#rp tip

[rpmemesbyarat]

A Less Obvious Toxic RPer: The Overaplogizer

I see a lot of RP resource blogs that talk about toxic RP partners in the cases of people who are overtly controlling, aggressive, demanding, and/or cruel, but rarely if ever do I see posts about a different sort of toxicity: The over-apologizer. These RPers don’t get defensive or aggressive, they get so submissive and self-hating and apologetic over the SLIGHTEST criticism or even suggestion. It’s not a problem of “not saying sorry” it’s a problem of TOO MUCH sorry. Here are some examples: Sally: “Hey there, I know we planned for our muses to end up together eventually, but some of your recent asks seem to suggest they’re already a close  couple. I was hoping for a longer slow-burn sort of thing, moving in too fast will definitely scare my muse off. Could we dial it back a bit?” Bill: “I’m so sorry, I completely fucked up! Please don’t hate me ! I should never have started RPing! Let’s just drop the whole thing I’m sorry I wasted your time!” Sally: “Hey, so in your last reply, you had a whole bunch of spiders come out of the walls. I probably should have mentioned this before, but spiders are kind of a trigger of mine. Could we change that to something else?” Bill: “OMG I’m so sorry I’m such an asshole! I should delete my blog, I’m so terrible at this! This is why nobody likes me!” Sally: “Hey, I really love our threads, but our last three have all focused on my muse saving and comforting yours, and the new plot you just suggested seems the same. I like writing with you, but I was wondering if this time around, your muse could help mine instead?” Bill: “I hate myself, I’m such a selfish prick. I push everyone off, why did I think this would be different?” Sally: “I love talking to you OOC, but could you stop messaging me about New Show? I’m just not really interested in that.” Bill: “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to annoy you, I’ll just shut up now. I’m sorry I’m such a loser.” So, why is this bad? Well, for one thing, insulting yourself isn’t what someone’s aim is when they ask you to change something or cease a behavior. It makes the Sally in this situation feel bad, like they’ve just bullied you, when all they’ve done is politely communicate a reasonable request. It changes the topic of the conversation from Sally communicating a need about RP, to Sally having to personally reassure Bill that she doesn’t hate him, he isn’t a terrible RPer, etc. This is really, really uncomfortable for the Sally, and usually, in my experience as a Sally, ends up taking a lot of time and emotional labor all focused on Sally comforting Bill and apologizing a lot herself simply for speaking up about something bothering her. All of this combines to making Sally more and more unlikely to voice any further concerns or requests to Bill, because she doesn’t want to go through this again and again. Which means Sally either suffers through threads that bother her in some way and aren’t fun for her. . .or she gets tired of that and just ghosts. This sucks for both Sally and Bill. Now, I don’t think most people are trying to be deliberately manipulative when they act like Bill. Some certainly are and I hate them, but it can also be that they’re genuinely extremely insecure, anxious people who think they have to over-correct due to either mental issues, trauma/abuse in the past, or both. So I genuinely try to be patient and kind, but I won’t lie, it is still manipulative and it gets my hackles up. It leaves me conflicted between wanting to comfort the person and reassure them, and at the same time being pissed at them. It’s definitely a frustrating experience. And honestly? I still don’t actually know how to handle this when I’m in the Sally position. So I tried to do the next best thing, and write this for the Bills out there, who might not REALIZE this is toxic behavior or why. Bills, you’re not a bad person, and I know this behavior can be hard to rein in, especially when it’s a trauma response, but please do what you can to try! I wish I had advice for how, but I don’t. All I can do is point out that this behavior, while it may have helped you survive a bad situation in the past, is actually really shitty to others now. And if someone WANTS this behavior from you? If someone WANTS you to scrape and grovel and insult yourself when they point out the slightest thing wrong? Get the hell away from them, because that’s toxic as hell too.

[actinganimagus]

Roleplay Pro Tip!

