|
Post by Ninmast on Oct 30, 2008 16:20:38 GMT -5
Ever since True posted her well-meant guide, a lot of people have started listing general characteristics instead of writing out detailed, appropriate character appearances. Now, I'm all for using her style for making sure you cover everything and as a writing aid, but it really makes for (in my opinion) a very poor final product when it's used the way people are using it.
Some of the profiles that have been using it have degenerated into mere lists of extremely vague or simplistic characteristics, something like this. Please remember, this is just an example and is not from any existing profiles.
Some of you may think I'm exaggerating, but others of you know this really is[/b] how some of these people are writing their profiles.
Thus, I propose, effective immediately upon completion of this poll, that the rules be rewritten to make written-out descriptions mandatory to improve them and avoid lists that really don't tell us anything.
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Oct 30, 2008 19:41:31 GMT -5
I disagree. D:
I think I do an Ok job with the listing, and forcing people to abandon the list isn't likely to improve the quality of the descriptions. I think it'd have an adverse effect in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Oct 30, 2008 20:03:41 GMT -5
I'm actually in agreement with beany...I completely understand your point, but there are some people who do make good use of the list format, and do so with a decent amount of detail. To punish them because others don't want to put in the effort is as justifiable as flipping the situation around, and forcing people who use the paragraph form to use the list form because we have no idea if they're describing a humanoid baked into a corndog, or a corny baker who's into dog-like humans.
The same people making the problematic shortlists are going to do the exact same thing in the paragraph form...but in now-complete three-word sentences. Nothing will be accomplished, except us gaining an extra level of unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy. The only thing we can do is, as fellow EAB community members (who are so fully ready to help others inprove their roleplaying in every possible way) is to simply keep on their case...
|
|
|
Post by The Strategist on Oct 31, 2008 3:23:33 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with that. Some people, myself included, like to be thorough in their profiles. I don't think it's necessary for profiles to be creative and instead focus on the quality of role-playing threads.
There are two questions I have if you still insist on implementing that:
1- How long is the time window for participants in the role-play section to apply the changes to their new character profiles?
2- Is the change going to require participants to go back and rewrite their old characters' profiles?
I think you need a window for people to get used to the system, instead of forcing it down their throats as soon as your poll is locked. And if you actually answer yes to the second, then it's counterproductive and extremely troublesome.
You can guess what I voted for.
|
|
zandyne
Full Member
This is NOT Zetsu. DX
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by zandyne on Oct 31, 2008 6:20:00 GMT -5
There are two questions I have if you still insist on implementing that: 1- How long is the time window for participants in the role-play section to apply the changes to their new character profiles? 2- Is the change going to require participants to go back and rewrite their old characters' profiles? You can guess what I voted for. I think you're missing the point T. Strat. I think Nin is suggesting that the shorthand list is so broad that it doesn't help describe or define a character and that's what makes it somewhat frustrating for those outside of the character creator's mind to get a good idea what the character looks like. Besides how does converting your blunt list into more elaborate traits change the overall description of them? If anything it specifies and clarifies what may have been previously ambiguous. Also it may not be universal but having well-written descriptions at least gives the impression that a creator likes their own character enough that they'll describe them in more detail. Or to put it into terms you might better relate to why go with "tank" instead of "a mechanical stalwart of victory, and otherwise impenetrable tool of war"? Personally I would love for more descriptions and I thought that writing entailed, you know, more writing, not just bullet points but eh, free-will and all that jazz. A slight off topic T. Strat but you never seem to reply to the posts I make on your characters....
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Oct 31, 2008 10:19:57 GMT -5
You can describe people in the RPs themselves, people's appearances aren't constant anyhow. I wouldn't describe my character's entire wardrobe, or how one of my characters looks on bad days, good days, weird days, etc. I think the character sheet calls for a broad description. o.o
|
|
|
Post by Giant Brother on Oct 31, 2008 16:38:07 GMT -5
Should character descriptions be mandatory? Um, let me think, YES! We're not trying to make millitary profiles for characters here. And that's what that format is. I won't disagree that the format mentioned has its uses. But frankly, I feel that it should serve as a checklist, not a "description".
