[Sawrock]

I've wanted to make a thread about some thoughts I've had about roleplaying for a while. This is more of my own rambling than anything else- not necessarily what is innately best.

In roleplaying, there's a line. At one side, we have actions and mechanics that encourage and suit immersive roleplaying, while on the other side of the line there's instead such that encourages a more storytelling-styled approach.

Some people prefer things to be more on the immersive side. I would call these styles of roleplayers "actors", as they trend towards an improv-acting style of roleplaying. They want their experiences to be given to them, and to react in the heat of the moment without being overly concerned about the bigger picture. This would usually be encouraged by more mechanics being resolved outside of the player's control, such as a game engine (whether digital or otherwise). An example would be if you lose a fight, your character is set to be knocked out, and there are mechanics that the aggressor can take that are built into the system. Or, drawing from Sigrogana Legend 1, the ability to stealth, wiretap, and otherwise spy on other players without their knowing, but also mechanics that can be used to counter such. The benefits of this style is that due to less work being done by the player, they aren't as distracted and are more able to immerse themselves/get lost in their roleplay. The downsides are that it usually requires more work from an outside source, whether it be Dev coding the game or a gamemaster (and players) having expertly mastered their tabletop system of choice (as well as having found a system that works in the first place). In addition, where the system doesn't cover often leads blindspots that need to be patched up awkwardly.

Some people instead prefer to be on the storytelling side. These roleplayers I'd instead dub "writers". They want to write and experience a good story- they do not want to leave things up to chance. If their characters don't go along the path they expected or planned out for them, it's likely they will not find the roleplay engaging. However, when they are able to plan and cooperate with their fellow roleplayers they are able to construct much more engaging experiences (as, afterall, they can be much more practiced in that regard). Some mechanics that follow this path would be allowing players to set/create scenery as they wish (as opposed to having crafted it beforehand), and having all interactions be clearly stated and expressed for those participating to view and understand. However, leaving things up to how people think what a good story makes or working without an outside mediator/ruleset can be detrimental- those who have more out-of-game will, stubbornness, or social charisma will oftentimes be more the winners in clashes, and what one person thinks is a good story can be the opposite for what another thinks makes a good story- I've seen, for example, when someone working as a guard would say "I don't want that to happen, it will make my role seem inefficient". They are playing the guard who is dutifully attending to their job, while I was playing a miscreant who would rather like to escape and commit more crimes- if my murderer is finished too early, it might be a good story for the guard for a job well done, but my criminal can't go on his spree if he's stomped immediately.

Sigrogana is a good blend of the two styles. We rely on the consent of our fellow roleplayers, which is good for a healthy environment, yet with an environment where we need to meet up with people by chance and things can happen unexpectedly from the sheer web of people we can interact with. This is a boon over forum roleplay, which due to the play-by-post nature and longer responses, are severely limited in their immersion (it's more akin to writing a story, with thoughts expressed clearly, moments mulled over for all to see). And unlike other roleplay games that are suited to more immersion (such as old Dragon Ball Z roleplay games, myself having played Finale and Phoenix) where time is tracked month by month and year by year, you need to keep up with your training, there is an afterlife system, etcetera... we do not need to dedicate the sheer amount of time that is needed for those systems. If things are too immersive, then they instead can interfere with real life, and in ghastly situations even put people in scenarios they would absolutely not give consent to.

In the end, I prefer more immersive roleplay. With the aforementioned example of the guard attempting to apprehend me, the criminal, I would prefer if both of our ideas of a story were taken into consideration and resolved by an external system, as if we both play a game (such as player combat) and see who wins, we can resolve the situation without having to flat-out concede what story we want to tell. And if I do lose- hey, they hurt me more than I hurt them, that's just the way it goes, and the roleplay can continue with my mindset set. With that being said, I absolutely see benefits to having a mix of both styles. Leaning too far into one or the other can be detrimental, so knowing what sort of situations should favor which approach and have the appropriate resolution to implement is key to satisfying roleplay.

[Neus]

Interesting way to categorize different RP styles!

I also feel like I lean towards immersive, though I'm not against situations that are more storytelling oriented (such as events), either. Mostly, I just think it's more fun to have a sense of unpredictability and tension in the atmosphere, and I find myself enjoying improv-style scenarios more. I like the feeling of going about my day and not knowing when something new might drop into my path. Early Korvara had a lot of that feeling to it.

The downside is that, yeah, you don't have much to rely on besides PvP or dice rolls if you both run into disagreement in how to resolve those situations. PvP is divisive and perhaps not always accurate to the IC. Designing systems to handle the heavy lifting is difficult since there are so many different situations and scenarios to try to account for. I feel like this only really becomes an issue with someone who isn't used to the 'saying yes' improv style, though.

