| Literal Pro-Tips: Writing & RP | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 24 2017, 05:45 PM (141 Views) | |
| Castiel | Oct 24 2017, 05:45 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Destiel Trash. Deal With it. Also: GM, Admin
|
Okay, so I know this is the internet, where nobody wants advice, but I'm coming to you both as a peer and a professional: a professional GM, a published author, a sysop of one of the largest early-2000 RP servers, a 20 year hobbyist RPer, and then-some. This is more than "how to get interaction," a topic I've held multiple threads about. This isn't going to be a grammar lesson. RP is a great deal like a "rough draft," and reasonable amounts of raw mistakes are expected, as long as you don't look like you're typing with your face. Some people still run into other challenges. If you're interested in any of the following:
This list will expand for content as it appears. Big, colored headers help separate sections. What is narrative presence? ![]() Narrative presence encompasses feelings of participation, embodiment, or disembodied observation in a story world. It reflects experiences where fiction readers, movie audiences, or videogame players report feelings of being transported into a story. - Gerrig, 1993 Many things build into narrative presence, and narrative presence in RP is a very different art than in writing a novel. While certain aspects that build into narrative presence will be detailed in extra break-downs below, there are a few to discuss here. In a novel, you can build an entire setting and flow one point into the next, controlling all characters towards an objective. In RP, you control one or perhaps a small handful of characters in a zone full of many authors, all with their own general objective and bouncing around a community objective. You may notice, however, that some people carry greater narrative presence to it, whether they're executing GM powers or just average joes. In RP, one of the fundamental methods of doing this is to spread and actually reach beyond ones' own character. That is not to say you control or declare anything about another character - never do that. However, innate observation and interconnection of elements, scenes, or actions displayed by other characters are critical even if they do not immediately address your character. A great many characters end up entirely internalized into their own thought process because the players think inward, and not outward. ![]() I will give some examples.
In many situations, people default to, "Well my character is fiery too, and would argue back/defend their ground!" However, they also fail to recognize what this casts their character like, in the eyes of Player 1 and 2. Whether or not Player 3 fully recognizes the stress their character is causing Player 1 and 2's characters (and some people make decisions they know are not the best), there are many angles to take this. RP often becomes reactionary, lunging to the first opportunity or defense. Few characters are humble, and most people burn hot in the moment. You COULD turn it into a war zone of "IT'S NOT MY FAULT!" or your character, even hot headed, could take root in their empathy and look onward to Player 1 and 2. It doesn't have to be the most well spoken. It just has to be human. ![]() After all, player 2 plays a hot-and-cold character that's holding back, so what does your character kicking up and bucking back do but possibly loose that tension? Has anyone stopped to observe Player 1's character is close to tears? Furthermore, has anyone even asked what Player 1's character is researching? Maybe they're on a path for a solution. But if the entire moment breaks down to everyone engaging just because the first shot was fired, is this the narrative presence and theme you're intending for your character? Do we let the first shot jam and go quiet, or do we choose to turn it into a full automatic warzone? And are you fully aware of this? That's the difference in narrative presence: narrative presence of mind. Further down we will discuss Show and Tell. This is a very important piece of this. But narrative presence of mind is a grand part of narrative presence in general. If your character's view of the world is engaged inwardly rather than outwardly, their outward reach will be limited, regardless of how you paint their narrative. It is fine to knowingly play a character with faults, but make sure to heed the rest of this warning and, if your character is the type to sweepingly overlook environment, they are more likely to be a catalyst-moment character than one of strong, overarching narrative presence. This is a decision to make during general character building. Treat characters like people. Even if you're a spitfire in real life, is someone being mean to you valid grounds to start yelling in the middle of a funerary wake? Even if you're normally a great person, and you turn over how undeserved the treatment someone is of you in your head, if you explode at the service, is what you're telling yourself in your head going to change what people see of you for behaving like that? God himself could be penning the wonders of your motivations in the Book of Life, but will that make you seem any less like a douchebag than the first person that popped off? And most of all, do you really think turning outward and arguing with anyone else after that when they're disappointed will help? Or is the realistic empathetic human thing to do to visibly express pain, flinch, look at the others in grief, maybe even flash with anger in your eyes? Is what's important to you pride, or the pain of everyone around you? Don't tell us how star spangled awesome your character is. Show us. ![]() If you noticed characters that even act like douchebags seem to have greater narrative presence in the community, review how outward vs inward they're narrating, and their balance of telling vs showing. And make sure you are consciously aware of how your character manifests outside of your own internal monologue about them between your own ears. Common Errors Showing Vs Telling What is Showing Vs Telling? It's you giving the reader what is needed, versus you TELLING them what is needed. CharacterA made breakfast as reliably as the sun did rise, rich platters starting the