As for it "helping" other RPers, I disagree. It's sending the wrong message for the right reasons. Even if the reasons are right, though, it doesn't make the message any better. We're giving the impression that just filling out the meager requested portions in this format is equal to giving a wholesome, well filled description. And it's not. For example, we're given height, ambiguous weight (because who is honestly going to do the freaking math to find out how much their character should weigh?), eye colour, skin colour, and attire.
Alright, what's their hair colour? What's their most often used hair style? What's their build? Are they lithe, muscular, anorexically thin, grotesquely obese, happy medium between the two, not so happy medium between the two, attractive, ugly, so-so, seedy, innocent, Amish, Black, White, Asian, Latino, Martian? What if they're a species where appearance traits like weight, height, attire or eye colour aren't exactly applicable questions? How many eyes does the character have? How many mouths does the character have? Do they even HAVE a mouth? What are they wearing? Okay, a black suit. What kind of black suit? A track suit, business suit, one piece swimsuit, two piece swimsuit, suit of armour or birthday suit? Does he wear shoes? Heels or flats? Any sort of outstanding features like tattoos, pointless, uniquely placed or shaped scars that are "just kewl", fake cat ear headbands or a Playboy Bunny cotton tail? What's the character's most frequent expresion? Cheerful, wangsty, stone cold serious, laughably flippant, constipated, lost and confused or just plain P.O.ed?
Oh, right. We don't have to disclose that because that's gonna be revealed in the RPs, riiiight. Maybe we can do those in bulleted lists too.
|
|
zandyne
Full Member
This is NOT Zetsu. DX
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by zandyne on Oct 31, 2008 17:10:55 GMT -5
You can describe people in the RPs themselves, people's appearances aren't constant anyhow. I wouldn't describe my character's entire wardrobe, or how one of my characters looks on bad days, good days, weird days, etc. I think the character sheet calls for a broad description. o.o That's understandable but their facial features, build and 'style' doesn't change much unless under very specific circumstances, and if so they should be described and bullet-points don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Kainus Maximus on Nov 1, 2008 10:44:50 GMT -5
Do we really need this? I mean, do we absolutely need this? Are those bulleted lists so repugnant to ones' state of mind that we now have to put forth a decree to change that? I want to see that this was put forward to help people, but I cant help but feel that this is more of people attempting to cover a pet peeve via rules change. I may be wrong in that judgment, but seriously, this is not necessary. I also feel that this will lead to more rule changes to characters and RPs in general, thus complicating things further than they need to be.
I remember the early RP days of the EAB. I remember that back then they were far more successful then they are today, far more enjoyable, and there were hardly any problems. Back then we had no restrictions on how characters were made (and some of those sheets looked really funky) and everybody was cool with that and went straight to RPing. If we didnt have a problem then, we can do it again now.
I've looked at your description Ninmast, for this new form of how people are writing their characters. And I am very much prepared to call shinanigans... uh... shenanegans.... shenanigans? Anyways, I've looked and so far I see only one member using a style that you have described. Granted they've made numerous characters with the same description Style, but still, it's just one person. we aren't seriously going to make a whole new rule for one person are we?
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 1, 2008 12:12:07 GMT -5
The description I gave was simply the worst of the worst. There hasn't been a bulleted description yet, however, that hasn't needed or couldn't use extensive clarification. I don't know how many times I've gone to comment on a new character and said, "This is why I hate this bulleted list, because it doesn't give description. What do you mean by, <insert point here>?" And this hasn't been all on the same person.
This is not just a pet peeve. I think seeing these things written out in detail will help us all as writers and roleplayers, and not just from the standpoint of increased description quality, which is a plus and does help us become better in describing other things, as well, but also because, to paraphrase Giant Brother, teachers have their students in kindergarten make bulleted lists to describe stuff as a stepping stone to further writing development, but if somebody isn't willing to go beyond that here, how can we expect them to do any different when they enter a roleplay?
