Character Description

[Face]

Character descriptions can only be used against you to identify you later; I see why so many do not use them, WYSIWYG.

Imo that's a pretty insane stance, particularly 'used against you.' Arelith is about telling stories and descriptions are used to add to the story hugely. Anyone leaving theirs blank because they're playing to win, as though you can win at rp, 'against' people has misunderstood the server entirely.

[One Two Three Five]

There's definitely people playing here that take this as a competitive game with defined win and lose parameters. It's not as though they're subtle about it. Is it silly? Oh absolutely yes. But it does happen.

[Drakkenstien]

Character descriptions can only be used against you to identify you later; I see why so many do not use them, WYSIWYG.

That's... not exactly the best reason not to use it. For myself, it also can portray a lot of information about a character that you otherwise would not have had, that has added to RP in the past, and will in the future. There's not really a good way to convey certain things, such as odd features or a recognizable marking without using descriptions. For example!



Both the six fingers and the marking on her cheek have been used before to further some role-play, and frankly, it'd be tiresome to include those two things in an emote. It also gives some hints as to profession, as well as what one of her classes are (the one she identifies with the most). Saying that it can "only be used to identify you later" isn't correct and actually is a bit cynical.

There's definitely people playing here that take this as a competitive game with defined win and lose parameters. It's not as though they're subtle about it. Is it silly? Oh absolutely yes. But it does happen.

Playing a role-playing game as a zero-sum game sounds really stressful. I'll take a hard pass on that.

EDIT: I realize "exactly" is spelled incorrectly. I am much too lazy to fix it.

[BegoneThoth]

There's definitely people playing here that take this as a competitive game with defined win and lose parameters. It's not as though they're subtle about it. Is it silly? Oh absolutely yes. But it does happen.

You can win or lose elections, win or lose pvp. Game has a lot of win/lose states.

Now, with dusguise broken, I can absolutely see why peopke go with the big 'uninjured / neutral.'

[Face]

Your character can win or lose elections. Your character can win or lose pvp.

You, the player, are distinct from your character. You can't win/lose anything. You're just telling a story.

[The GrumpyCat]

Your character can win or lose elections. Your character can win or lose pvp.

You, the player, are distinct from your character. You can't win/lose anything. You're just telling a story.

This is one of the truest things I've read on the forums for a long time. And really worth keeping in mind.

[Queen Titania]

Your character can win or lose elections. Your character can win or lose pvp.

You, the player, are distinct from your character. You can't win/lose anything. You're just telling a story.

This is one of the truest things I've read on the forums for a long time. And really worth keeping in mind.

This is the perfect attitude to have in general.

[MissEvelyn]

Echoing Face's statement, don't take things personal when something happens to your character.

When I first started with my first character, I made the wonderful mistake of making her an MoD character. You have to understand, I knew nothing about building a proper character, so I died very often.
The one death that came from PvP was the last death, the final stroke that sent her to whatever realm Bane dwells in.

Yet, I wasn't angry or bitter. I thought it was a perfect ending to her story. Yes, it was sad to lose her prematurely. But the dramatic conflict ending was a bittersweet thing, and I would do it again any day for the sake of the story.

[Jayim Duinara]

New here. For my character's description, I stuck with sensory information (stuff that could be observed) and whittled it down so there wasn't a scroll bar. I also divided it up into most obvious, to closer inspection. What do you all think, good or bad?

---

First Glance: A riot of green and bronze; lots of bare skin and smooth muscle, covered with swirling tattoos.

Second Glance: Very fine, if minimal, clothes. A self-containted and proper bearing, with a permanently polite smile.

Third Glance: This young Elf’s demeanor cycles between intense scrutiny of his surroundings and patient serenity.

The disparity of these impressions is disorienting.

[Opustus]

Speaking of English things, don't you guys find it strange that so often in English we start sentences with the subordinate clause? Someone might write: Until I turn 18, I won't drink alcohol. When in most cases the opposite order of clauses sounds far more sensible: I won't drink alcohol until I turn 18. This is something that has been bugging me for as long as I've been learning English.

There are numerous examples of subordinate clause starting the sentence in this thread: "Tied to his belt is a wooden pendant ... " -> why not "A wooden pendant is tied to his belt ..." and "Upon her hips are a pair of rapiers ... " why not "There are a pair of rapiers on her hips ..."

This isn't the most important thing in the world but it sounds sooo off to my ear, yet it seems to be the English standard and I see it all the time in literature and other uses of the language.


Anyway, to give some of my own writing tips. 1. Don't use overlong sentences, they are exhausting to read. 2. Don't use complicated structures or words. 3. Break the aforementioned rules abundantly for humour value or if you write with a rhythm of your own like Toni Morrison. 4. Don't be intimidated by repetition, it usually doesn't sound too clumsy and it can work as a nice literary device. 5. Read and write a lot!

[Wordless Truth]

Speaking of English things, don't you guys find it strange that so often in English we start sentences with the subordinate clause? Someone might write: Until I turn 18, I won't drink alcohol. When in most cases the opposite order of clauses sounds far more sensible: I won't drink alcohol until I turn 18. This is something that has been bugging me for as long as I've been learning English.

There are numerous examples of subordinate clause starting the sentence in this thread: "Tied to his belt is a wooden pendant ... " -> why not "A wooden pendant is tied to his belt ..." and "Upon her hips are a pair of rapiers ... " why not "There are a pair of rapiers on her hips ..."

This isn't the most important thing in the world but it sounds sooo off to my ear, yet it seems to be the English standard and I see it all the time in literature and other uses of the language.

This sort of switch can be used to

A. Emphasize that part of the sentence

It happens a lot in descriptions because people describe their characters part by part. Start somewhere (let's say, back), and then move onto another part (let's say, belt).

"There's a sword sheathed on his back. Tied to the belt, there's another sword, a shorter one."

B. Sort the information given by importance

"Why are you not done with <something> yet?"

"While I was cleaning up after you and doing all the things you haven't, I didn't find the time to do <something>"

C. Make for a more interesting reading experience

"He has a sword on his back. There is a shield on his back, too. He has another sword by his belt. There are small blades on the sides off the boots. He has wristblades on his gauntlets, as well."

...is not wrong, but not quite as easy on the eye as when you switch things up a bit.



On the whole description discussion - Currently playing a character that disguises regularly, I can say that only a fraction of players bothers to even click examine. Don't overcomplicate.

[Opustus]

All the examples make perfect sense, thanks!