Membership A Trial Run on No-Word Count

[Kit the Human 759]

This has probably been the only word count discussion thread I've enjoyed reading XD

 

I suspect that depending on which forums you inhabit, you will get a different idea on what is popular. So to reiterate what has already been said (and after the decision has been made) you ought to keep the minimum word count because it will attract the kind of writers you want on your site.

 

Moving onto how the discussion has evolved, Uathine (not tagging so that you can have your break) is right, I don't think anyone believes that every post that's long is full of purple prose and is bad. I don't think anyone believes that long posts are also more likely to be bad. I also don't think anyone believes that short posts are inherently or more likely to be better.

 

Now I don't enjoy purple prose that doesn't move the plot forward or forces post splicing. However, I'm not going to impose a maximum word count in some misguided attempt to prevent that from happening. Sometimes, you need to write a lot to convey everything that's happening.

 

Just like sometimes, things are moving quickly. You use short sentences. Few words. Everything's to the point because your character is hyper focused on their pain, the battle at hand, the obstacle, whatever it is. So that post will be short to reflect that. And just like a word maximum is limiting those introspective moments, so a minimum prevents you from those rapid, panicked moments.

 

I think of individual posts like cut points in a movie. You have short and looooong shots, and they're used to communicate activity or emotion, introspection or panic. A long shot is not better than a short one, they just serve a different purpose.

 

Finally, sometimes a RPer has a limited amount of time to post. Or they're tired. Or they're going through a creative drought. 200 words will be a lot for them at that point. A short post does not mean minimum effort, just like a long post doesn't mean maximum effort. Sometimes things flow, sometimes they don't. And that's ok.

[Archivist 26]

Thank you Kit, I think that sums things up nicely. Well put.

[featherstone 69]

I second everyone in saying you should do whatever you like with your site. However, I'm wondering what WC has to do with history progression. I can write a paragraph where I attack you, reveal a secret, etc, and that'd be a major turning point. On the other hand the longest post I've seen were mainly flowery descriptions, inner monologues, fond memories of one's childhood and such. Which is lovely for character development, but doesn't give me anything to react to. A longer post means no interaction, not more - that's why for dialogues short posts are IMO the best option in literary terms, since the alternative is splicing or turning everyone in a logorrheic. So keep your WC if you like it, but to encourage people to write something useful you could add a rule about that. Not sure how I'd phrase is t, though... Another issue is having unwritten rules that contradict written ones. If your WC is 200, I give you 220 words and people complains, I feel deceived.

[Archivist 26]

If the word count is 200 and you post a scene of 220 only to have people complain. On my site, that's when you, the poster comes to me the owner and asks WTF? And then I go to the complainers (in some cases whiners?) and ask WTF? 

 

If a person posts beyond the word count minimum, AND moves the story forward AND gives people something to chew for their next post- there IS NO PROBLEM. Someone who complains, in a case like this, would be whining.

[Guest Archaic Cyborg]

If you, personally, like keeping to a standard, whether it's exact or loosely, then do whatever you want and need, I don't care if one mob requires 1k words, 300, 3, or templates, or rainbow glitter font: that's their business and I'm not going to try and convince them to change, to let me or pther players in. it's not my game, it's not suitable for me, so I move on!

 

200wc is my casual amount, but I'd still join even if I normally write less- everyone gpes through phases. What works at one time might not, years or months later. 

 

I don't understand why it seems to be one-sided in a lot of forums, be it rpgs or discussion forums; WCs get flak. I've had bad experiences with individuals, their attitudes, in comparison to a public game where everyone (just about) are on the same page.. pun not intended. :T

 

You can't really list the 'what's needed' for a post. It's stupid. And makes you/the rpg open to arguments over what constitutes x, Y and Z. If you abso,utely have to, I'd say that the rpg isn't suitable for purely reactive writers:

 

Character A: *a few sentences or 2 paragraphs' worth of interaction*

Character B: "Okay"

 

To many, especially in the rp servers I've used over the past decade, getting a one-word response, or a sentence, typically ended with disappointment, a waste of development, and a dead thread because the characters were painted into a corner.

 

In my first and second-hand experiences, the other player ran out of 'muse' and/or relied on their partner to carry the scene by themselves, It's similar to real life socialising; if I;m engaged with someone and they're just grunting or staring into space, then ???? my interest goes put the window. You give, they give back, and since this is collaborative writing, you'd think there would be roughly equal content.