Strategist, so long as you eventually do get around to it, I don't imagine we're going to be rushing you to the grindstone to change it. Primarily, this is for any and all new characters.
Donut, yes, some of them do a semi-acceptable job of writing out their bulleted list, but if everyone did awesome work like that, we'd never need any rules at all. This isn't to punish anybody. I'm not looking for an excuse to pull out my banhammer and go, "LIST!!! HULK SMASH!!!" I just want to help make the EAB a better place by trying to improve our writing skill and the quality of our descriptive writing.
|
|
Enigma
Full Member
Entropy will always Triumph!
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Enigma on Nov 1, 2008 12:20:35 GMT -5
All of you have a good point, but some are missing the point to the appearance draft department. Bulleted lists should be viewed as an outline for yourself, so you can make the actual appearance in a nice frame. You can continue to check this list if you've missed anything. I mean, seriously; when you look at someone, you don't run through a check list in your own head on how they look.
I vote 'Yes' in this poll. I was always taught that paragraph appearance was how to go, and i'm going to stick to that. I might be a little pompous, but I don't care.
|
|
Red14
Full Member
Cwonowopowis?
Posts: 341
|
Post by Red14 on Nov 1, 2008 12:38:18 GMT -5
I don't really think that the bulleted list gets the job done very well BY ITSELF. I actually thin a combination of the two could be a proper solution.
You know, you have the bulleted list first, then maybe expand a bit on the list in a short paragraph after the list, specifically addressing things that the character is subject to change or things that would not be covered in the list, such as scars, tatoos, things like that. You could also address your character's style of clothing as well.
Making it mandatory I don't think is the right solution, all I can see it doing is making people mad and then coming up with half-assed descriptions only to meet the bare minimum of the requirement.
Just my two cents...
|
|
|
Post by Giant Brother on Nov 1, 2008 13:07:31 GMT -5
Red, they're ALREADY just doing the minimum requirement. That's why the suggestion to make description mandatory was brought up in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by The Strategist on Nov 1, 2008 15:42:52 GMT -5
I think that unless there is a really good reason for the rules to be adjusted, they should remain the same. The rules shouldn't be adjusted just because someone cannot draw a picture of the character in his or her head, nor should changes to the rules be taken lightly.
That being said, I fully understand your reasoning, and admit that it could be a problem. However, if we go with the paragraph format, some people would describe the minute details of the scars on a character's face, or the location of a mole on their chin or neck; others will choose one-word descriptions (ie: tall, lean, blonde, badass, wears jeans, no shirt, muscular, etc...)
If you want to change the requirements, I hope you do it properly and have some degree of standardization.
Zandyne, I apologize for not responding to your posts, but they are overall the same points that Ninmast asks about, so I suppose that my answers satisfy both of you.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 1, 2008 16:03:29 GMT -5
That's just it. The rules haven't been adjusted. Bullet point descriptions have never been permitted. It wasn't until True mentioned them in passing without conferring with anyone that they started exploding like wildfire. Before then, if anyone had posted one, we would have pretty much gone, "Um, yeah, you really should write that out. If you need help, we're happy to offer, but that really isn't a character description."
If you don't have a solid image of your character in your head, such a bullet list is very helpful in helping you make sure you get everything down. I frequently use such a writing aid, going into Word and listing the characteristics I want to be sure to cover, such as eyes, face, ears, nose, lips, hair, body tone, etcetera. I then go back through and list a few words under each category that I feel would describe the character. Once that's done, I then put them into sentences. Say I put next to eyes, "blue, cloudy, big," and next to hair, "silver, long, slightly curled," then chose, "small, button, freckled," for her nose. In the actual description, I would then put, "Her silver hair, stretching long and slightly curled on the ends, framed in around her big eyes, a cloudy blue over the freckles that speckled her small button nose."
This process is repeated for all the categories and can help make a very detailed character description using the bulleted list you like so much as a writing aid, rather than as the be-all end-all of a very lousy appearance.
|
|