I just learned that a super easy way to get rid of fake blood is to rub some shaving foam on it! So if anyone of y'all out there use a lot of fake blood for roleplays or cosplays or whatever, invest in some shaving foam, it's quicker than soap and won't leave your skin red and itchy!

[rp-meme-glaceon]

Crossovers are encouraged here!

Please don't worry about feeling out of place on my blog if your muse is from a different fandom than mine! I am more than willing to plot and find some way to make an interaction possible! In fact, crossovers are ENCOURAGED here! Please don't hold back on your headcanons and ideas when it comes to crossovers!!

[rpmemesbyarat]

Mini Metagaming

If you’ve been in the RPC for a bit, you’re probably aware of what metagaming is: Your character having knowledge that they don’t/should not have. For instance, if a new character joins the party, and you know that the new character is a spy, but there’s no way your character could know, it’s metagaming for your character to know “hey, they’re a spy!” You’re also probably aware that metagaming is a big no-no in RP that will put most people off playing with you immediately. I’d like to talk about a more subtle form of metagaming, one that I think a lot of people do without realizing it. Call it metagaming lite, perhaps. It’s when the character doesn’t have the OOC information in question, but acts as if they do. To use the spy example again, if your character doesn’t automatically know the new party member is a spy, but you write your character as constantly finding the new party member’s behavior suspicious when it’s completely normal and innocuous, having your character grill them to an extremely harsh degree about their past and motives and fixating on any perceived holes in their stories or just finding them “fishy” anyway even when there are no holes, eavesdropping on them, following them, etc, and you NEVER had them behave this way towards ANY new party member in the past. Your character may not technically know the new person a spy, but you’re writing them as if they already have this knowledge and just need to prove it. Which brings me to a few other examples of metagaming lite; it’s not always reacting negatively to a character without basis. Sometimes, it’s things like: - Sam has a deep trauma he never talks about to anyone. Even his closest friends don’t know about it. Upon meeting him, Polly IMMEDIATELY just “picks up” that he’s hiding something painful. She can’t explain how or what signs he’s giving, it’s just very plain to her, and now she’s immediately going to try to wrangle it out of him and/or dump her own trauma because surely he’ll understand and they’ll bond! - Azrael is a villain feared the world over. Everyone knows that he’s a horrible man who has caused the death of millions. But what no one knows is actually, he’s being framed by Super Angel, whom everyone believes a hero. Super Angel is holding Azrael’s family captive, and forces Azrael to take the blame for these atrocities so that Super Angel can have a nemesis to beat in public for his adoring fans. When plucky young Polly finds herself in the same room as a man who she knows has a kill count higher than any mass murderer in history, her reaction isn’t fear or even anger, it’s to say “you know, I always had a feeling there was more to you than the monster on the news” and “somehow, something just seems off about the idea you did those things” and “Super Angel seems like the real villain to me, he’s such a bully” all BEFORE she’s given ANY indication of what’s really going on, even though there’s no rational way she could have drawn any of these conclusions from the information available. - Paul is normally a nice guy, but he’s having a really bad day. He snaps at his waitress, Polly, and is very rude to her. This is their first time meeting, so she’s not aware he’s normally like this. Polly also normally is quite sassy and quick to retort to those who slight her. Yet, today, she decides “he’s probably a nice man and just going through something” for Paul and is extra kindly to him instead and asks if he’s had a bad day and needs anything? In all the above scenarios, Polly’s player doesn’t have her ACTUALLY know what’s really going on, but she acts as if she might as well. And this is because the player wants her to accomplish a goal, probably shipping or at least bonding with the character, or simply being the special person who figures it all out. Which, are all totally fine! Great goals to have! But the problem is that the player doesn’t want to work for it at all. Polly doesn’t take the time to get to know Sam, or to pick up actual clues about the truth of Azrael’s situation, or react in an IC way for her to Paul’s rudeness---all because the PLAYER knows the things she doesn’t. She reacts in ways that are big leaps with little basis or that are OOC for her with no concrete reason why she’d make an exception to her usual behavior. She may not “know”. . .but she sure acts like she does, and many players will find this