For an antagonist character, the storytelling part can also be hard to work around if you're more immersive oriented. Because if you get captured on your first crime, you don't have much recourse if no one wants to play ball and give you a chance to escape. It's a place where an independent game system could be useful, but then you also have people who would just try to abuse it and make everyone else miserable. It's hard to design such a system that is lenient enough to allow for its intended purpose, while also being resilient enough to stop 'bad faith' plays.

Don't get me wrong - there are certain things I might not want to subject my character to, for whatever reason. I may still have some story beats I want to hit later, and killing or crippling them might be a bit of an inconvenience for that. But I'm also more likely to come up with an excuse as to why my character might not have a choice but to let the antag go - too weak from the battle, even if they win, for example. Storytelling has its benefits, too; if you have a specific 'destination' in mind, it's a lot easier to get there without a ton of chaos and people trying to pull the cart in different directions.

I think that inflexibility creates a vicious cycle, ultimately. It's a bigger issue than just how people to prefer their stories. People view some villainous characters as 'throw-aways' because when they finally get locked up for good/killed, another one pops up; because they got axed before their story really went anywhere, or just because the player just likes to play these types of characters. At the same time, the 'good guys' don't interact with these villains beyond the bare minimum to get them executed/retired; either because they don't care to, or they don't know how to make more out of it. It feels like a waste of a well of possibility, at times.

I do agree that being able to play both, or at least with a balance of each, is important to maximizing your opportunities and leads to increased enjoyment for everyone involved.

[Trexmaster]

I believe it's important to take into account what you provide on your end when it comes to collaborative writing. I will preface this by saying I respect anyone trying to introduce antagonists into this setting as conflict is necessary to keep things from becoming stagnant, as the environment currently makes it extremely difficult to do without EM support or significant OOC collaboration.

Taking the example of playing an antagonist, when your character is all but using the list of invalid reasons to start conflict per the Rule of Roleplay as the basis for a character it should come as no surprise most players will not believe it in good faith that you wish to inflict harm on their character with one that's reason for engaging in conflict is 'i'm crazy/evil/literally eat babies'. There is a time and place for such antagonists though many will not take kindly when they are suddenly thrust into such situations. OOC communications may happen in the moment but some players may feel pressured to consent when suddenly approached lest they feel they're being rude, then lament the fact afterwards.

Yet on the same note, some take even minor levels of spontaneous antagonism as casus belli to throw them in jail forever/toss them onto every wanted board in Korvara. Taking an L on an antag usually means losing your character. Taking an L to an antag usually means an injury at worst and said antag effectively being marked for death. It's understandable why it is the way it is but when very few people are interested in selling to antags, or selling in general, it means antags are often forced to take nothing but Ls for the work they do to bring life into the environment. Hence why so few people are willing to do it in the first place with things as they are if it isn't OOCly organized in advance.

I only wish there was a more supportive system for those who wished to play contentious characters, if not a well defined avenue to take for those interested, much like how the application system gradually came to be what it now is. As it stands, those making antagonists without ringing up relevant nation leaders and/or consulting EMs to back them up will be at the mercy of the good will of those they encounter and feel they absolutely have to run the most meta PvP builds to last more than one encounter, if that. It perpetuates a vicious cycle of its own, where those being randomly jumped by freelance antags resent their builds, build for meta to win, and in turn force those wanting to randomly inflict conflict to sweat even harder on their builds.

I understand this is a tiny bit of a deviation from the topic as presented, but it's ultimately what the topic is focused on. Antagonism and conflict and how it is handled between the various styles of roleplay.

[K Peculier]

At the start of my roleplaying journey I already leaned towards the side of being an "actor" as you put it, mainly because it's fun to use the mechanics and already using the established setting of the narrative to improv-plot out a narrative, especially when meeting new players and their characters completely blind for the first time.

I can see tons of merit of the "writer" style, but it boils down a lot to both parties agreeing to set up their interactions in such a way in order for both sides to go home happy. Otherwise you might run into the problem of having the whole narrative being shifted to cater to the writer versus having stuff play out more naturally, even if it might mean a more negative outcome for one side narratively.

Focusing more on a fulfilling narrative that can be fulfilled by both sides of a story is well and dandy, but it kind of drains the magic of roleplaying in a multiplayer game and having unique and unexpected encounters with other souls and not knowing what to immediately expect from people. At least for me.

