Argument Against "would"

[Enderren]

As a preface, I greatly encourage people to make counterpoints or bring up reasons why they use would. This is all personal opinion and there is no reason why me saying "i dun like it" means "you are completely and absolutely wrong and should change your ways right now or else you will be wrong for the rest of time". You can choose to ignore what I say, or bring up valid points. I hope this will stay a productive discussion.

This is personal opinion based in observations I've made over my limited experiences with text based roleplay.
Let's get started then.

Why do I think would is bad? Because ultimately would implies a 'but'. "The assassin would draw his blade, but the sound would alert his target."

I've heard one argument for would, which is "it gives time for the other party to react". The problem with this though is that 'would' implies that you've already been stopped. It is the past tense of "will" for a reason, it implies that something has already happened.

That doesn't mean "would" doesn't have a place in text based roleplay. It is a way to inform newcomers to a scene about a situation. "She would wave, but she is currently pinned by a guard". Simply that using 'would' in an action statement implies that it isn't an action, rather the inability to complete an action.

A way to avoid using would as an action, in the case of giving time for the other party to react, is to 'open and close' an action. You use present tense verbs first, "She pulls back her fist" or "He starts to eat". After the reply or a certain amount of time passes, usually how long in real time it would take to type a response or for the action to complete. Then you close the action in response to how the other person responded. "Her punch is caught" or "He finishes the meal and prepares to stand up"

Now, I only know of the one argument for using would, if you have other arguments I would be happy to dispute them with you. This is not meant in any disrespect.

 

[booette]

I think you bring up an interesting point! However, the context it's used in in roleplay differs from other more formal grammar scenarios. There's a definition in which, you're correct, is conditional and indicates the effects of a scenario. However, in RP, most people are using the past-tense of will to emote for their character.

For example, one might say: "I would go for a walk," which (like you've stated) implies a but or an if! So: "I would go for a walk, but my legs are sore."

This differs from in roleplay, where one might say "John Doe would move forward to hit the man." I don't like this personally because it's written in past tense, but it's not wrong per se. I do agree that it would look better in present tense, though.

 

[Enderren]

I think I clarified that I don't think it's a wrong way of creating an action, just that I thought there was a better way of doing it.

Emoting is an entirely different beast. There are plenty of ways to create the emotion of a scene, especially when you increase the amount of words you can use.

I suppose my main complaint aside from the fact that in context of grammar and situation doesn't sound as good, is that when you use would exclusively, you decrease your options for emotion. Start has a different connotation than begin. "He runs towards" is different from "he starts running" because you add a direction using "towards" but with "starts" you give more options for direction when more information is given. Where with your example of "John Doe would move forwards" it adds a little confusion, where "John Doe moves forwards" doesn't have the confusion of "Well, did he or did he not? am I supposed to stop John Doe?"

That's another thing about would, when it's left alone, at least for me, it makes me anxious. It's incomplete and makes me want to stop him, even if my character has no qualms with him moving.

 

[EternallyDarkX]

Personally- I despise the usage. It makes RP feel like its... I don't know how to put it. Like you aren't ACTIVELY rping. Past tense bothers me. would takes out the imagery and spontaneous side of RP, as long as its not abused. I think its okay for like, newer people to get used to RP and the pacing, but otherwise a seasoned RPer should be able to formulate any decent sentence.
I mean generally, if you're fighting someone, you're going to have actions. Someone is going to throw a punch here or there and if you both hesitate and never land on either one it creates a mary sue / gary stu, type situation where your character cant be hit at all.
For example, a character can do something of this sort in the situation: "O'Driana shot forward, her tiny fist darting to collide with ___'s cheek, though her meager strength made it feel like only a tap." Instead of: "O'Driana would throw a punch, but her hit did nothing." If that makes any sense. It ruins a sort of imagery. And also creates an overall "Despite a characters speed and build i can stop said attack" type of deal.
Like Enderren said above, it does also offer that sort of unfinished, "Am I done here? Do I stop them? WHAT DO I DO?!" kind of situation when people use it. Another alternative to would in the situation could be, "Klause strode for the door with wide strides, aiming to head out of the building, unless otherwise stopped"

 

[booette]

snip!

