On the issue of labling games "literate" or "advanced-literate".

This is something I'd started typing up in response to something someone said over on Menewsha in the thread about WTF RPG. I realized after my reply started getting into the "several paragraphs" route that it might be more interesting to have the discussion here, where people might actually read and respond to it.

***

Context:

The user complained that they didn't feel that games that were "rated high" were any better, and were sometimes worse, than games that weren't. (I have no idea if she was talking about what I think she was, though.)

That provoked me to respond with something about the reason why I'd had the games sorted by the minimum experience level the game host was looking for (ie: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) because I felt that would give a clearer (and perhaps more accurate) skill level selection than the standard practice I've seen in forums of labeling games, "literate" or "advanced-literate".

Her response was that she didn't think that the words were "real words" anyway. Again, I wasn't sure how to interpret her post exactly, but this became my response to it.

***

Well, they're real words, yeah. But I don't feel they're being used properly when people use "literate" or "advanced-literate" to describe their games.

"Literate" means you can read and write or have competence in some area. The denotation of the word "literate" doesn't mean you have to be good at writing, just be able to do so competently in the language in question.

Some people try to be more specific by saying "advanced" literate, but that still doesn't mean what they are trying to make it mean. Many (not all) people who specify "advanced literate" in their listing are only moderately good at writing themselves because they're following the trend of people trying to get players who perhaps have college-level writing skills instead of high school or even middle school -level skills.

I'm also of the position that someone doesn't have to have college-level writing skills to be an "advanced" player. I've roleplayed with people who had better writing skills than I had/have and I've more frequently roleplayed with people who have typo-strewn, poor-grammar posts. I've learned that people can write beautifully and still be a terrible roleplayer.

Good roleplaying, after all, is the ability to tell a story with one or multiple partners in a way that brings fun/excitement/pleasure/interest to all parties. It indicates a certain willingness to compromise or run with things that they didn't necessarily expect to happen. It indicates a certain mastery of the "give and take" or "yes, and"ing that gives the other players something to work with. Good writers won't necessarily take it to heart that they are only one person in the game and not the star of it. They may have trouble understanding that they're not writer, director and star of the story the way they are when they write fiction.

However, you can't exactly advertise that you're only looking for "good" players, because few people who roleplay regularly either know or will admit that they're "bad" players....

But I'm getting off-track.


My questions are:

- If you use "literate" or "advanced-literate" to describe your game, why do you use them?

- Do you think that they are more useful terms than "Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced"?

- Do you have any other observations on "literate" or "advanced-lit" labled games or think I'm misinterpreting aspects of the terms?


Disclaimer: Please don't take it as me looking down on people who use the terms. You use what terms are commonly used in your community and those gained a lot of use and popularity over the years. I think it was a genuine effort on the parts of the people who started using the terms to find players who wrote on their level, only to become appropriated by people who didn't understand what it actually meant or would imply.

I love this post. It reflects most of what I feel so perfectly. :o

- If you use "literate" or "advanced-literate" to describe your game, why do you use them?
I don't think I've ever used such terms before to describe my game, if I did in the past and am now forgetting (but I doubt it, I always felt it was a snotty way to describe things), I would certainly never ever use them again. Frankly, I hate when games are described that way, even if I can see where they're coming from.

- Do you think that they are more useful terms than "Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced"?
No way. I love the beginner/intermediate/advanced!! First, those are indeed more accurate to describe it, and it also gives more middle ground to what they call "literate" and apparently the implied "illiterate".
And even then, beginner/intermediate/advanced can be subjective things.

For instance: I think I read somewhere on the guides here that although it was not set-in-stone one could take as guide that x amount of paragraphs/sentences were = the level of writing sought in games.
But that, I think, is not entirely right.

I've played in forums, email, groups and chat (where it's all one-two liners and faster) and group chats, and frankly I feel that it's not about the length, but about the quality.
Sure, if the other person is only answering with a five-words one liner every time, that I would call beginner... but I don't think they need to write 50 paragraphs of purple-prosey, completely self-absorbed musings of the character's view on life in all posts in order to be called advanced, either. (In fact, when they go far out the branch of what was going on, it annoys me too lol).
I think that so long as you can give the other person something to work with, that is called being good at roleplaying. And it makes it unimportant if one post was two sentences or five paragraphs long. Different posts will have different lengths. In fact the other person may have written a fifty pages essay for his or her post, but give you absolutely nothing to work with (again, because usually then this becomes musings of the character or descriptions of useless things you are not going to get in contact with).