 

I don;t mean equal literally, eg 465 words vs 485 words, but tangible content that throws the scene forward so the other writer can use, and adapt. If a character agrees or disagrees, there's more to it than a flat 'yeah' or 'nah'. Body language.

 

Show their true feelings by having them act distracted, or frown, grimace, smile, chuckle, say 'yes' and tack on a sarcastic come-back. Stand, sit, hide their face, or chomp away on their lunch while they think about the poison they slipped in X's own food, With purely reactive 'scene-ending' replies, the other writer has to fill in the gaps with their next reply, awkward, because they shouldn't have to assume how the other character is feeling or doing or WANTING to do.

[Sadrienne 242]

On 12/17/2017 at 5:42 PM, Archivist said:

To be honest, I don't think that the fluff and crap writing have anything to do with the word count. As one of my instructors said. "Crap is crap, no matter how many pages."

 

Another thing considered was - does having a word count say that the staff doesn't trust members to not post decent lengths in a scenario? Some would say yes, some say no.

 

To me, a high word counts opens a site up for poor quality. It's one of the reason ours is low. We don't push people to go beyond, sometimes it just happens- and that's great. Sometimes it's complete crap, with nothing to do with the story in the thread- and sometimes it takes the story forward while moving in an unexpected direction.

 

It becomes a problem when you're participating in a thread where the count is consistently over 200 words, at least, and then someone comes along and posts - lets say 25 to 50 words. For some RPers- this sends the message that the person wants someone else to carry the weight of the story- not them.  As I said, this has happened in my group and our solution was the collaboration section. And it has and does work.

 

Like most people here, I'm going to reiterate that you need to do what is best for the board you want to run. If a minimum word count of 200 has worked fine in the past, it will likely work fine in the future. Only when you decide that it's not really necessary will it really be the right time to change that rule.

 

But I will give you my own insight into the old word count vs quality/quantity etc, and I don't think it's a point that has been brought up yet:

 

A word count can often act as a limiter. Players can get so focused on reaching that minimum count, that once they get there their brain says "Okay that's a post!" and submit. Which seems to be what you're experiencing with the 200-and-stop posters. Whether it's a minimum or a maximum, directing people to focus on a specific target can have a limiting effect.

 

I agree -- 200 words is not much. I can write 200 words while half asleep. I can write 200 words while I walk to the toilet. I can write 200 words very easily. Until you ask me to write 200 words! The minute you ask me for 200 words, my brain goes "CRAP. I NEED TO WRITE 200 WORDS. WHAT ARE WORDS?" -- that is my personal reason for not having a word count. I don't work well with them, and I know that members I've had who do will have self-imposed goals that work for them.

 

Your second issue seems to be with the content of the posts not contributing to the story, which (as we've discussed) is going to happen whether your minimum word count is 5 or 500. Maybe it's worth looking into documentation that gives your members strategies for replying to posts? Teach them to look for openings in the posts above and to really insert their characters into the action---how to tell if the action is going stale and might need a bit of a boost. It sounds like you get a few green members over there, so guides that help them to develop as roleplayers may be very effective and help avoid nothing-posts.

 

I have what I call a "respect rule", which basically means that you return what was given to you. If the person(s) above posted 400 words, it's considered polite to match that. When the situations call for it, post sizes will change to be smaller (for quick action and conversations), or longer for more drawn-out sequences. Since bringing this in, I've never had an issue where I felt that members weren't putting in effort, and it's allowed us excellent flexibility in pacing scenes.

 

I hope this was helpful, and that I haven't come across as a vehement non-counter. For me, they're a hindrance to my best writing. I'm also a writer by trade and I find the freedom to write what the scene calls for far more productive than a number. But, again: you need to do what works for the board you want.

[CovertSphinx 710]

To be honest, I think it's just the fact that you HAPPEN to be in a locality where a bunch of people all agree that they feel hindered by a mandatory WC. I doubt anybody intended to make you feel like a WC was why the broader Internetians weren't joining your site. We're just a small sampling, so please don't automatically take it as indicative to the greater community as a whole. There's always going to be groups who like different things, so the game is all about finding the people that match the niche you created.