoot the zombie. You check to make sure he's dead. You turn around." And although that specific part could be easily re-written to keep the sentences from being redundant, you still lose a lot of options when you can't use different words to refer to the protagonist.

It doesn't work any better than the other perspectives and only makes sense when you have one player to one character.

BUT I would really like someone else's opinion on that. I'm too close to my project and I can't step back and look at it.

How about it? Can I have a HNP reader give me their "cut to the chase" opinion about second person perspective?

[Ravenwing]

Well, I haven't read HNP quite yet, so I can't really base my opinion on second-person perspective really. But like I said, I don't see much of it.

Then again, it's not really a POV that most stories are written in anyways. :cool:

[Chinaren]

I think Lebby has hit the dwarf on the head here. 2p are hard to write well and, in my opinion at least, they aren't as nice to read.

[Ravenwing]

Not nice to write? They're a challenge in my opinion. I thought Idea Master had a good second-person perspective storygame with A Vampire's Quest.

[Smee]

I can't say I noticed, Lebby. I've found it drew me in and has always been interesting. Clearly that must be a result of the effort you go to in each chapter.

I certainly don't think your decision points have suffered as a consequence though.

[Key]

All the Wheel stories have been in second person. And I get the same response as Lebby: most suggestions are phrased as "Pilla should do this.." rather than "We should do this..."

It's always been surprising to me, since it seems like the most natural response to a second person story would be to respond with suggestions in first person. I think when I respond to other storygames, I tend to do it first person, even when the story is third person. But that's just my recollection, maybe that's not true.

Personally, I haven't noticed that it's any harder to write in second person. In fact, it feels more natural to write that way, but that may just be because I'm used to it. I also write all my storygames in present tense, which I don't think is common on the site.

Maybe the most surprising thing about tense and voice is how little they seem to matter. :confused:

[Chinaren]

I don't think they matter so much if you buy a book. If the story is good then you go with it. However, my initial reaction to a story in 1st is 'oh no'. If I am in a bookshop browsing, I would probably put it back on the shelf.

But again, that's just me.

[ethereal_fauna]

With shorter chapters I think it'd work better. I'm not sure. I like the present tense "you do this" type of story. It makes me feel more involved. Not like I'm being told of past events that I should then predict (as a decision point- what did Main Character decide to do ~vs~ what do You do). But I was repeatedly reminded by a few individuals that they did not prefer present tense.

It just seems that storygames would on the whole work better as a real-time, you going through the events type scenario, but those seem difficult to write and actually not preferred by many readers.

[Shady Stoat]

I have to admit, I rarely notice what tense or person a tale is told in. If it's in a book, I tend to be turned off by the 'I' method of telling the story. The one exception that I can think of is Robin Hobb's Assassin series - and I managed to overcome my prejudice about first person only because I'd read her 'Ship' books already by that stage and I wanted to read more.

On this forum, though, I tend to be a lot less critical of the writing. If the story grabs me, I overlook spelling and bad tenses and all of the technical details like that. I enjoy the stories as games, not as books. It's a different perspective than a lot of the other readers on site have, but for me it works.

To me, the telling in the past or present of a story, holds no sense of involvement or otherwise. As an author, I prefer to tell my stories in the past, to give it that 'once upon a time' feel that the modern fantasy era descended from. There's a mystique about the past that doesn't seem present in the here-and-now. It doesn't mean that you can't change the character's actions and change the direction the tale goes in. It just gives you the sense that you're involved in something that's bigger than what we see around us right now.

In short, I write the storygames as stories and I read the storygames as games. I wonder if that's a contradiction or whether other people find the same thing?

I wonder if I've gone off the point completely? :?

[Solomon Birch]

When I first approached the site with Thesopholis, and then The Voyage, I approched it as 'writing'. I hadn't had any experience with story-gaming per se, as I wrote stories before I read anything, so I didn't know how it all worked. I knew that there we're going to be D-points, but I didn't really get how it was going to work.

And I wrote from a perspective that sounded right. For the Voyage though I wanted it to be a tale recountd to the reader, so it was past tense as well as having bits which were the narrator talking directly to the reader. I don't know if this has worked but I don't think it's disliked, as I can't recall anyone commenting on how bad or good it is, so, we shall see, I guess... ;)