Creative Satisfaction - Poll and Discussion.

[fhs15]

I only played a single character for most of my time, but that allowed me to play an interesting character without doing archetype.

My general goal is to roleplay an average joe, since I find that aspect interesting, and the interactions that come from it to be my favorite (I never experienced much else so can't say whether I'm missing peak)

what I think I did well:
Short-term emotional RP
Playing a character that is both/neither loyalist and Rebel
Having deep conversations
RomanceRP

What I still want to improve:
my weak /me game, i rarely use them and then I do they are usually just short
Long term emotional RP especially portrayal of depression, I found it hard to really RP it long term since both I prefer to play a more cheerful/banter filled character and I find it just being sad all the time makes them more emo "life sucks". so I portrayed it in a different way with Richard simply burying his emotions in work
Initializing more interactions, while I have improved in this aspect I still find that I'm very conservative in opening conversations and approaching people, this is also an IRL problem so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Imperator RAD-X]

I'll be real, this is one of the nicer and more direct polls I've come across. Thanks for making it. I hope more people put their thoughts down on it. It's been a long time running.

 

[Lab]

Long term emotional RP especially portrayal of depression, I found it hard to really RP it long term since both I prefer to play a more cheerful/banter filled character and I find it just being sad all the time makes them more emo "life sucks". so I portrayed it in a different way with Richard simply burying his emotions in work

This is something I struggled with as well. Conveying depression is really difficult without being one-note or forcing it too hard.

I think the approach that made it easier for me was understanding depression not as a constant note that affects someone at all times, but something that comes in inexplicable waves, usually manifested as apathy and resignation. This is how I think depression is truly expressed in people I've talked to in real life.

Unfortunately this didn't seem to click with many others, and most handwaved the apathy as my character "refusing to change", an interpretation I felt didn't get to the root of why my character was acting the way he was. But upon reflection I suppose I could have done better to portray this style of depression.

Something to work on from both of us

 

[ford-michigan]

For me I like to try to get either one or more big goals for a character then I just go and try. Currently I have two, one is research stuff with hopefully nuclear, and the other is rebel politics but set more with Romanesque stuff. The only thing that I have been lacking in is clear conviction for ideals, but most of that was for loyalist stuff and over this last year I have focused personally more on republican forms of government and law, which is a big contrast to worshiping big alien empire. But I am hoping that if I can do the rebel politic stuff that I can bring real conviction since personally I hold strong ideals for representative government, by the people, and the rule of law.

Another thing of note is that while I see other people who can play majorly different characters, I can not. This is because I can not authentically portray something that I have never been or been around. Like say major depression or mental issues; I have autism but I handle it well and I have reasonable logic in my life philosophy; thus I can't play a crazy loner in the slums for instance. Now on the other side I do like to add authenticity to traits that I do know and things I do know. Id est: nuclear reactors, a bit of Latin (so far a bit over four chapters into LINGVA LATINA, FAMLIA ROMANA), philosophy on government, & jurisprudence. Basically, if I am going to do something as a goal, I try not to fifty-percent it, but the disadvantage is that it makes me shy away from things that I am certainly not going to get right.

 

[Ket]

I feel like I'm mostly satisfied with how I played my biggest character during V2. Like other people have said in the thread, there's definitely more I could've done and I most definitely would have changed the way I played him in hindsight. I was accused at the start of Valente getting into power, sorta when Rajko was shot next to his head that I never roleplayed it well and just shrugged it off. Although I don't think people understand how difficult it was to roleplay the fact Valente was hard of hearing in one ear or mentally screwed after that point, but I wanted to make it like a lamb in wolf's clothing. Public appearance is strong but in the background totally crazy. Maybe there was more interesting things to do but roleplaying long term mental problems is difficult given that timescale in hl2rp is like a broken string.

Something to work on for v3 i suppose.

 

[Parsil]

The portrayal of a character is almost, if not more important than the character itself. It's all made more difficult by the spur of the moment nature of roleplaying. I've come out of 90% of engagements satisfied with my work, but in retrospect I've always felt regret for not doing more. That's the main issue I feel. The actual portrayal is fine, consistent, realistic, and all that, but I've always felt there was room for more. When they decided to put me on trial, I thought of a great legal argument I could pull, to make a big show out of it, as I was definitely not gonna come out of it unscathed. Yet, in that moment, instead of going off on a big speech, I left the room ranting and raving after 2 minutes. That panicked rush and mental freeze has plagued me for years. That's why I had to vote "Mostly Satisfied". I consider myself good at roleplaying, but when it comes to it, I always regret not playing it out more. I rush things! And that's, like, very bad.

