I can only clarify for myself, but my issue is the exact opposite.

Imagine this: You read a gripping narrative, in media res flashbacks and everything, and through it all, you discover the touching twists and turns of the character before you now, how constant parental neglect devastated their self-esteem in poetic terms you can only dream of, and the heart of ironwrought will it took for them to overcome the social isolation that followed later in life and easily could have drowned them. Their entire soul, lain bare before you.

Now imagine that instead of passively consuming this when you're not actually supposed to know any of this information, they wrote this scene for you and you get to respond.

It's not that "these words are too much and I refuse to read them"; it's "this would have been way better as an actual plot point we got to explore together", and also because let's be real: backstories aren't about information anymore, they're just the literary equivalent of the skin aesthetic armsrace. They're the Secret Writing Sample application field where you're supposed to judge peoples' writing styles, not actually learn about a character.

I would prefer people impress me with their posts, not the thing that's supposed to be a glossary.

Was that your experience though? Did you lose interest rping with that person because you could have experience what they wrote in their app instead? I've never viewed character history as "wow we could have rped that out" as a lost venture. I just read it and go, cool, I learned a lot! There's a lot of things we can do/reference based on what you've got! 

I still advocate for sharing histories; I am not saying "never write anything down, full enigma, go!"

I am saying "save the nuanced exploration and cathartic top-shelf for the actual activity we're participating in together", because yes.

I do enjoy my threads more when I still have things to say about a character and why they tick; I am excited to post more when I get to delve into it still and haven't already "written it all better".
I also find that many characters feel weirdly disjointed now and just never talk about their past influences, where there's this clear delineation between "oh, it's an origin story" vs. everything else.

That's where I separate OOC from IC and just read it like 'oh huh'. Like for me it's more like "I know this character's daughter died cause of a drug deal gone wrong" - but that doesn't mean I know the gravity of the full situation or feel for anything. I didn't lose any will to rp that plot point. What does that matter about someone who's never going to know it? Is a uber eats driver going to care about the multifaceted academic fraud that framed my character? I see histories, bullet form or long form as something I can use to go "Okay we can plot with this, my character would be enthralled with what's happening" and use it just as that. A bouncing off point. I have never felt the need to be "gripped" by a narrative either - but that's perfectly fine that we have different appeals of rp content. I am not looking to be impressed, I'm not looking for a rp sample. I'm seeing if they fit with the setting and if the story is coherent (staffwise). That's it. That's all I think history is. That's why I mentioned of "f off I'm not reading that" comes with the confusion of is it just for history or posts.

I was not singling out anyone and I applaud people for enjoying the artform in their own way. I was just surprised how common it was and was curious about the reasoning. The fact that people did it is beyond me, I highly doubt we will ever rp in the near future and I have the attention span of a very braindead rock. Your view is not uncommon. Neither is the need to say well 'history word count minimums' make people make more to the point things. I was speaking from my point of view *how* I think the person behind the character acting is more important than the character itself. In no way was I implying you can't enjoy life with no handlebars on your bike. You go. You have more coordination than I.

I don't like to talk in absolutes anymore when it comes to practices that make good characters. So I am just speaking on my own preference.

I like fluid history. Enough of a framework to understand how your character has been impacted in life to inform their decisions. Over-detailing can lead to missed opportunities to make organic connections with other members. Like, why define an NPC named Bob who killed your character's father? Just say your character's father was murdered. Then instead of making a wanted ad about Bob you can just approach someone who makes a murderer and you have an instant plot.

Overall, I think interactivity is very important. If you create a character who doesn't make anything happen, isn't part of anything, and does little to react then you end up with a character who isn't fun to play. If you're going to make a shy character, you really need to lean on making the thread more interesting through external measures like using NPCs. While this isn't a bad thing per say, it makes me lean towards saying they don't translate very well to making exciting stories by themselves.

