Emoting Guidelines Discussion

I too think that everyone can happily coexist, and certainly wasn't trying to "make war" against a "faction".. I actually had no idea that such a faction existed because the majority of the writing I'd seen in-game was fine. It didn't occur to me that a discussion of some incomplete thoughts would seriously affront people, but I accept that it has...and I'm not going to pretend that we don't have a style preference, because we do.

Esfandiar pretty much nailed our thoughts, or at least how we were defining things.

Here's what is on the About page that I feel is regarding collaborative writing: plot out all twists and turns of your character's story in advance, and always have ultimate agency over everything that happens to them

In my experience, this is what collaborative writing is about: people agree out-of-character on the story and the plot, they negotiate the big twists ahead of time, and then they write within that framework. Because the goal of a 'scene' is already implicitly or explicitly agreed upon by the writers (and if it isn't, they will pause to sort it all out again), it's perfectly normal to engage in long-form roleplay because the scene is set, the cameras are rolling, and anyone who is inconsiderate enough to go off-the-cuff is the enemy. It's normal to implicitly assume that nobody is going to interrupt you, nobody is going to move, nobody is going to drag you or climb a ladder and fall and crush themselves, or even stealth without rolling dice out in the open -- it feels like a very closed environment where the world is just a prop and people are taking turns giving their speeches.

That's not to say this is wrong. It might be what people with high-anxiety (about certain things, anxiety can be about lots of different things) require, actually, in order to play comfortably. As I've been maintaining the whole time, nothing is wrong with just having a different play-style. It's not yucky if this is your yum, but Song of Avaria just is not a restaurant where you can buy this food. We have a vision of a very dynamic environment, and while we have cutscenes (where longer-form posts might be more expected), in general the in-game world is meant to be moving at an objective speed with organic events arising. Again, Esfandiar really nailed it with the time-related comments. This brings me to the idea of combat emoting, which probably needs a guideline of its own.

• In a combat break, if you are finished emoting, just enter CONTINUE, and be mindful of including a lot of dialogue -- time is considered to still be moving, the pause is not a real-time pause, it is just a little break to give you an OOC chance to write an emote. Think about how much of a chance you'd have to talk in a real fight, which might be different considering the tone of the fight, how many people are involved, how much you're being directly pummeled, and many factors.

This engine isn't perfect to suit the vision yet, the guidelines aren't perfectly worded without misunderstandings triggered, but it's still alpha and we're working on it. Part of the agreement that people agreed to when joining alpha was to try to be patient and kind and forgiving of each other -- and of us. Again, I'm going to ask for some trust. If you read that About page and the game seemed like it was for you, chances are that it actually is for you. People might have different experiences or different trauma attached to words like 'collaborative writing' or 'improv acting'; but what we're trying to express by those words is the same vision expressed on that page. 

I've played several different styles of MU* games and each time I end up learning (or re-learning) a new way of writing, a new way of participating, in order to fit in with the new culture. Sometimes I can't make myself fit. Sometimes it's not fun for me to make myself fit. Other times, I can fit, but it's just not really my cup of tea. Not to say other people's tea sucks. I just have a flavor preference, and others have preferences, and that's beautiful and fine. If you want to drink the tea we are making at our tea shop, you are more than welcome. It doesn't have to be your favorite type of tea either, but you are coming to our tea shop. Part of building an alpha game is defining the culture, and we are not willing to just let the chips fall on that. We have a certain vision for the game's atmosphere, and it will either take some growing pains to get there, or it just won't work.

We've seen the mistake repeated in the past, of game runners having a vision for the game, and as soon as they accept players, that vision is overrun. The theme of the game changes -- it's no longer about humanity and corruption and power dynamics; it's about posh parties and how PCs who like posh parties don't like criminals and magicians upsetting those parties. The playstyle expectations are left in the hands of the playerbase, going against the words of the game runners: they say they want organic roleplay, but the players by-and-large prefer the collaborative writing model, and so that's what becomes the expected norm. The code supports a different gaming style than is advertised, and water finds a crack, and the game becomes a toxic spiral of new people joining for 'roleplay' and then eventually getting beaten down by toxic bullies using DIKU code to permadeath each other for jollies.  In every one of these cases, a new player will join the game with a certain perception, due to listening to the game runners' public statements on what the game is, and try to play in that fashion -- but they will be disappointed, betrayed by the actual existing dynamic, getting ostracized and/or hated by the existing playerbase, and in general feel confused and overwhelmed.  