So for me, beginner/intermediate/advanced isn't just about length that makes it. It's about being able to spell decently, being able to give the other something to work with, knowing most terms used in rp (so that if I say, hey, you want to skip? they won't look at me like "Skip what?"), etc.


- Do you have any other observations on "literate" or "advanced-lit" labled games or think I'm misinterpreting aspects of the terms?
Besides the fact that I don't like them? Nah. XD
In people asking for 1on1 and literate/advanced-literate players, I try to steer clear of them for the most, because the ones I found end up wanting to take things too directly into one direction or another and don't give freedom of play (I don't mind a general direction, but don't like being told every step either).
Besides I've also run into several "literate" players in my life that seemed unable to read what I wrote and answered a completely different thing. (Stupid things, such as me saying someone sat and then they invite them to sit and cut off the post at pointedly waiting for mine to do an action he's already done lol).


Also the literate thing brings up the spelling matter, which is why when I don't feel up to dealing with people who can't spell, I merely request on my RPs that they make an effort to write properly. I mean, if I, a non-native English speaker, can manage to write at what I think is a decent enough level (perhaps not good, but decent), then surely "u're cn spare me tpin liek dis" (specially if you're native, thank you).


I think if anything, what one seeks for would need to be separated in several things, and not just into literate/adv-lit or beginner/intermediate/adv.
It would need to be set into length (paragraphs), style (purple, normal, etc), and spelling (important/unimportant) at least.

There are so many different ways to roleplay after all...

I'm not "literate" technically. Well at least not high school level and certainly not college level. I dropped out of high school at the age of sixteen and got my G.E.D. so that I could get a job and help take care of my family. Now then, rather than responding to your individual questions, which Tahiel has already done, and excellently I might add, I think I am going to respond to your thoughts and opinions as a whole, sharing my own experiences as is my want to do is such cases.

As for the term "literate" with concern to role play, it is one I have always disdained, my self. I've been role playing, table top games since I was eight years old and online games since I was around fourteen. That is more than ten years, for the latter alone, so I have seen a lot of things. Any how, when I first saw that term being used, it was meant as a slap in the face to so called 'lesser quality' role players. It was a demand for quality, that quite frankly I found to be on the snobbish side.

Then we come to the nitty gritty of how people play. I, my self, have n odd little set of standards that most people won't understand. I will happily play with; and match post length and quality with, any one who can offer me a single, high quality line right up through some one who will give me about five paragraphs of material with room for me to respond. I don't like one liners that give you no place to respond, but honestly ten paragraphs describing the distant scenery or the current politics not only give me no place to respond but waste my limited role playing time with ideas or concepts that simply do not relate.

Now here the thing, I LOVE reading books. Between audio books and paper books I recently estimated that I read approx. ten hours a day (eight hours going to audio books at work every day and two going to the written text of what ever novel I am reading before I go to bed). I think what people for get though, who consider them selves literate or advanced literate role players, is that they are playing a GAME not writing a book. Role playing games are all about character interaction, you can work things like back ground facts and musings into the game, but you must make interaction the primary goal. I honestly feel that more than one to two paragraphs and your characters are no longer properly interacting. In what I consider to be a good book, characters will often interrupt each other, not act out and speak a set of words then be given a monologue of a response. I think we should model our games after that concept rather than the idea that massive amounts of paragraphs equal quality and skill level.

On the mechanics of role playing and the English language. Firstly, Tah, dear, people who make the effort to learn our language, as a whole appear to have a much better grasp of the rules than those native to the words. In my case, I know my sentence structure is out there to say the least, and I have trouble dividing my personal thoughts into paragraphs because what I define as a separate thought tends to be outside the norm. How ever, I DO make the effort to spell correctly and convey my thoughts and feelings in meaningful way, and I appreciate any player who does the same. I will not tolerate chat speak in my role plays...Heck, I won't tolerate it in texts, I fuss at people who chat speak me via text all the time. I also live by spell check, having many words stuck in my brain with the incorrect spelling, and appreciate((Randomly** that one, I ALWAYS put an I for the second vowel >>)) people who take a few moments to make their writing more legible. I don't care so much about grammar, being not well versed in the subject my self, so long as I can understand what the person is trying to say and in what order.