day for the small home and bringing light to the dawn hour with a quiet smile. But when CharacterB entered in the morning, one day, he was served a sharp eye. < showing vs Character A enjoyed making breakfast. Character A used to do it every day to help Character B feel better. But being mad at characterB, did not make breakfast and instead was angry at him. He never should have said those things to her. It was his fault too. < telling Do you see the difference? Because the latter happens in RP a lot. #2 does not tell us anything about expressionism, presence or ritual, just what we're supposed to believe the characters feel or think without any indication of it, no actual description, no rendering of how they even display it. "Telling" gets particularly dangerous in RP because it hinges on our "toxic narrative" rule most of the time, wherein people write big bricks or even short blurbs about how much of an idiot or poo-poo head somebody else's character is, dismissing it as "character thoughts." However, it's usually all tell, and no show. Telling instead of showing is a bad, BAD narrative habit. I promise you can express character emotions without putting "Your character is a big fat doodie head" in your narration and if you can't, you may need to work on your wording to make people want to punch you, the author, in the face less. ![]() This also strips you of the narrative presence you want to achieve, because in trying so hard to convince a reader of what you feel they should believe, it strips actual availability of characters to engage a reaction, or observe their thoughts, while they otherwise are rendered with only a blank slate. Anything else risks controlling or declaring how your character is acting, which can't be done. So if your character is not showing, even as simple as displaying a glare or tired eyes - there's nothing for another character to observe out of that and as a result, there's nothing for them to engage, to pick up your narrative presence and extend it no matter how much attention they try to pay. This tends to self fester into reactionary characters that need to take bigger and bigger extreme actions to get the attention or engagement the player is after, which further ostracizes them from the characters that were already struggling to interact with. ![]() Let's go back to the narrative presence examples. If you spend your narrative talking about how thoughtful your character is and how much everyone matters to them, is it going to make any difference while your character blows up in the room full of already upset people? Who are you going to convince? What does that text accomplish? If a character is displaying attributes that seem unthoughtful, ten pages of narration about how thoughtful they are isn't going to make the characters suddenly receive them as thoughtful. Show. Don't tell. If you show effectively, it tells more than you trying to convince the reader behind the screen. I promise. ![]() And if you think I'm making this up, or this is a personal preference thing, this is literally creative writing 101. There's other steps to mastering this part of storytelling visible in the link. --- TIMING and PLACEMENT. HUGE common mistake. It falls back to being observational. There's multiple threads on these boards about "Can vs Should," so that's been covered, but let's talk one of the biggest issues: ![]() Conversation. Does it seem like your conversations aren't received the way you want? Your character isn't being received the way you want? Let's run an exercise. Imagine the real world.
![]() Stacy may be acting like the biggest cunt in the world, but that doesn't mean the existing three are going to react well, regardless of their kinship with Mary. But worse than that, is the AVERAGE RP conversation works more like this for some reason:
![]() Cut the clutter. Stop trying to wedge everything to your topic on your timeline. Let Bob talk about his scar. Maybe some time, you can talk about your car wreck. And wait to talk shit about Mary until everyone else's conversation is done, otherwise we just get a bunch of word vomit. Do you notice how unnatural and weird the dialogue is? It's like four people standing in a circle, turning their head to the next person, taking awkward pauses. You can break that down into several conversations. One about cars, one about rain, one about scars, and so on, but you can't even follow a beat on what anybody's talking about because everybody's talking about everything and nothing at the same time. There is also the fact that some people fail to observe how much characters are currently dealing with. Let's play a game.
How much is Bob going to accomplish? Why aren't the other people observing that Bob is swamped? And frankly, how much of a douchebag would you assume at least persons 3 and 4 are, if not Person 2? Don't be Person 3 and 4 and then expect everything you're demanding to be regarded equally. The most realistic arrangement of this is a bunch of conversation vultures flocking around the social carcass that is poor Bob. ![]() ...and in RP, if Bob is trying to play a realistic character, there is literally no way for him to give your characters the attention they're all demanding. Also, if he's playing a realistic character, he's going to consider several of you impatient assholes. There's honest exceptions to this rule, such as,
But stop acting like every time your character walks by someone passing gas, there's a fire. Not every fart is a fatal methane leak, and not every social situation demands you kicking in doors. Make SURE you actually have the floor. Another huge dialogue issue is monologues. There's situations where a character droning on can be okay. For example, if you're in a war meeting, or a scientific convention, and people are asking for your character's special knowledge, it's natural for them to have a good deal of information to speak and assume for the most part that the room is ready to listen. ![]() But then in RP you see this.
And that's not how conversation works. ![]() It also definitely doesn't work like that during heated discussion.
Okay cool, this is interaction! But then you get two options. You can continue to have an active exchange, Or you can just try to assume your character has an endless amount of floor.