Although the main downside of the 'style' of being the actor is that not everyone has the most noble of intentions and it can boil down to a one-sided beatdown in the name of mechanics which can be a detrimental shame if you were trying to be antagonistic in nature as a character.

[Ray2064]

I'll share my own feelings on the matter unprompted, mostly because I feel like it, and can somewhat recognize myself in one of the presented categories.

Before SL2, which is to say on prior RP games I've played, I always mostly approached RP as sort of improv. Create a character that's a bit of a blank state, and figure it out along the way according to the things they'd go through and the connections they'd make,and most importantly, depending of how it felt natural to play them at the time.

Arriving in SL2, I felt kind of small compared to characters who's authors seemed to have it more 'figured out' - with somewhat expected narratives, character arcs, eventlines, stories, hooks, with much more RP guidelines , and community expectations set in stone than what I was used to before.

I sort of can't really bring myself to be anything but an 'actor.' The thought of having to put that much conscious effort and turn something that I consider fun mindless escapism into what's essentially homework, or just an extra responsibility that I know I won't see through (I doubt others feel the same way about it, mind, I'm just a very unmotivated and lazy person in general) sort of drains any fun I'd otherwise have out of simply playing with my character how I feel like doing at the moment, to sort of just roll along the wave without feeling obligated to meet certain objectives I doubt I'd ever reach.

The moment I've to ask myself 'how should I act with this character' for more than a minute rather than knowing how to respond to what's thrown at me is when I start to dissociate myself from them, ergo, find them extremely awkward to play.

Something I do miss from earlier Korvara, as was stated, was the somewhat more spontaneous, and arguably chaotic feeling it had that resonated better with my preferences. For things to simply happen without the immediate reflex of going through two group chats, five DMs, GM approval and an EM to then hope you'd get no pushback on whatever idea were going for and not to step on any toes.

Any sort of attempt to change to the status quo is OOCly now seen as an inconvenience at best, and at worst, I'd just refer to the replies that Polk got to his antag threads.

I kind of just miss things feeling... Organic, I guess, and I wish that was more people 's cup of tea. Kpec sort of resumed my thoughts.



Tldr - Fuck you Miller

[lalchi]

Something I do miss from earlier Korvara, as was stated, was the somewhat more spontaneous, and arguably chaotic feeling it had that resonated better with my preferences.  For things to simply happen without the immediate reflex of going through two group chats, five DMs, GM approval and an EM to then hope you'd get no pushback on whatever idea were going for and not to step on any toes.

Geez, do I feel that. 
I understand why it is as is. But still, it sometimes makes progress being very difficult. 

I can't tell how much of a nightmare the planning for Snabd finale was. 
A bit unrelated since it's about EM problem and not Player problem in particular.

As the overall topic. I don't have much to add.
For me it depends of my mood. Sometimes am actor, sometimes writter. Sometimes am nothing.

I do like more immersion, but i understand that's not something easy to implement.

[MegaBlues]

I've definitely always been an improv/actor roleplayer. For me, the interactions between characters and seeing how they handle different situations is the most interesting to me. I never really have any sort of goal for what a character should become; what happens happens, and if they change over time due to their experiences, there's fun in roleplaying that too.

I never really considered that a significant portion of players were more interested in piloting a pre-planned story/trajectory, which explains a good few things. Nice food for thought.

[WaifuApple]

I like playing characters and giving them things to work towards. Long term goals, short term goals, you know the deal. Sometimes I enjoy having a path ahead - the whimsy of getting there will come all the same if you're not plotting every single stop on the journey ahead of time.

Time is a valuable commodity and I'll be one to say that not every single small thing will be worth it. Sometimes you do need a scripted hit now and then to hit the ground running or inject some life in, because there's not always going to be something that flows presented for you if all you do is go with the flow.

I think it's possible to be a mix of both! Sometimes you can follow a script loosely and improvise along the way. A way forward just helps with motivation, it gives a reason to want to be there even for the small things, sometimes.

[CuteRedCrab]

I'm someone who considers myself as both styles. I'm a writer as much as I am an actor. I enjoy seeing my characters go through situations they usually wouldn't, and improv-ing based on that. Likewise, I enjoy a set story that I have planned, either with another person or an EM for something more personal for the character.

But even then, if those plans get derailed, doing improv based on the changes is something I also find enjoyable. Overall I'm very much able to adapt to both styles depending on who I'm roleplaying with, and neither style is something that keep me away.