irritating. When called on this, most players will say that their character just has a good intuition, senses something, is really smart and figured it out, or is just being cautious. And in the case of some characters, that absolutely holds true. For instance, if the character being suspicious is someone who is routinely paranoid over everyone new to the party, no matter how benign the behavior, and has acted this way to others in the past, then this isn’t metagaming, it’s just being IC as usual. If not, though. . . then why are they suddenly so fixated on caution now, if they previously welcomed new party members warmly? Again, most players will turn to “they just sense something is wrong” and while, again, I can see that being the case for some characters if a nearly psychic (or actually psychic) intuition has already been a part of their characterization before, but in a lot of cases, I call bullshit-----the only thing they “sense” is the player’s OOC knowledge. As for the “well my character is just really smart” explanation, I would say it’s fine but it has to be justified so that “smart” isn’t just being used as a substitute for “psychic” which I find it frequently is. If they pick up on actual evidence for their conclusion that you can state in your post as an explanation for how they figured something out, great! Go for it! But if your explanation is just “well, they’re a genius, so they just figured it out” then that falls flat for me. Geniuses are not psychic; they need something to extrapolate from, just like anyone else. While many Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly made him LOOK psychic, he actually always had real evidence that he could point out, and that the reader too could spot if they paid enough attention. And even still, he was sometimes wrong! (Of course, there is a type of player who EXPECTS this, and in fact will be mad at you if you don’t do it. They’ll be ANGRY if Polly DOES react to Paul in her usual way by sassing back, because it’s not his fault he had a bad day! She SHOULD automatically know Azrael isn’t a bad guy and that Super Angel is suspect! Everyone who meets Sam SHOULD immediately try to comfort and be kind to him because he has trauma, even if there’s NO possible way they could know that! These people are problem players of their own sort.) Not only is the “just knowing/sensing” without any explanation a form of metagaming and possibly really irritating to your partner, this can also make your character behave in a way that’s OOC for them, often in a negative way. For instance, I once dropped a character of mine in a chat. I had discussed him OOCly with the players there, so they knew that he was a sneaky, manipulative villain who put on a likable face but was actually an egocentric asshole. He behaved in a completely benign, friendly way, but another character immediately met him with hostility and insults. Since looking like a good guy is important to him, he was extremely patient and tolerant, and just asked for an explanation of why he was being treated this way by a complete stranger when he’d not done or said anything to provoke it. They had no explanation and simply continued the behavior and making fun of him to other characters. When pressed, they just said he “seems like” [insert list of negative traits that the player knows, but the character should not] So, let’s think about this a second. This character is supposed to be a kind, friendly girl who disliked bigotry and bullies. Yet, she decided on-sight that someone who had not so much as said anything untowards MUST be a list of horrible things because he just “seemed like” it (based on what, exactly?) and proceeded to insult him and make fun of him with others, while he remained calm and did not return fire. Which person here would you call the asshole? Does this seem like the behavior of someone who is kind, friendly, and doesn’t like bullies? Not only would the character likely not have acted this way if the player hadn’t let their OOC knowledge influence her behavior, it also made the character behave in a way totally contradictory to what should be IC for her, because the player knew it would be “justified” for her to be cruel to my character----except, it really wasn’t, because their character didn’t know these things. So the player did a disservice to not just me, but their own character by portraying them in a way that didn’t reflect the way they wanted to portray them. So, how to avoid this? How NOT to metagame-lite? Honestly, I think just being aware it’s a thing helps a lot of people. Most people are only familiar with the standard definition of metagaming, and so they only keep conscious of avoiding that, not this form. I think keeping it mind is really all you need to do, and if in doubt, always ask your partner! A quick “hey do you think it’s realistic my muse could have a hunch about this” or “is there enough evidence for her to draw this conclusion” can help out, preventing annoyance and fostering communication and trust between you!