Click to shrink...

You seem to have misunderstood me. In the context of roleplay, especially used by people on the server, "emoting" isn't creating emotion. It's just short-hand for a sentence that conveys a character's action.

You've stated that "ultimately would implies a 'but'." This isn't true in many cases! The word itself has something like 5-7 different definitions, and different scenarios in which they're used.

On with what you've quoted from me: "John Doe would move forward," is using the would that is the past-tense of will. There should be no confusion of "Should I stop John or not?" because the sentence isn't saying he would like to move forward, or even that he plans to move forward. He moved forward. Your confusion comes from misinterpreting it as the definition of would that implies there was a consequence or a stipulation. The difference between these two is illustrated in the following: "John would eat the banana." versus "John would eat the banana, but/if the banana was orange." The first of which says that John will eat the banana, with no but or if to follow. The second of which says that he might've liked to, or he would, but there's some stipulation to say that he didn't.

Your anxiety comes from you reading the word wrong, causing you to expect a condition, which as we've discussed is the wrong definition. We can't quite begin the argument against the word until we're on the same page about the definition.

Now. I agree that I dislike the usage of the word because it's written in past-tense, whereas I prefer more present/active verbs. I won't argue for it, but I don't think it's necessarily bad, like you've said.

 

[Enderren]

I don't think I've ever said that using would was bad, just that there was a better way to structure an action.

A bad way to structure an action is to have no room for a response, such as "She runs across the room, grabs the sword, and stabs the guard". That's three actions posed as a single action. That's bad. using would just gives a sense of confusion, which I stated before and you clearly stated happens. A good way to remove the confusion of the situation is to provide better information. It uses more words(Which is what I think it boils down to in this case) but it also provides the information needed for a better structured action.

Now... Why not just use will then? You said "John Doe would eat the banana" means "John Doe will eat the banana". So why use would? You're adding a chance for confusion using an uncommon use of 'would' when you could make it clear that John Doe wishes to eat the banana?

 

[SirePyro]

I assume you refer to using the word "would" in the context of actions... in that light, I do see your point, but in simple sentences, it makes sense to use it. IE "I would love to do that!" or "Would you like a HotPocket?"(#NotSpon). I think that "would" is frequently used with "but" to contrast with the lack of an action. It wouldn't make much sense if someone said that "they did not draw their blade, because it might make too much noise"... of course you would rather say "they would, but", because that makes it clear that there's a conflict there, desire vs fear... This is actually sort of fun to talk about, but I get the feeling that I'm talking out of my ass here, so I'm gonna stop talking =P

 

[MonMarty]

If someone emotes "would" I often make it a point to bar this action from completing. For example A: Would step around the table. I just emote in response B: Stands in the way.

Would is grammatically wrong. It only applies to scenarios where your emote is dependent on whether or not the other party is going to interrupt it. Between then and there, the rest is just pretentiousness.

But this is super personal opinion. Not staff protocol or belief.

 

[Enderren]

To be fair MonMarty, I'm kinda ignoring whether it's a bluename or not here since this is a personal topic and was always meant as such. Just to be discussed since a lot of people use "would" as an action on Massive.

Onto your point, that's part of an anxiousness that I feel when I see 'would'. You say you make it a point to bar an action that uses 'would', but is it always in line with the current mood? With how your character should react to it?

*x gets up from the table* 'thank you for the meal y, I enjoyed it greatly' *would make their way around the table*
*would get up and block their path*

I feel in most situations, this isn't in line with a character... Sorry if this sounds like I'm challenging your point. I don't mean to do that.

 

[gnomery]

eh i usually use it in combat to signify that its what my character would do unless the opposing party had a retorting action, but that's about it.

 

[DragonQueen23]

Okay so. I saw this and I just want to say that I, in rp, use WOULD a lot. And I mean a lot. But the reason why is because it's more easier for me to understand and reply quicker then if I was to waste 2 more minutes trying to figure out how to be grammar correct. So.. when I waste 2-4 minutes to reply a short sentence or action to be grammar correct. The Point I was going to make is far pass the point in conversation it will be irrelevant.