I'm terrible at this because I tend to just try to get my character up and running because applications suck out all my energy, but I am always intrigued by plothooks to give me ideas. I love to DM people when I see plothooks that I feel like I could trade ideas from.

I really don't have much to add regarding what I prefer in histories— as long as it's written in a way that I could understand what the character is all about and how they fit into the world, I'll be able to figure out how my character may be able to interact with yours.

And as cliched as it is, the RPer makes a difference! I'm more likely to stick around if we have a good conversation and we actually get started on writing. I honestly really don't pay attention to "quality," more like are we having fun writing? Am I able to hit back and forth like we're playing tennis? I'm someone who would just be happy to be writing and am not picky! A post is a post and it's like getting more cake.

<sup>For me it's depth. I don't really focus on apps too much because I've found that most of the time...they never match the character played. So I just read posts to get to know them. I use apps just for basic stuff, do they like rock climbing like my character commence plot idea. etc etc.

But depth is so important when I write, I want to get to know the character, learn their secrets, journey with them while they have their character arc. If everything has already 'happened' to them...then I'm not really sure where to go next, it feels like an endless limbo of my character bumps into yours, rinse and repeat.</sup>

ngl it's been really cool to see the responses to this q, so i do want to add my own:

+ fundamentally? attitude of the rp-er. my last few rp experiences have rlly like, made me a lot more open to being interested / seeing things in characters i wouldn't normally like / would consider uninteresting / may even outright dislike that i do find cool, interesting, or at the very least "hey, yeah, i have to give props here" and that shift in view majorly has to do with rp-er attitude. if you're trying your best, are enthusiastic about your material and others' material, open to things, throw back ideas and are willing to bounce back, get things done, etc -- fuck it, that's more important than whether or not i disagree with character traits or their portrayals, whether or not the writing is or isn't poetry to rival richard siken, w/e else. i'll find something to like and appreciate about your character, even if they originally didnt jive well to me, if the attitude, heart, and willingness to rp and make a story is clearly there. i've seen and interacted with far too many rp-ers whose characters were good on paper, writing incredible, so on - but weren't the best people oocly; in the same way i've interacted and seen far too many rp-ers who my first impression of their character was pretty lackluster, only to be genuinely surprised and end up eating my words when i saw how the rp-er can step up to the occasion, roll with the punches, and just make spaces feel good. and genuinely, the latter is really the reminder to me of why it's so fun to see ppl's characters and plots in action.

on an actual character level though, some + points for me tend to be:
+ devil's advocate to a couple previous posts when i say this: but playing around with the freeform. i like the creativity it offers! and honestly, these past few months i've found that profiles that exercise brevity and have some unique / stylistic approach (i.e. text logs, transcripts, vignettes, poetry, articles) are more memorable to me and really helps make the character feel, like, a character for me. i just love seeing how ppl can push the boundaries of creativity in freeform apps, and that gives me a gauge of how they might approach rp, characters, writing, etc. also the briefer the better; i have mad respect for briefer apps, and believe that if you can portray the vibes and energy of the character in less than a few paragraphs -- that's a strong character voice.

+ not necessarily manga caps, but unpopular fcs in general, or fcs from places you may not expect. there's no deep reason for it; i just like seeing the variety and it also broadens my pool of places to grab fcs from mwahahaha

+ characters, and rp-ers of said characters, willing to take Ls and work upwards to get Ws ! i have MASSIVE respect for that. it's definitely a personal taste thing, but my favorite narratives revolve around flawed characters losing a lot and having to Work with gritted teeth to get what they want and/or succeed. so i always love seeing characters who can be knocked down several pegs, don't always have to be on top, don't always have to be cool, don't always have to be badass, don't have to always be right, so on. make 'em fail, make 'em lash out, make 'em unlikeable, make 'em make stupid choices, etc. it makes it all them all the more interesting and legit to me, and also makes their Ws even stronger and more satisfying to watch.

+ in addition to the above: characters who can embrace absurdity, be silly, be vulnerable, etc. maybe they don't have to like it icly, but if they're in absurdist threads that challenge their "too cool / too badass / too serious / etc." personality, i love it.