[Shujin]

Having put my own thoughts into this and reflected a bit on myself, I think I can very safely say that I am heavily leaning to the Immersive/actor side. Its how I enjoy things the most. The less OOC discussion about something was had, the more memorable these things were to me, as they hit me as more "true". Kept me on my toes guessing, and I enjoy that. Maybe too much.

I know for example when I played the Jack of Spades for your group, I lacked any real connection for the group. It was a fun thing to do by the by, but I never felt immersed beyond that in the character. He was just a side character written for the Story, but I never felt compelled to flesh him out beyond his "all for the king"-mentality, by the nature of how the game works and I ultimately knew "He is probably dead next week!" I know the same would happen if I decided to make a new Character for your and Porukus Slum gang, instead of letting it naturally flow. It helps me get into the character and feel more immersed, feel the reasoning behind their actions and act upon them without feeling like working of a script.

Then when I played Isleifer who was MEANT to be dead next week, by pissing as many people off as possible, people actually started to like him, and I had to actually think him through a little bit more. But I enjoyed that because he made actually real connections with people all naturally and organic. Thats the reason why I RP as an Hobby, cause I do NOT know whats going to happen, usually. 

Thats why to me, personally atleast and no offense to anyone really for it...But I stopped enjoying RPing in Korvara a while ago, where it made this shift to a more storytelling narrative. It was great early on, but now it feels all mechanical and scripted same as it felt like in G6, once the eventmins there controlled everything that happend in the world, it feels like the same is happening in Korvara now, and most people aren't even there anymore and just waiting till they can join an event announced in Discord, and after most of them are not even "Meetable" in the world. And I sorta understand this too, cause events are the "Most meaningful" things you can do currently. They are fun to get together with people and just do your things in a low stakes environment (I think I dislike generally low stakes, as they make me not feel any threat in the world and everyone starts taking serious things very lightly cause they know OOCly "I can't die no matter how stupid I am, unless I want to". Gives the game a lighthearted vibe, and I am definitely a grimdark story person. I Know not everyone does it, but 1 person in 10 is enough to sour the overall taste to me.)
My favorite examples of a Plot feeling lowstakes to me were the War/Frozen Tunrdra crisis. 
The War barely had any negative effects.
And when the Tundra crisis said all our fish are gone and stuff, we didn't have like a hunger crisis ICly, or it was meant to not have any meaningful impacts. I know I asked Salsa about it and he basically said "Nah, its chill, you are good and once the spirit is gone everything is back to normal no consequences." This literally made me instantly lose all interest in the plotline.
Or when Duyuei decided to ICly not longer trade with Meiaquar, even though they lorewise pretty much rely on it, and it had no negative consequnces... I wish things would matter more in the world and we would have more graspable concepts, so people are on the same page on things. Its just awkward when one side RPs it as a crisis and the other is like "We not feeling anything, so nothing happening!". It really breaks immersion. I know not everyone likes consequences... But come on. There are no good stories without any sort of strife. Real problems.

Something that keeps me RPing is a very Healthy mix of Mechanics/Worldbuilding and RP being able to go hand in hand, and I felt Korvara WAS that at the beginning. I felt like if I were to RP a Blacksmith, and work and establish this identity of me, I could maybe reach a point where I can maybe create something unique for people. Or as Natasha maybe explore her Role a little more, or have like street performances improved, or even get unique buffs I could give to players. Or see a problem that we have in game like a lake of mandrakes, and a discover a way of planting them.(Instead we got a cave now where we can find those, which takes away from the RP people did to research such.) I know this sounds "powergamey" but its not exactly the reason why I enjoy these things. Its because things that are unique are like a badge of honor telling you "Hey you did something in this world and left a mark that even other players can recognize and benefit from. What you do actually matters." It makes the world feel more alive to me. Imagine if Meiaquar R&D actually made Mechanations a playable race by creating their own version of it? That be so cool. I do not feel like this is really something you can do in Korvara. I think a lot of people have tried to get something, even existing things, in Korvara and I know Dev Usually says "I am not against it". but at the same time we have like to line of expectations, or whats possible, so it always feels like "Technically yeah, but nah!". So all feels a little...Pointless and stale. You just RP your slices of life, with no impact on the world, which you have in many other byond RPs even.

I think I just like having a "Perspective", something I can work towards both ICly and OOCly. If I don't have that, my ADHD and Depression won't really allow me to enjoy something or put energy into it. Thats a me problem. I understand it. But damm do I miss early Korvara and the empty promises it had. It kept me engaged.

I know a little more on the negative side, but I still hold much love for the game, but most of it is unfortunately Nostalgia. Glad people can still find their drive here though and find their spots, I would be sad if SL2 died down I grew up with it.