If you join our game, you can expect it to be what we say it will be: our vision is going to hold true. 

I know there's a lot of history of trauma in the hobby and nobody starts off trusting anybody. But this is the security that we are offering, and if people are deterred by it, then I can't help that. The game is not going to be for everybody. But for those that it is for, I hope you enjoy it, because we are building what we are building. And there is a lot more range here than people are assuming, but if they take offense at the mere idea of any sort of guidelines then... I don't know what to say.

Nobody leaving is 'bad'. They are just maybe traumatized by past games and situations. Some I genuinely treasured: Mistsparrow and I spent hours discussing and going over their character applications and hooking people into hopefully fun plots, and I definitely feel invested in players, so it hurts a bit to lose them. I spent half the day yesterday pondering the private parting words of one of these players. I'm sure it also hurts them a bit to feel let-down by something they might've had hope would be a good fit for them. So, I'll make a suggestion: to those who really enjoy "collaborative writing" , I highly recommend AresMUSH games. The game engine is well-designed, with great consideration, and perfectly-tailored, built-in support for a more negotiable long-form posing rather than an attitude of "this is the objective game reality that all our characters exist in at once, and we must be mindful of that in order to preserve each others' agency". The level of prose you can find in these games is usually outstanding and wonderful. And there are such a multitude of options to choose from that you can most likely find the perfect setting you'd enjoy. If you can't find the perfect setting, it's also possible to host your own game: AresMUSH is an amazing codebase that almost entirely removes the technical obstacles for storytellers trying to host games. 

So, if the collaborative writing style is your jam, all the power to you, my friends. 

Let's all continue to be kind and constructive; I don't believe anything here is a smouldering ruin except for the pits of Rakim's tar-black eyes. I could gaze into those feverish orbs all day. 

TLDR: We're not yucking yums, and I think people may be imagining things about our intentions that aren't there. I have loved seeing the roleplay in this game so far, and appreciate all the players, especially the ones sticking with us through these culturally defining moments. These are growing pains.



Edit: God this post is so long. Jiraya nailed us with that ba-dum-psh. 

RE: About

I guess I must be misunderstanding, because to me that has nothing to do with writing style but is instead metagaming, at least in this context? And that the concept of limiting emote length would do nothing about, and that the comments expressing frustration with this have had nothing to do with "metagaming/collorative writing" or however you want to refer to it, and is instead due to the feeling of having to bend their style of writing to fit something else because some people don't like it, and that steps may be taken to curb people doing so?

It's probably safe to say that this isn't anyone here's first RP game! With that in mind, I don't think anyone is really angry about the notion of a style guide. But then again, in all my years of roleplaying, nobody's ever tried to decide the resolution of a scene before it happens with me. That typically falls into the forbidden realm of metagaming. Maybe I'm an outlier!

There's a tone mismatch between 'we're keeping it light and immersive, with code support so you don't need constantly consult a gm' and 'as creators of the game we have a vision, there are other games if you do not share it.' It could well be that all play has been fine and players are distressed in error, but that last one's a message that some of us have seen before and seen another side of. Policy changes or more required reading probably aren't necessary, but I'd suggest a much, much softer approach with messaging.

The idea of limiting character lengths for dialogue, or limiting counts of dialogue, in a single emote... was just a passing thought to address the cultural norm of people emoting in such a way that others have difficulty responding in real time. In retrospect, it was ill-considered of me to bring up this idea for public discussion in such a way that players might misinterpret and worry. But that's all it was -- an alpha phase discussion about how to support our intended vision.

In the setting where it is the norm, this "collaborative writing" that I described is actually not considered metagaming at all. But you're right that in this context, it would be considered metagaming. That's why we would like to encourage the writing style that suits real-time action, at least when logged into the game and in public places. To me, this is implicitly part-and-parcel of the vision on our About page. Making guidelines about emoting in order to support the vision on the About page doesn't seem like it should blindside anybody, and I believe that it has only done so because people are misunderstanding our ideas about guidelines. Everything is meant to support that vision we have stated.

Here's what is on the About page that I feel is regarding collaborative writing: plot out all twists and turns of your character's story in advance, and always have ultimate agency over everything that happens to them

-------

Disclaimer: I literally just woke up but I feel compelled to respond to this even pre-caffeine so apologies in advance for that  Obligatory disclaimer of: I'm also still not upset or feeling any kind of way and still in it for the long haul. This is just my feeble attempt to paint a picture of where some of the confusion and hurt feelings might be coming from, from other parties.