So, here we are. I like the concept of beginner, intermediate, and advanced, but then I never liked the literate tag. I consider my self a living example of why that tag is both rude and not being used as intended. And I think the thoughts of those before me are wonderfully well written and more or less agree with the both of you ;p...

>.> The end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerion

I honestly feel that more than one to two paragraphs and your characters are no longer properly interacting. In what I consider to be a good book, characters will often interrupt each other, not act out and speak a set of words then be given a monologue of a response. I think we should model our games after that concept rather than the idea that massive amounts of paragraphs equal quality and skill level.

---

This, too, which reminds me of a trend I've seen on long "advanced" postings (the ones that are very very long) which I also want to point out. While in some parts of an rp a post that is 5+ paragraphs (and yes, spell check is my savior, I keep writing it as pharagraph lol) is actually called for; usually the ones that aim for that amount of postings on every single post, if they don't go out on some inner-monologue or long-winded description of the beauty of the world as stated above, they usually end up SKIPPING ahead without giving you time to interact.
What's with that? I'm sorry but if you already wrote the reply to what mine did or said, then a suggestion to go somewhere, and then assume we're walking there and go out on your own and keep talking on your own to make the length you want then... where does that leave me a choice? Sure, I can say my character didn't follow theirs, but then it involves a re-writing of everything they said after taking away my liberty of responding to it. It's fine to do if I and the other person know each other and know we WILL most definitely follow, but...

I used to roleplay with someone who was a highly creative, interesting, and generally intelligent person. For a time, I really enjoyed talking with her and brainstorming roleplaying ideas with her, because it was very fun and it was great to have someone who was creative on my level rather than someone who would always say, "Oh, I dunno... You're good at this, so what do you think?" (Note: I have a lot of roleplaying friends I enjoy gaming with who compliment me with the, "you're good at this, what do you think?" but the ones who I roleplay with most often are the ones who have their own ideas too.)

But I came to actually hate roleplaying with her. Our games were chat format, which are meant to be "faster and shorter" (as observed earlier). But we'd have to wait 10+ minutes for any one of her replies. Those replies would be several paragraphs long and once you broke it down and weeded through the flowery descriptions of hair, face, figure, clothes and body movement, you'd realize all she actually said was "she crossed the room and looked at the others".

We never did end up playing out many of the exciting and interesting storylines she had in mind for her characters, because she was too busy floating around looking absolutely beautiful and above all the rest of the characters...

So, I agree that in many cases, "more" text is not "better" text. Because (again, as observed) either you're going off in descriptive bloat, thoughtful tangents that may not have any use to the other player(s) (even to amuse them), or moving the action forward in ways that "forced-action" the other players, saying they did or said something the other player didn't agree with. :P

It'll all depend on who you play with, of course. I've played one-on-one with several people where large posts became semi-normal. But we'd either know what sort of small actions we could force on the other players and they'd agree to and which we had to give them the option of going with. And while we would be considered guilty of peppering our posts with a lot of description and thoughts/background, it never left out something for the other player to actually respond to. (We also knew when to just say, "she crossed the room". ;) )

Whenever I see games that require a certain number of paragraphs per post, I get wary. When they also label their game "literate", I usually don't even bother to read it any further. >_>;

This thread just made me love this site so much more. Stumbled on it accidentally and don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said regarding, specifically, literacy labels. I do like the current labeling system we have, I think it more accurately depicts what players/GMs are looking for.

Quote:

---

Semi-Literate: Usually longer and more in depth descriptions that get into the character more. Usually the paragraph or two written may not be very intriguing or well written. Grammar may or may not be better than Illiterate.

Literate: Have longer introductions and posts that are both intriguing and descriptive. Their characters are realistic and are comparable to real counterparts that the reader is interested in reading about and not just interacting with. The writing is much more developed and the Grammar is intact.

Advanced: This is the person who specializes and making long and in depth posts that are both creative, and hooks the attention of the reader from the beginning. The grammar is nearly perfect and the writing more thought out.