I know a lot of people would say "Then learn to type faster" or something in that sense, but when it is actually diffcult to speak in real life. It's also hard to type correctly to sound "proper".

 

[Conflee]

Okay so. I saw this and I just want to say that I, in rp, use WOULD a lot. And I mean a lot. But the reason why is because it's more easier for me to understand and reply quicker then if I was to waste 2 more minutes trying to figure out how to be grammar correct. So.. when I waste 2-4 minutes to reply a short sentence or action to be grammar correct. The Point I was going to make is far pass the point in conversation it will be irrelevant.

I know a lot of people would say "Then learn to type faster" or something in that sense, but when it is actually diffcult to speak in real life. It's also hard to type correctly to sound "proper".

Click to shrink...

Just emote what your character does as fact and when you want to make clear it's an attempt (mostly useful for combat) do "Lunged forwards, attempting to uppercut Steve in the jaw."

I don't personally have any issue with would though it did always read weird to be so I mostly do attempt now.

 

[Enderren]

Okay so. I saw this and I just want to say that I, in rp, use WOULD a lot. And I mean a lot. But the reason why is because it's more easier for me to understand and reply quicker then if I was to waste 2 more minutes trying to figure out how to be grammar correct. So.. when I waste 2-4 minutes to reply a short sentence or action to be grammar correct. The Point I was going to make is far pass the point in conversation it will be irrelevant.

I know a lot of people would say "Then learn to type faster" or something in that sense, but when it is actually diffcult to speak in real life. It's also hard to type correctly to sound "proper".

Click to shrink...

Well, in response I never said that would was bad. But I'd suggest in one on one roleplays you try and use better grammar. I learned in a purely text environment so you HAD to take turns waiting for the next person to respond.

One thing I noticed on Massive is people don't tend to wait unless it DIRECTLY effects you.

 

[InDogsWeTrust]

Using "would" in an emote is part of roleplay that I call attempt language. "Would" allows the other person to make a counter, block your attack, or get in your way. A but (or an "unless") is implied, and there is one! It's just hidden-- because it comes from the other participant.

Typically I sub out "would" with another attempt word/phrase like:

"tried to", "went to", "aimed to", "intended to," or flat out "attempted to."

Yes, attempt language can be clunky and unnatural, as with the word "would" but it's a necessary evil in roleplay, because you can't inflict something on another character without giving them a choice.

Edit: You do not need to use attempt language when your actions don't affect another character. For the love of god, you don't need to say "would go sit" or "would grab the drink" because nobody is going to stop you from doing those things. Just "sits" is enough.

... not that I'm not guilty of doing that myself, though. Not gonna lie, sometimes attempt language becomes a habit.

 

[Gwyndo]

I - especially in combat scenarios - tend to emote the action, followed by intention (whether that be through saying "aiming", "intent on", "attempting to", etc.

For example:

• Manus dipped off to the side, head swaying to narrowly avoid his opponent's jab as he stepped in to counter with a hard right hook: intent on smashing his opponent across the jaw with his gauntlet.
  
• Cyrille pounced forward, aiming to tackle the girl to the floor.
• Edwyrd flinched greatly, almost closing his eyes as he swung his crude dagger in a frantic attempt to slash or drive his opponent back.

Spoiler: Extra Thoughts

I especially like the back and forth this creates in actual roleplay, and I think most people do it this way. Situations where you give the action and the intent, and the other player gives their reaction and the outcome, or intent of their reaction.

• Cyrille pounced forward, aiming to tackle the girl to the floor.
• Lilly gave a startled gasp as she jumped off to the side, trying to dodge the pouncing Varran.
  [[ Maybe ask to /roll, maybe just continue ]]
• Cyrille skidded and turned as they landed past Lilly, wasting little time as they whipped around and instead approached with a sudden lunge, swiping their claws at the girl's thigh.

In that last one, you don't even have to give the intent - it's already clear what the intention is. It starts to flow almost like a fight in a book. I really like roleplays like that.

All of these could just be boiled down to like, "Manus would dodge and punch back" - "Cyrille would tackle the girl" - "Edwyrd would swing his knife" but Jesus what a difference a bit of variety in wording makes. I'm still of the opinion that you should always write your emotes not as certainties, but instead as actions with an intention behind them.

