NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a number of threads where people ask if others see them as good/bad roleplayers. I've also seen people make decisions about someone's RPing ability. As someone who has been in the teaching world, I realize that grading can be a very subjective affair.

Now my question to you is, how do you evaluate who is and who isn't a good/bad roleplayer? There's no exam anyone here takes that determines your RP abilities (I took one when I applied to join ESUS, but that's a different story altogether). There's no one with the authority to do so running around and telling someone she's a good roleplayer or he's a bad roleplayer.

So, what is it that you look for to determine who you consider a good roleplayer? Is it someone who includes painstaking detail of every little event that goes on? Is it someone who writes a lot of action? Is it someone who just looks convincing as a country? What makes you feel able to evaluate someone else's RP?

Please don't take any of the above in a negative sense. I'd like to see some interesting discussion go on here possibly.

Wouldn't this be like asking someone to define what 'cool' is? I really am new to Nationstates, so I don't have any say what goes on here, and am still trying to feel it out. I do know though what goes on in the Live Rp hierarchy, and have been trying to decide if it's anything like this. In a Live Rp, what makes you a good Rper is description. To sucede in Live Rp you must adopt a thesauraus as a pet. Description, but not every last detail. Filler is just annoying, and I doubt anyone want's to be reminded of how an arm works. There is no need to go through the motion of every muscle flexing... It's like writing a story really, and everyone develops their own style.

There are those uber-cocky arrogant ones though in every social ladder that exists, that sit there judging someone by lack of something, or supplement of something. Once I had enough time on my hands to make up a Live Rp Classification Guide to identify diffferent levels that Rpers are one. Then I found out I was a hypocrite. C'est la vie!

Hmm, I'd define a good RPer as one who is able to and does participate in enjoyable, in-depth and creative role-playing. Who is able to get into the minds of their character, and 'act' and say just as their character would. The more convincing someone is, that is when I read their RP, and I can treat it like a story and believe that they are in a way who they roleplay they are, the better a RPer in my opinion.

Thanks Santa Barbara.

My take on it (as a just-turned four month old country) is very similar to yours. People who have an eye for realism and who focus more on getting the story right than on "winning" or "losing" wars and such tend to be better RP'ers. People who create threads that draw people, whether it's a storyline they'd be involved in or not also tend to be better roleplayers.

As an example, I am likely not on Automagfreek's radar screen IC, but he's responded OOC to some of my own OOC posts. By the same token, even though I don't get into AMF's threads, I tag them and want to read them because he paints a vivid picture with every word and each post is part of a larger plot. I've had countries I've never heard of that have tagged threads, even if they end up not getting involved in them later. Perhaps that's a sign of interest in the thread.

As for actually evaluating RPing, it's an inexact science, sort of like grading writing assignments (I have experience in that regard, BTW). There's no formal training you can enroll in during school to make you a better RP'er. But usually the same people get acknowledged as good or great RP'ers. Though there's no officially established standard for role play, the creme usually rises to the top.

Best I can do on five hours of sleep.

In order to evaluate the way a person role plays, you first have to ask yourself, "What are we trying to accomplish by role playing?" I think the general consensus is that NS role playing is about telling stories, and that by itself provides a strong set of criteria for measuring what is good and what is not.

Generally, the best stories are well-written, interesting affairs with believeable characters. Thus, it could be said that the best role players are ones who can use their words to transform their country from just a set of numbers into a living, breathing chunk of real estate. Their national leaders have a personality.

Our lives are like great novels. They unfold a plot; they have consistency and direction. There are moments of crisis, defeat, and triumph, all followed by a tremendous climax toward the end. If storytelling vis a vi role playing is supposed to emulate real life, then a country too should have those things.

Just some food for thought.