---

On Menewsha, these are the definitions of the terms. I like to follow these guidelines, but I'm also aware of the fact that not everyone follows these. I think it's wise to discuss these before engaging in a roleplay. Ya know, ask people what their definition is. I know a ton of "adv-lit" people who are really only "semi-lit" according to these guidelines. So I do my best to ask for clarification. I also explain my interpretation. There's nothing worse than getting into an adv-lit roleplay to then find out your partner won't read your 10+ paragraph post. Communication and getting an understanding is essential, to some degree.

Do you think that they are more useful terms than "Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced"? Yes. The biggest difference is that Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced are viewed with less negativity. I also feel rating players by experience is better than ones ability to write, because I believe role playing is 85% mechanical/technical skill/experience, 10% written/literary skill, 5% common sense.

Do you have any other observations on "literate" or "advanced-lit" labled games or think I'm misinterpreting aspects of the terms? When it comes down to it the labels literate/advance literate are like the shinny glitter we smack on cardboard boxes, and you really don't know the quality of the product until you open it up and look inside. You will never know if a player is to your standard until you look and see, ask and learn about them. Labels do you dick all besides maybe narrowing the field of people willing to look inside your thread.

It is my opinion to remain ambiguous and let people come to me based on their curiosity, rather than using sparkles!

I do think this applies to Beginner/Intermediate/Advance too. However, I do still agree it is somewhat, though not completely, better than literate/advance literate.

Samples samples samples samples.

"Lol guyz, I'm a totally amazing adv lit + elite roleplayer, I'm the RP goddddd."

-looks at samples-

-vomits in mouth-

^ True story, bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

Samples samples samples samples.

"Lol guyz, I'm a totally amazing adv lit + elite roleplayer, I'm the RP goddddd."

-looks at samples-

-vomits in mouth-

^ True story, bro.

---

Relevant and legit! Yo!

I am on a roll today—responding to all these old, forgotten threads.


First, before I say anything else, I just want to bask in this commentary:

Quote:

---

Good roleplaying, after all, is the ability to tell a story with one or multiple partners in a way that brings fun/excitement/pleasure/interest to all parties. It indicates a certain willingness to compromise or run with things that they didn't necessarily expect to happen. It indicates a certain mastery of the "give and take" or "yes, and"ing that gives the other players something to work with. Good writers won't necessarily take it to heart that they are only one person in the game and not the star of it. They may have trouble understanding that they're not writer, director and star of the story the way they are when they write fiction.

---

Ugh, it feels so good to have someone else share this opinion. The distinction between a good role-player and a good writer is so infrequently made that it makes me fucking sad. Most people just roll with the: If you write well, you must be a good role-player.


Anyway.


1. I use those terms because everyone else uses it. Since everyone was already using terms like literate/adv. literate it was just the most efficient way to conform and find like-minded/like-skilled role-players than to fight the whole thing. Of course, later on, the trend changed a little as some people (part of the adv.lit community) realized the terms have started to lose their original meanings (so some people coined the term: elite.lit while other people simply made it clear as to WHAT level of competency they were looking for in the rules).

2. I think, in the context of what the terms are used for, they're the same. Granted, the Semi/Lit/Adv(Elite) titles are definitely more geared towards writing capabilities than most other things (on Gaia it would also mean the ability to code, image, and, in general, be cool). In essence, the system on WTF is really no different than the system anywhere else (I'm talking specifically about Gaia because that is the only real community I have experience in). The thing I do like about the current method is that it asks for role-player skill level and familiarity than anything else (but, then again, the case can be made that lit/adv.lit functions in the exact same manner).

3. No, I generally think you're spot on. The thing about lit/adv that differs from most other rating system is the level of "prestige" attached to the terms. Again, I'm only talking about Gaia. People who are adv.lit are definitively members of some unspoken in-crowd. It's true that nearly all adv.lit writers on Gaia know one another or are familiar with each other (recognize the names, etc). Fuck, I'm talking from personal experience. The community is NOT that big (circa 2006-2011) and, generally, everyone knows each other. You have the popular names that create games and instantly attract twenty applicants and, no surprise, fifteen of the twenty applicants are friends or whatnot. Way to have diversity!