![]() And in any actual dialogue, there's a high chance that in either condition, Bob got punched in the jaw at "you're being an ass," most of the rest never came, and all other dialogue justifications just burned time and made the character read like a presumptuous asshole. Small dialogue is fine. Not all posts have to be novellas. Above is a long list of problem dialogue that comes from para-obsession and leads to completely nonsensical exchanges. It's okay to just tell them they're being an ass because odds are, John isn't going to give Bob a 3 minute monologue spotlight before punching him for it. And please for the love of god do not do this during combat unless you want to get shot. ![]() CHARACTERIZATION We all have very clear ideas for our characters - things in our head we're trying to accomplish. But the more you review what is discussed above, the more you may realize that page space is actually a very valuable commodity if you're opting for a strong narrative presence. Carefully plucked dialogue that flows, actions that speak louder than their words, and balancing your Show with your Tell. So I'm going to do a few quick exercises on other characterization methods, because I find people often just sling in sort of hollow descriptors in for superficial attributes and miss fantastic characterization opportunities. I'll use characters most of us are familiar with. (Let's pretend Dean is mourning something. That's not unusual. His anger is building as his coping mechanism. His words have been fierce towards Sam and the others, who walk out.) We'll take several angles with this. One, someone who isn't exercising attentiveness, and using more show than tell. Castiel stared at Dean, wishing he would tell him what was going on. I mean... yeah, technically, that's a Castiel action. We all know he stares and has trouble voicing his thoughts, but what do we really get out of it on engagement? So let's first try to extend the communal narrative presence and, by proxy, your own. Let's also reach that outward, Castiel broke his eyes from Dean as his younger brother and friends left the station. Apology reflected in his eyes for a man who could not, before raking back to his struggling charge. Okay, so we see that. We've now at least acknowledged the state of other people to extend their tension. But the thing is, Castiel may struggle with social skills, but part of characterization isn't just having weaknesses, but knowing how to approach them. Opening up this observation of other states and tallying it away on the character leaves the later opportunity for emerging for an, "I'm sorry" later on, and now we've chained potential interactions. But there's more to it than this. There's other things that make fantastic characters. We could say, Castiel broke his blue eyes from Dean . . . Everyone knows and loves Castiel's token attributes, and that's not technically incorrect. However, we can expand on that. If you want to point out the blue eyes, also remember how emotive they are. Try simple, clear use of adjectives and sparse adverbial application. Castiel broke torrid eyes from Dean as his younger brother and friends left the station. Apology reflected in his sorrowed oceanic gaze for a man who could not, before ripping back like an ebbing wave towards his struggling charge. Now, we have some grasp of what Castiel is feeling in those expressive eyes, we've determined that they're blue without having to randomly break in a descriptor, and we've given some sense of feeling for the reader without necessarily making the mistake of TELLING them what he's feeling. We don't have to say "he is torn," We see that in descriptors like torrid; we don't have to say 'but he chose to stay with dean', he ebbed back like a wave returning to the beach. We could add other descriptors, such as "eyes foam with concern" depending on how far you want to ride the ocean analogy and how verbose you want to get. So let's reflect and compare. "Castiel stared at Dean, wishing he would tell him what was going on." or "Castiel broke his blue eyes from Dean . . ." Or, through proper execution of narrative presence, and characterization, show rather than tell, etc, we can get, Castiel broke torrid eyes from Dean as his younger brother and friends left the station. Apology reflected in his sorrowed oceanic gaze for a man who could not, before ripping back like an ebbing wave towards his struggling charge. without ever having to execute a line of dialogue. In theory it's the same thing, but what does the last example gives us a lot more:
While yes, this takes more post space than simply stares/worries, it also takes less post space than what a lot of people might do in parallel. Some people have become very fond of long, rambling descriptors, as if the size of the post itself determines the quality. An example of how unnecessary this is, is below: Castiel long-stared into Dean, sapphiral eyes awash with staggering concern. As Sam and the others took their leave, Castiel found his feet anchored in place, demanded by the presence of his soul-bound charge. Dean seemed rife with grief, and the ocean-eyed angel could only rivet his focus back onto the struggling hunter while stricken into silence, turning over inside of his head time-and-again how he could even dare to approach the titanic pit with some token of empathy. He knew Dean well, and the wrong word could escalate into a holocaust. Castiel, not being one for excess speech, did not dare to fill the air with a sound and instead continued to stare on as he wished for an answer. I'm going to stop there, because writing like that hurts. But you know as well as I do that we tend to get pages of walls out of that, when in the end all we get is "stares, watches everyone leave, looks on with concern," which we've already proven can be acknowledged other ways without inflating other narrative elements. And the question is, what have you actually accomplished in that, aside from narrating how you feel someone else's character may react, and telling us how well Castiel knows Dean? This actually makes narrative presence lack, because in the end, points are lost and there are very few things for someone to work with. |
![]() |
|
| Castiel | Oct 26 2017, 09:16 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Destiel Trash. Deal With it. Also: GM, Admin
|
NOW, LET'S TAKE THESE LESSONS AND COMBINE THEM.
What do we get out of this theoretic exchange? Well, first of all, this entire exchange actually encourages a lot of plot-motion in what would take less than an hour to play. It just seems like a broken argument at a glance, but let's look deeper. OriginalHunterFriend did not insert herself to Dean and Sam's existing conversation and tension, but instead found the other person in the room who was free for engagement and also working on studying. As a result, Castiel and OriginalHunterFriend started sharing ideas. Sam recognized his brother's habits and demeanor and, while applying very brief dialogue to try to check the situation, did not go on or engage at length but instead, removed himself and OriginalHunterFriend from being a problem that Dean would continue to vent aggressions onto. OriginalHunterFriend was hurt, and displayed this, but recognized that engaging in open social combat was not going to lend to anything. The argument has been culled, allowing OriginalHunterFriend to go with Sam and also discuss the shared information discussed with Castiel while the group simmers down. OriginalHunterFriend COULD have ripped her arm away and opted to stomp forward and argue with Dean, but instead channeled that active presence into something constructive ahead. Castiel is well known for being a grounding mechanism for Dean, and with Sam and OriginalHunterFriend being the core of Dean's misguided frustrations, Castiel now has an opportunity to balance him and have meaningful engagement, while Sam and Original Hunter Friend progress meaningful story trails. Characters are all engaged and observational. This also removes stagnance of character interaction, as previously it was Sam<->Dean and Castiel<->Friend, but the shift allows Sam<->Friend and Cas<->Dean to have their share of time, story, and support without overloading everything into a public fiasco. Even as an original character, OriginalHunterFriend has narrative presence that connects with every person in this scene. Because she reached outward, rather than inward, both applicable to the character, even in distressed situations. The dialogue is pointed. Even while taking a few steps to prevent spinning out on perpetual one line turned replies, everything remains topical and fluid. There is very little tell, and much show. We are not being told how upset people are, we're seeing it. As a result, all characters are able to respond to the visual and social cues left by the characters. There is strong characterization present in concern and empathy, or anger and frustration, but it doesn't disrupt the actual underlying current of these characters together. Everyone supports everyone else's narrative presence. Do we all see how much better this goes than the average RP fiasco while everyone is turning their characterization and narrative presence inward, rather than outward? We don't expect perfection, but these are tips that will help propel you through better RP horizons even during times of distress, without having to sacrifice anything about your character's persona. On the other hand, how many times have you seen people not be conscientious about anything beyond their own character value, and a very similar arrangement blow up into a 4 hour argument RP? How much time gets wasted, and what is accomplished then? Narrative presence - narrative presence of mind. Inward-focused narrative agendas could have easily reduced that entire scene to hours and dozens of pages of arguing. It is not uncommon to see someone respond, argue back, and dump out something closer to, "I can't believe you, Dean Winchester!" she kept her voice calm but stalked forward and pointed at him. (paragraph-long narrative description of everything she's done for the Winchesters and how inappropriate he's acting right now and she can't wrap her mind around it.) No amount of keeping her voice calm in your description is going to offset the spontaneously perpetuated argument, no amount of character history is going to erase the behavior in the present, and no amount of narration to convince the readers is going to change how that character reacts to you. Worse, these scenes often come down to the conversational quirks mentioned above, and people feel the need to try to shove out four, six, or eight giant sentences of their character "calmly" leveling their point without any gauge of the character's response. The perpetual "talking at" in tension situations is, in the real world, a very good way to get your teeth knocked out of your head. As a result, characters that insist on "talking at" people will only further increase the tension they think they're going to dismantle, by essentially spitting ten lines of "blahblahblah" at someone that isn't positioned to hear it. Because again, that's not how conversation works. Never operate under the presumption that another player has forgotten the history between the characters and that you need to remind them, time and again, of all the ways your character is star-spangled awesome. The characters are living in their now, and anyone that has any real world social experience can tell you that while history with someone may help connections, the now is also very critical. Engage them in the now, rather than trying to insert brick after brick of history that has no application to the current. Be mindful of your character's "now" as much as their history. You will get much, much better rewards on your "Now" and thus continue to build more meaningful history, rather than constructing an empire of past good deeds for any current misbehaviors to be forgiven by default, submitted to, or tolerated. You can not narratively bully a character into behaving how you want. Flawed characters, again, are also fine. But do not speak out both sides of your mouth (or keyboard) about knowing their flaws and yet justifying all of them. That is a lack of actual acceptance of the ramifications of your own narrative presence. And that duty is yours alone. Narrative presence of mind. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · FAQ · Next Topic » |























8:29 AM Jul 11