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

 

[Enderren]

Using "would" in an emote is part of roleplay that I call attempt language. "Would" allows the other person to make a counter, block your attack, or get in your way. A but (or an "unless") is implied, and there is one! It's just hidden-- because it comes from the other participant.

Typically I sub out "would" with another attempt word/phrase like:

"tried to", "went to", "aimed to", "intended to," or flat out "attempted to."

Yes, attempt language can be clunky and unnatural, as with the word "would" but it's a necessary evil in roleplay, because you can't inflict something on another character without giving them a choice.

Edit: You do not need to use attempt language when your actions don't affect another character. For the love of god, you don't need to say "would go sit" or "would grab the drink" because nobody is going to stop you from doing those things. Just "sits" is enough.

... not that I'm not guilty of doing that myself, though. Not gonna lie, sometimes attempt language becomes a habit.

Click to shrink...

Fair, I don't think using 'attempt' language to be bad or evil. "She starts to move past the guard, ignoring the pointed glares"
I prefer to start an action and leave it unfinished for a second, before finishing it. Giving time for the 'guard' to move to stop me, or give their consent "She moved past, continuing on her way"

 

[CnocBride]

I never understood the whole 'would' thing. Should I say 'He would walk over to the door' or 'He walked over to the door'? Which is more correct in terms of roleplay? I prefer the latter but I have found that some people use the former. I dislike the past tense as it just doesn't feel like you are in the moment, more so that you are reading a script or something.

 

[gnomery]

I never understood the whole 'would' thing. Should I say 'He would walk over to the door' or 'He walked over to the door'? Which is more correct in terms of roleplay? I prefer the latter but I have found that some people use the former. I dislike the past tense as it just doesn't feel like you are in the moment, more so that you are reading a script or something.

Click to shrink...

use present tense then
"he walks over to the door"

 

[Percuriam]

There are more constructive uses of your time than arguing over the little details of a single word. If we were to argue over ever grammatical error or misstep we would be typing until the end of eternity.

 

[FireFan96]

This thread made me realize how much I use the word "would." It's just habit. Course with my crap spelling typos, grammar mistakes probably aren't the biggest issue.

 

[Enderren]

There are more constructive uses of your time than arguing over the little details of a single word. If we were to argue over ever grammatical error or misstep we would be typing until the end of eternity.

Click to shrink...

... That would imply that would is valid in a normal grammatical stance, and also implies that other grammatical errors are subject to 'arguing', such as if I were to use "for" instead of "Four". I wouldn't argue that using the word 'for' in place of the spelling of the number is a valid use for 'for', I would take the correction and either cite "typo" or "A mental error on my part" and move on. This is more than an argument on using or not using 'would'.

As for 'better uses of time', you're the one who spent time to reply. What's your excuse? Mine is I'm genuinely interested behind the reason why would is used so often in roleplay, even though I think there are words better suited for the purposes 'would' is trying to achieve. Would is an all purpose action word in popular text roleplay culture, but that tends to make things uniform which is uninteresting to read. Not to mention using words more suited to what you're trying to accomplish increases the immersion of the game. Would you be interested in a game which dialog consists of a single, all purpose word? That's not all that interesting. Immersion is lost when something happens that isn't natural. Such as a boss simply popping up in front of you with no reason given. Or a single word is repeated over, and over, and over again. As funny as a whole village saying "I used to be an adventurer like you" is, it doesn't immerse you into the story as much.

Of course, you can view 'would' differently, you can view it as an easy way to keep continuity, or show when someone NEEDS to take action against you. "He would move to his sword". That's perfectly alright.

One last thing, I'd prefer it if you didn't call what I'm interested in a "waste of time". I don't think that's very staff appropriate behavior. I know I've stated several times that being staff or not would not make me respect your opinion any more or less, but saying that one of your players is wasting their time talking about your game is rather counter productive, isn't?

 

[Enderren]

This thread made me realize how much I use the word "would." It's just habit. Course with my crap spelling typos, grammar mistakes probably aren't the biggest issue.

Click to shrink...

That's perfectly alright, if you need to use would in order to keep your mind focused on other grammar and spelling, I would say that is absolutely a good reason to use would.