+ and just like, flawed(?) characters as a whole. one piece of writing criticism i've kept to heart growing up was that if people dislike a character's choices because of the character / the character's deliberate flaws leading to that choice, then that's a successful / strong character. if people dislike a character's choices because of the writer / the way in which the writing lead to that choice didn't make sense, then that's a character that might need work (best example of this latter bit being game of thrones s8). ofc its not like, that black and white, especially in rp, but it's still a piece of writing opinion i do like when it comes to character work. (personally too, it's kinda satisfying hearing people didn't like my character because of deliberate flaws they have. in a roundabout way it just kinda reads that i got the characterization right, idk.)

Echoing everyone who says 'the roleplayer makes the character.' To be more specific, the best characters are written by people who are open to plotting widely, to taking chances in storytelling, and to being 'yes-and' with sharing their stories.

Some characters are fantastic as stand-alone, well-written concepts, but the writers don't want to risk looking foolish/taking an 'L'/writing outside their preferred groups, and that limits the stories you can tell with them in my experience.

gonna add: a willingness to be deliberately wrong about something without being cartoonishly caricatured.

a huge problem in pern is that people like to write conservative settings, but then no one in the rp adheres to that setting or has any sort of ill teachings as a result of it. they never have a real arc of overcoming it. they always knew better, and they were always the most politically correct little guy.

lol felt. one of my favorite tropes is "traumatized soldier who internalizes the logic of empire and is willing to murder anyone to preserve the very regime that broke them." but if they're masc then other people will woobify them and downplay their actions. if they're female... let's not get into what happens to my female characters if they're not angelic and nice LOL

and those characters still have like semi-justifiable motives in terms of being able to understand where they got there. the last time i tried to play someone who viewed their children as pawns... woof. evil character who hunts poor people for sport? forget about it. i've killed so many morally dark grey concepts because the ooc backlash was untenable 

just because i see the same topic come up: i love villains. i love flawed characters. i've always encouraged and role played them myself. what i don't enjoy is the use of "bad guys" to fetishize problematic material or write for shock value with very little tact on social issues that affect us irl every day: transphobia, homophobia, racism, etc. i think the line gets blurred a lot, and you have people who experience these things irl and want to use rp as an escape from those things.

personally, i often see people who think their moral grey/black characters are being shot down also put negative pressure on forces at work against them (other moral grey/black characters with opposing goals to their own). and i think that comes from the fact that you know your character best; we don't until you really provide that depth to us. when that depth is provided, man it's such a captivating read and i really find myself falling for those characters who aren't perfect and have unconventional flaws like falling for propaganda.

i think it all boils down to tact. if your character is problematic and the narrative is handled in a tasteless way, i'm not the biggest fan. but if the writing is strong enough to handle those themes, whew i'm bookmarking every thread i see them in. i always wanted to rp with ace. characters for this reason 👀 i always felt like her chars had a lot of tactful depth and i wanted to see a villain debut

on the topic and as someone who loves playing with taboo / problematic themes, i think the hardest part about incorporating them into a character is that not a lot of people give you the chance to make them good or improve upon how you handle those topics.

it tends to have a lot of ooc backlash and ic to ooc mixing without constructive criticism to help the writer improve. ( obv. if the person is deliberately being an asshole about it, then i get it. but if they are trying, all the more reason to try lending a hand. ) even just with 'villains' or morally fluid characters that have more commonly accepted dark tropes. seen and been through a LOT of drama.

i think to make those characters subjectively good — i agree, a lot of research has to go into characters with sensitive material baked in and tact when interacting with others. even so a lot of it is still up to interpretation. as most writers don't think the way our characters do or hold the same beliefs in reality. so it is all interpreting from outsourced accounts and possible exposure.

also, i've been absorbing all these replies like a sponge. it's very interesting seeing all the different perspectives. :eye: