wankgate | 199: a gaggle of bumblewits

199: a gaggle of bumblewits

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

no one's asking for introspection, they're asking for fucking context. as an example, imagine someone's post is asking other characters what they place they came from is like. someone could respond:

"[She smiles, giving the communicator a wave in place of a greeting.] It's pretty similar to here, I guess."

or they could do:

"[She frowns slightly, eyes glancing to the side evasively.] It's pretty similar to here, I guess."

diaglogue is the same either way, but a tiny bit of narration can drastically change how someone might respond to it. if you can't be assed to give me one extra sentence to establish that bit of context then frankly your tags sound boring as shit and i'd probably ignore them or drop your threads really quick.

there is no hook in that whatsoever, in either the dialogue or the metatext. i just wouldn't send something that boring and anyone who does should feel bad.

just because a network tag has no metatext in it doesn't mean there's nothing to respond to or nothing to indicate tone. more often than not it's implied. consider a better example:

"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky? [he's looking directly into Susan's eyes, seeking comfort, shoulders slacking, vulnerable]"

and

"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky?" with a meaningful icon choice: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/a7/f2/f5a7f286dca7652e15cf413e5efe2702.png

they carry the same weight, there are plenty of cues in each

It's a two second example, it doesn't need to have a hook, ffs. It's illustrating a point.

And unless you have an icon for every nuance your character goes through in conversation, you're going to have to do description at some point.

Meaningful icon choice of RDJ staring a bit slack-jawed at the camera? I have no idea what emotion I'm supposed to get from that.

"consider a better example:"

i'm dying squirtle

meaningful

i'm not even sure if this a troll or not

there was nothing 'metatext' about the example in the comment you were replying to

facial expressions, gestures, gaze are directly observable (could have taken out 'evasively' to be more show than tell, but whatever) on 'video' tags

also, have you ever actually done facetime/video chats? because trying to look 'directly into someone's eyes' doesn't tend to go well with those, you mostly look like someone trying to troll a security camera. also, if you're looking right into the camera lens you're likely partly missing the other person's expressions/responses too.

90% sure you're trolling but also sure there are other people who think like you do so no. this example is bad.

did you not see how meaningful their icon is?

i can definitely feel rdj's soulful stare drilling into the back of my retinas

jfc i laughed so hard opening that meaningful icon choice

Are both those examples supposed to convey the same thing because if so you're crap at reading human facial expressions

why are you so against having to write anything in a hobby based around writing

the emotional state of a character is a hook, esp in a network post

jfc dwrp is full of uncreative babies

but anon

their example is so much better

who needs hooks with

M E A N I N G F U L

icon choices

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

199: a gaggle of bumblewits

no subject

ayrt

da

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: ayrt

no subject

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: ayrt