 

[gnomery]

... That would imply that would is valid in a normal grammatical stance, and...

Click to shrink...

man chill its not that deep

 

[gnomery]

like what he's saying is that who use 'would' in rp dont need this much scrutiny, i dont think it affects quality of rp much

 

[Enderren]

like what he's saying is that who use 'would' in rp dont need this much scrutiny, i dont think it affects quality of rp much

Click to shrink...

I'm not here to MAKE people change their minds and use would more often. If they do than I hope it was their choice or they saw more reason in my argument then the argument for using would. I'm not here to guilt people into doing something.

As for my response to Percuriam was more about his insult towards what I believe to be an enjoyable use of my time. Unless my post is against forum terms of service, or is absolutely legally wrong, he has no ground to tell me what is and is not a waste of my personal time. I think this is a constructive debate about the pros and cons of using varied verbs vs. would in roleplay, fostering intelligent and/or thoughtful conversations. He added nothing constructive to the argument, and above all else insulted me by saying what I chose to do is a waste of my, and the people's who replied, respective time. Everyone who commented on this post appreciated the conversation I was trying to start, and respectfully added to it, spending their time doing something they thought was worth the 5 minutes at most to type a response. I personally think this is a very constructive use of time for everyone involved, and if they didn't involve themselves with it then they personally thought it wasn't worth their time. Stating something is a 'waste of time' is presumptuous, and rather rude to the people who did spend their time on this. It is a rather self centered viewpoint as saying something is a 'waste of time', invalidates anything that happened within the span of time you are referring to.

The irony of it all is, saying something is a waste of time, is a waste of time in of itself, as you could just ignore it and do something else with the five seconds you saved.

Edit: Apologies, I meant to say "Use would less often" in the first line.

 

[Percuriam]

you are misquoting and misconstruing my statement. there are more constructive uses of your time in my opinion, that is not to say this is a waste of time. this is an opinion thread and i voiced my opinion. contrary opinions aren't insults, they are also opinions. my opinion is that this isn't a constructive use of anyone's time, and it is being voiced. that is the premise of discussion is to actually allow both sides to give input.

 

[Enderren]

you are misquoting and misconstruing my statement. there are more constructive uses of your time in my opinion, that is not to say this is a waste of time. this is an opinion thread and i voiced my opinion. contrary opinions aren't insults, they are also opinions. my opinion is that this isn't a constructive use of anyone's time, and it is being voiced. that is the premise of discussion is to actually allow both sides to give input.

Click to shrink...

... That is the exact definition of 'waste of time'. If there is something better to do, then it is a waste to do something else... Not only that you didn't add anything to the conversation, you said there were better things to do with MY time than to debate this. You never actually added to either side of the argument presented.

The main insult here is saying there are more constructive things to do then debate language and the use thereof, and doing those things would be a better use of my time. Therefore implying that what I am currently doing is wasting time, because I am not doing the most efficient thing with it. If we were to go down that route, the most efficient thing for me to be doing is NOT playing Massive, since it is ultimately a leisure activity. The most efficient use of my time would be "Wake up, spend time on hygiene, work until lunch, eat lunch, work until dinner, eat dinner, work until I go to sleep, repeat". No room for leisure, I am at my most productive towards society. Or, maybe I should be productive towards something else? doesn't involve Massive in most cases, unless I want to be productive towards massive.

My time is not something you should decide is more valuable spent somewhere else, because ultimately it's my own time I am spending, you only spend yours on it when you decide you need to spend time on it.

Ultimately, "There are more constructive uses of your time than arguing over the little details of a single word. If we were to argue over ever grammatical error or misstep we would be typing until the end of eternity." is saying 'you can spend your time on something more valuable' which in turn dictates that what I am currently doing is less valuable.

When I spend $20 on something I could've, instead, spent $10 on most anywhere else, most people would say I wasted 10 dollars on the item in question, no? So when you say "I could've spent this hour doing something more constructive" it's the same as "You wasted this hour doing what you did with it".

In summary, "Better spent" is synonymous with "Wasted", and what you posted was not related to the original debate. Whether you meant to or not you dismissed the time and effort people spent on this post with that single comment.