So, up to this point, I have purposefully not weighed in on the, "What does collaborative storytelling and improv acting mean to you?" because I'm honestly with Nima on this one: it feels like what is actually being discussed here is short-form vs. long-form roleplaying. Because, to me, all roleplay is collaborative storytelling. We are writing stories together. That's literally what collaborative storytelling is.

But I also feel like at this point, we've devolved -- in some ways -- into just arguing semantics with each other over this. I'm an INFP married to an INTP. We here in this discussion have engaged in the GRAVEST ERROR, I have found, from my years of trying to talk about something with my husband and then we both end up frustrated when we end up just sort of confused about what the other is saying: the words we are discussing here were not defined beforehand. So we are each holding onto our own definitions of these words and going into the discussion with these words that are so important to said discussion (collaborative storytelling vs. improv acting) meaning highly different things to each person.

I'm a fast typer. I could, if I wanted to, slap someone in the face with a big paragraph of body language and one second's worth of dialogue to respond to their two-line emote they just gave me. Wouldn't this be improv acting? I was in the moment! I didn't pack 12 actions into one emote! I didn't make my scene partner wait for me to respond! But then the other person might suddenly feel as though their writing wasn't good enough because mine was too much "prose." They might then sit there, obsessing over their writing instead, wondering if they're using too many of the same phrasings in their return emote or worried that stylistically my emote was somehow "better" and they need to match it (I'm incredibly loosely paraphrasing Mistsparrow's lovely, well-thought out post in The Other Thread, if anyone is wondering on where I am getting this highly paraphrased thought from). So, to me, this is why this all seems to, in reality, boil down to, "We would prefer short-form emotes over long-form emotes in public spaces."

And there's nothing wrong with that thought. But I think that is where some people are getting hung up.

Because this game was billed as narrative-driven so to me that literally says, "We're writing a story together," and now it feels like what is being said is, "Well, we were very upfront about what this game was about so we're not sure where people got confused." So this chunk of words is my pre-caffeine attempt to explain that confusion. I'm a long-form writer (I'm just going to go with this phrasing now; thank you, pof Nima, for reminding me of this phrasing). I've been RPing for 23 years in various spaces. I have always considered RPing with other people to be, "collaborative storytelling." In fact, that's hilariously how I have always described this hobby to my non-nerdy friends and family. "I am playing a collaborative storytelling game." It's just easier for them to digest. At no point in my entire RP career have I ever decided the outcomes of scenarios with people in advance. I've played on forums, on MUDs -- both RPEs and RPIs. On Yahoo chatrooms back in the day but we're not going to remember those Dark Ages. When I think of, "People sitting down and talking out the outcome of a scene," I think of a MUSH space but this might be an INACCURATE ASSUMPTION. Like I mentioned once before in this thread: I played on a MUSH once. For all of ten days. I know nothing, much like Jon Snow.

So, this phrase, quoted from Pilgrim's post (and from the About page): plot out all twists and turns of your character's story in advance, and always have ultimate agency over everything that happens to them. This phrase signals to me that this is a (God, I hate the phrase I'm about to type next. Someone give me a new phrase over this one, please) non-con, organic RP space. Which is what I'm used to, so this phrase in the About page didn't signal anything special to me other than, "Oh, the typical organic RP I'm used to. Cool." (And what I mean by NON-CON, because I hate that but I have no better word for it, is that I get no OOC veto power on someone coming up and kidnapping or beating my character senseless. Which I like. I prefer that. I actually ended up gushing to pof Iken a few separate times over Discord on some of the code you guys put in here, like all the ways to carry a person or the fact that you can codedly choke a person because I loved that there were coded ways to potentially, and responsibly, antagonize other people here).

Yeah, pof Jiraya really hit us with that zinger good because here's my own novella in reply.

TL;DR: I feel like we're arguing semantics at this point because no one defined the terms we're using to debate each other beforehand so we're each going into the discussion with conflicting definitions of the same words. I also feel like all RP is collaborative storytelling, which is where I think a lot of people are getting hung-up, especially since this was billed as a narrative driven game. And also that one phrase on the About page just signaled to me that this was a non-con organic RP space and didn't make me think anything about a preferred writing style, which I think is where some other people are getting hung-up.

So one thing I'm noticing is that Pilgrim used the words Collaborative Writing and many people who seem to take issue with this position are using the term Collaborative Storytelling and I think that at least some of the miscommunication here is that these are not necessarily two interchangeable things.

I do think we are all engaged in collaborative storytelling as people seem to understand it, and that is in no way at issue or not supported by this game.  It is a multiplayer game, we are telling stories together.  Collaborative storytelling is fine.

The question is whether or not what we're doing is writing.  And that, ultimately, comes down to an issue of being immersed.

If we're focused on a just right turn of phrase, or avoiding being repetitive, or our worn out shorthands and verbal tics then we're writing.  Our attention is divided from inhabiting our character's experience in the moment, responding icly, and giving other players a chance to respond naturalistically in turn.

I don't actually think it's as simple as short-form versus long form.

Zahra says : "I'm a fast typer. I could, if I wanted to, slap someone in the face with a big paragraph of body language and one second's worth of dialogue to respond to their two-line emote they just gave me. Wouldn't this be improv acting? I was in the moment! I didn't pack 12 actions into one emote! I didn't make my scene partner wait for me to respond! "

And she's right!  What Zahra is doing is exactly right, it's "improv acting" (per my understanding, though of course I'm not the authority on what someone else meant!) If someone feels insecure about the quality of their writing because Zahra's is really good, that's overwhelmingly likely to be their own issue that they just need to process, because at the end of the day it's not what matters (it's just nice to see). This isn't Harrison Bergeron the ballerinas don't need to dance with sandbags.

It's me, the two line emoter, who nevertheless managed in those two lines to address two different people on two different topics, and included a pause for dramatic effect that they're talking about.  I'm the one they're trying to encourage to break it up.

Character limits are another crude measure that obscures the intent.  If you type fast enough that the person you're playing with doesn't lose focus between your thoughts you're fine.  The reason they were ever mentioned at all (I imagine) was just as a reminder to keep things moving, if you're skilled enough that you can dash off a beautiful emote without having to labor over it, that doesn't strain credulity for how much you can accomplish in an increment of time, etc then good for you, you're really really good at this, you aren't doing anything wrong.

The message is for people like me, to worry less about writing beautifully, and to focus on being in the moment, paying close attention, and to give other people a chance to get a word in edgewise, now and again. 

I agree entirely with pof Zahir... it's not so much about long-form and short-form. Rather, it's about having consideration for the pacing and measuring of time in a way that makes it easy for others to react. Just like our request about being considerate of timed plot requirements with cutscenes, the goal is to create an atmosphere that facilitates the telling of stories through immersion in a character's mindset. We want players to be able to think organically and dynamically in the mind of that character, rather than fixated overly on the meta, and we want players who are in that mindframe to feel as though they have the agency to tell their character stories in the way that makes the most sense.

Hopefully we can eventually settle on some well-phrased guidelines that can explain this idea without any misunderstandings, and possibly add a line onto the About page to warn prospective players who don't like these ideas -- though I really do believe that the vision of the game is already encapsulated there, and as guidelines to support that vision go, it's not going to be anything as simple as a flat length limitation. Even when we were considering a character limit it wasn't on the entire length of the emote. So, I really do think that most of this was a misunderstanding led by past trauma in other games. But if it's not, I'm glad for people to pursue their fun wherever their fun is.

It really does remind me of when we said that people should be considerate of the timing when doing cutscenes. I think a couple of the same players were unhappy with that idea, or perhaps misinterpreted it too, assuming that we meant cutscenes were required to move at the same speed as the in-game context. But that wasn't the case, just as right now it's not the case that we are enforcing short-form writing. The whole idea is to respect the story needs of other players in an immersive and organic environment, within reasonable boundaries. I don't really want to have a huge list of norms and guidelines, so it'd be nice if we could somehow wrap it into some short bullets that nevertheless carry across the intentions.

It's probably a good idea to have three sections for these roleplay guidelines: combat, cutscenes, and normal in-game context

"Hopefully we can eventually settle on some well-phrased guidelines that can explain this idea without any misunderstandings, and possibly add a line onto the About page to warn prospective players who don't like these ideas -- though I really do believe that the vision of the game is already encapsulated there, and as guidelines to support that vision go, it's not going to be anything as simple as a flat length limitation."

Hi,

To start I will say that I disagree with you & Esfandiar's characterisation of what "collaborative writing" means to most people who use that phrase. I'm not sure where you came across the idea that it has to do with non-linear timescales, preplanned scenes/story-arcs etc., but I have never seen it used that way, ever, and I've played many different kinds of text-games for most of my life. To me collaborative writing means you are writing, collaboratively. All text-based RP is collaborative writing. I don't enjoy non-linear timescales, preplanned story-arcs, or when people pile on multiple actions into a single emote which should be interruptible, without leaving space for other characters to do so. I also happen to know Rakim's player very well, so I feel comfortable speaking for them to say that they share this definition, and these preferences, wholeheartedly.

I'm not sure if this game is for me. My discomfort isn't over the idea of guidelines, which I think would be a good idea. My discomfort is with the idea that focusing too much on writing detracts from RP somehow. I also found this statement particularly puzzling coming from Mistsparrow, because I assume the bulk of worldbuilding was her own, and I find it to be very well written, as are staff's forum posts, even those with which I disagree. I sort of assumed this game was by and for people who think writing is cool. All evidence except for direct statements would seem to point that way.

To me, a MUD is a writing game. If this is not meant to be a writing game, I think that should be made very clear on the About Page, because I think that's the most unexpected and blindsiding aspect of this whole discussion. By and large everything else that's been discussed so far seems like common sense, which doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful spelled out for new players, but it's less likely to catch people off-guard.

If you agree on the general guidelines and their intention, then I'm confused as to what bothers you. This entire medium is text; I don't see how it could not be a writing game. But the focus is stories, played out in an immersive way, and I do kind of feel we've talked this to death and I'd just be repeating things at this point. We're not thought police, you're welcome to enjoy writing as much as you want. The guidelines would be intended to preserve an immersive roleplay atmosphere in-game, when it comes to things like people piling up actions in one emote, and so on.

It remains strange for me to see players agree with the guidelines but continue finding disagreement. If you like the guidelines and you like the vision as stated, then I don't see why we can't all be content. What is it you're worried about happening, exactly?

I'm not Zayit (OBVIOUSLY though I still adore your character's sdesc and always will) so I can't speak for Zayit. But here I come again, butting in, to try and make some sense of where I think the confusion has come from: because, like Zayit, collaborative writing (thank you, Zahir, for pointing out I used the wrong term last time I posted) to me just means "roleplay." So saying, "This isn't a game for collaborative writing," probably tilted a few heads. But I think at this point (since it has been beaten to death but I'm beating it some more. Like poor, dead [Redacted]), we can all agree that we now know what you and Mistsparrow were saying when you said that.

I feel like all this talk of improv style vs collaborative writing style is where the confusion has sprung from when it sounds like what you guys are wanting here in terms of emoting culture is (and please correct me if I'm off on some points or if I miss something):

• No metagaming (ie. pre-planning story arcs and scene outcomes). Check! We're all Gucci here. No metagaming to be seen.
• For people to not "yo-yo" and carry on multiple conversations at once in one emote. Roger that, Commanders-in-Chief! This was a personal bad habit of mine so I was glad for the correction.
• For people to be cognizant of the pacing in a scene so that everything feels organic and we're not falling into the trap of some RPIs where you end up having to wait 15 minutes for each person to emote. But at the same time, you shouldn't immediately start spamming a bunch of one-liners and end up pushing someone else out of the scene. Just be aware and respectful of your fellow RPers. And if you feel like the pacing is going too fast, throw up a green xcard. I'm all for this! I hate scenes that feel like you have to set aside a five-hour time slot to just have a conversation with two other people so I'm all aboard the Avaria pacing train here.
• For people, if they were going to do a 15-line emote in which their character monologued about their day, to instead break that up into the natural pauses in their character's speech (like if I was about to emote Zahra trailing off while she considered her words that I then hit enter after that line instead of picking up with more dialogue in my emote after that pause) to allow other characters to jump into the conversation in those pauses and interrupt the monologuer, etc. so that it all flows more naturally.
• For people to not worry about passive RPers in a scene. If someone wants to just zone out and go quiet, let them. Don't feel pressured, as a more active RPer, to try to rope them back into the action. Which is honestly a weight off of my chest. I will happily be selfish and go cozy up in a place with someone and tmote to my heart's content.
• For no one to be worried about the quality of their writing. This is a safe space for all sorts of different styles and no one should be concerned or trying to judge their writing against someone else's. If I have the ability to word vomit prose and I'm not slowing down the pacing of a scene, awesome. If I just want to use socials and says, awesome. If I have a highly adaptive style where sometimes I want to go chill with Rakim and do puppy dog eyes at him in the hopes he'll hit me with two paragraphs at once and then come back up on deck and do snappy one-line banter with Rostam, awesome. There's a place at the table for all of us, so long as we're being respectful of each other.

And that's it. That's what I've gotten out of these two separate discussions now. Was there another culture point I missed?