 

[melodicwaste]

The portrayal of a character is almost, if not more important than the character itself. It's all made more difficult by the spur of the moment nature of roleplaying. I've come out of 90% of engagements satisfied with my work, but in retrospect I've always felt regret for not doing more. That's the main issue I feel. The actual portrayal is fine, consistent, realistic, and all that, but I've always felt there was room for more. When they decided to put me on trial, I thought of a great legal argument I could pull, to make a big show out of it, as I was definitely not gonna come out of it unscathed. Yet, in that moment, instead of going off on a big speech, I left the room ranting and raving after 2 minutes. That panicked rush and mental freeze has plagued me for years. That's why I had to vote "Mostly Satisfied". I consider myself good at roleplaying, but when it comes to it, I always regret not playing it out more. I rush things! And that's, like, very bad.

You're better than me at playing a consistent character then you'll ever know Buddy

 

[ramen]

There are many things I wish I could do differently on the characters I portray, and none of them will ever be my true "Perfect Character," as they will always have some flaw that I have to work through before the character can be good.

My closest character to "perfect" in my eyes was my old loyalist Ulysses Nathius.
He had a hell of a story, but then I got burnt out from Willard, came back, and decided to delete him. I still regret that.

 

[Lost Coast Chanties]

I am the 2.4%.

 

[Lab]

Does anyone feel like their roleplay quality is inversely proportional to the number of concurrent characters you play? It felt like my roleplay quality precipitously increased when I went all in on 1 character. Anyone agree/disagree, because I feel like the mentality of playing 1 character is completely different to playing multiple.

Perhaps this is the way to go if you struggle with character focus.

 

[rae]

Does anyone feel like their roleplay quality is inversely proportional to the number of concurrent characters you play? It felt like my roleplay quality precipitously increased when I went all in on 1 character. Anyone agree/disagree, because I feel like the mentality of playing 1 character is completely different to playing multiple.

Perhaps this is the way to go if you struggle with character focus.

I feel like if I play one character and only one, their mindset and thought process kind of becomes second nature for me, when I played Kross, my mindset was similar to hers in a way that I didn't need to think about how she'd react in some scenarios, it just came to me. If I were to play another character though? It'd be very weird for me to shift away from it, and the character tends to seem 'dull' or very surface level.

 

[Lab]

I feel like if I play one character and only one, their mindset and thought process kind of becomes second nature for me, when I played Kross, my mindset was similar to hers in a way that I didn't need to think about how she'd react in some scenarios, it just came to me. If I were to play another character though? It'd be very weird for me to shift away from it, and the character tends to seem 'dull' or very surface level.

Well said

 

[FungletheBungle]

Does anyone feel like their roleplay quality is inversely proportional to the number of concurrent characters you play? It felt like my roleplay quality precipitously increased when I went all in on 1 character. Anyone agree/disagree, because I feel like the mentality of playing 1 character is completely different to playing multiple.

Perhaps this is the way to go if you struggle with character focus.

Quite the opposite, the more characters I have (and actually think about) the more I can compare them against each other. Where they differ, how they would each approach different situations. I try to start each one with a major flaw, maybe more. The more characters you properly try to RP the more opportunities you have to fail from and learn, making you better at RP in the long run.

It's not always about the most detailed /me or the most poetic prose, the meat and bones of a character is who they are and what they are going to do about it.

 

[Lab]

That's true. To each their own, really.

I brought up that point because I reckon one approach to dealing with one's dissatisfaction with their own creativity is to concentrate their focus on one character. Maybe that'll resonate with someone and they'll find satisfaction in that way of playing. It just clicked for me, and it's the approach I will take going forward.

 

[Ket]

Does anyone feel like their roleplay quality is inversely proportional to the number of concurrent characters you play? It felt like my roleplay quality precipitously increased when I went all in on 1 character. Anyone agree/disagree, because I feel like the mentality of playing 1 character is completely different to playing multiple.

Perhaps this is the way to go if you struggle with character focus.

I tend to only be able to go fully in on one character. This doesn't mean like, I'm completely unable to play multiple characters. But as in like, I only feel there are consequences for my actions with only one character. Whereas for example my Vortigaunt I really didn't care as long as I felt like I was acting similar to a non-human character.

 

[Malic]

That's true. To each their own, really.

​

“Writers aren't exactly people.... They're a whole bunch of people trying to be one person.”​

- F. Scott Fitzgerald on having undiagnosed OSDD

Each character is an avenue by which the setting can be discovered and created day by day. That's one of the reason the people complaining for V2 and clamoring for V3 felt so tragic. All the bells and whistles in the world aren't going to help your writing half so much as reading more and consciously putting effort into your creative work. For some people that effort can manifest across multiple characters with distinct personalities, for others it fits them better to focus on the one.