But I'm not going to complain about having the same people in every RP, more or less. Why? I'm not sure how things are on other forums and I definitely can't even say it's true for the adv. lit circle of Gaia, BUT the people I wrote with and the people THEY wrote with were all, more or less, talented at their craft. Sure, there were some issues here and there, but, by large, they were better than 99% of Gaia.

I always hear about how adv.lit on Gaia is some sort of joke. Maybe. I can't say that I know every aspect of Gaia role-playing, but, as pretentious as this is going to sound, the "real" circle of adv.lit is a far cry from being some sad joke. Sure, the role-plays are excessive with their codes, their images, and their clique-y-ness. But, fuck it, the quality that comes with their aesthetics is beyond the skill of MOST role-players I have encountered thus far.

Lots of people talk shit (as people are apt to do), but, if I were honest? Most of them can't even scratch at the skills they're mocking.



And, after that bit, I'm just going to answer/respond to some comments people made centuries ago.


1. All forms of standards can be interpreted as negatively putting down a group of people. As long as there are "standards," some people will, as standards dictate, be excluded. I would rather there be standards to differentiate between the quality of writing accepted within a game than baby everyone's feelings and suffer variance in quality.

2. I don't think any of the terms should be defined by quantity. I know that lit/adv.lit is frequently tied to post length, but, in my experience, this is changing or changed... sort of. Lots of adv.lit games (last I check) do not ask for a posting minimum (they may impose a maximum). They recognize the skill of a role-player is not tied to the shit they can pull from thin air.

In any case, using quantity as a way to define terms is awful, it forces people to do things they won't, naturally, do. Plus, if you tie in quantity to terms like semi-lit/lit/adv.lit shit is just asking to be trouble. Nobody wants to be semi-literate (that makes them sound ignorant...) and, by that same analysis, everyone wants to be adv.lit (who doesn't want to be better than average?). As someone has already mentioned, those specific terms can come off sounding harsh/extreme.

Not to mention, quantity, as a measure of skill, is going to create a really shitty way of measuring people.

3. Writing levels will matter and will impact a game heavily. It's good to role-play with experienced people, but experienced people don't necessarily mean things are going to be a festival of awesome. I've met countless people who have role-played for far longer than I have (they all boast of some absurd double-digit number), but deliver nothing other than disappointment with every post. Experience will help a role-player with creating a scenario, but that skill isn't unique to experience. A good writer, with a good sense of things, can achieve the same AND deliver it with beautiful prose.



I don't know. I feel as if my experience is very skewed and is not commonplace, but... you talk about what you know, right?

If you use "literate" or "advanced-literate" to describe your game, why do you use them?
I don't, because I assume that, if they can read, they are literate and that is the end of the road for me.

Do you think that they are more useful terms than "Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced"?
No, because for those people like me who feel good, but not the best, there is Intermediate. Although, such terms are really open to interpretation anyway. Sample appears to be a very good idea.

Do you have any other observations on "literate" or "advanced-lit" labled games or think I'm misinterpreting aspects of the terms?
Nope. ^_^

- If you use "literate" or "advanced-literate" to describe your game, why do you use them?

Literate, for me, means that the players should be able to pass high-school level classes in the language the RP is using. Errors in spelling are tolerated, but should be left at a minimum. Adv. Lit., by extension, would mean a higher demand. 0 language errors. Frankly, I don't even think I'd be able to achieve that, everyone makes mistakes here and there, after all.

- Do you think that they are more useful terms than "Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced"?
I think the two would be useful together, but aren't better than the other. Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced imply a level as a role-player, Txt-tlk, Semi-lit, Literate and Advanced Literate imply a level as a writer. As the OP stated; a good writer can be a shit role-player and vice versa (though if you can't understand the post it's value in content becomes somewhat moot).
The problem is that the B/I/A system doesn't really have a measure. You can measure literacy based on the amount of mistakes someone makes, but you can't really objectively measure the value of someone's post based solely on their experience or it's content (if you do, you've become a critic and at that point, you've milked all the fun out of role-playing). So it's really subjective.

- Do you have any other observations on "literate" or "advanced-lit" labled games or think I'm misinterpreting aspects of the terms?

A lot of people use Lit and Adv. Lit to imply post lengths. Whenever I see an AL game, it's always crowded with multi-paragraph posts written in frustratingly tiny letters. Overall, it's a pain to follow and I don't bother joining them. Writing a lot doesn't equate writing well.