[rpmemesbyarat]

To begin with, I’d like to say if you want to write your character a certain way, do it. There’s no one way to write well, and no one thing that makes a character “well written” or not. This is just an opinion meant to help, take or leave it if you see fit. That said, one thing about an OC that can put off readers (in fic) or potential partners (in RP) is if something prominent about the OC seems copied from something prominent about one or more of the canon characters, especially if that thing was especially special, rare, traumatic, etc. Examples: - A Harry Potter OC whose parents were also murdered by Voldemort, leaving them with an unusual scar and unwanted fame because Voldemort failed to kill them - An Avengers OC who was kidnapped and brainwashed by HYDRA into becoming their incredibly deadly assassins/supersoldier. Bonus if they were US soldier and/or this happened in WW2 and they’ve not aged since and/or they were a former friend or loved one of an Avengers canon. - A Steven Universe OC who is the child of a rebel Gem and a human and grew up on Earth aware of Gems  The reason that this is off-putting to readers and partners is that it makes them feel there is a lack of creativity here. This may or may not be the case; your OC may be incredibly creative in other regards. But when people notice that your character has a big part of them copied from another character, especially when that part is such a defining part of the canon, they’re only going to see a copycat, and feel that the writer is not original. This will turn many of them off, fairly or not, from reading your fic or RPing with you. There’s also the fact that in a story, each character fills a niche or role; if an original character is created that fills a role that has already been filled in canon, it feels superfluous and strange. This is also a reason many readers may not want to read about your OC; if a canon is already filling the same role, why not just read stories about that canon, or watch the movie/read the book/etc again? Some people will make their OC extremely similar to a canon for shipping purposes, believing the shared traits will make them a better couple and come together easier. This is a gamble at best. Shared experiences can absolutely be a basis for bonding, and someone who understands your trauma in particular is very validating for many people. But a relationship based purely on shared trauma is not healthy or sustainable. More than that, many readers will, again, be turned off by it, finding it lazy and even offensive to duplicate trauma for the sake of shipping. If you want to write your OC as having trauma that gives them common ground with a canon, that’s a-okay. But there’s a better way to do than just coping the event, and a way that feels much more realistic and organic. That is to look at WHY the event was traumatic, and make a different event that was traumatic for similar reasons. For instance, Bucky Barnes’ specific situation was unique, but the loss of agency and autonomy involved can be found in many other situations that another person could go through. Your character doesn’t need to have been turned into a living weapon by supervillains to have experienced being treated as an object instead of a person against their will.  This can also work for non-traumatic events too. Just look what the underlying components of the events are, and put them in a different situation. It allows the characters to be relatable to one another without it feeling contrived.  People don’t need to have gone through the exact same things down to the letter to find commonality and relatability. And readers will find it far more believable! Note that this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t let your character have ANY of the same traits or backstory of a canon character. Just very specific, defining traits that are canonically unique to that character, especially in combination. For instance, Hermione Granger being a Muggleborn who defies expectations is not unique to her, and your character can easily have that in common with her while being a unique character and not seen as a rip-off. Being a half-Gem half-human like Steven Universe is unique in canon, but an OC could still be that and not seem like a copycat if done well; and after all, it’s possible it could have happened twice. But if they’re the same age as Steven, and also grew up on Earth, while also being aware of Gems, perhaps having their own rebel Gem surrogate family, and their mother having been someone important in Gem terms, and so on. . . that’s where readers are probably going to lose interest and call bullshit.  Again, do what you think works best for your OC. If you really want to have your OC be a certain way, that’s totally up to you at the end of the day. No one can make rules about how they have to be, including me. But people can decide what they like and don’t like, so if you’re looking for more writers and/or RP partners, considering what may be more off-putting or enticing is helpful. But remember, write for yourself first!

[rpmemesbyarat]

Someone at one of the boards I write at wanted to know if we had any advice or pointers about RP, and I got to thinking. I’ve been RPing fifteen years so it’s definitely a thing I have thoughts and opinions and tips on. I don’t mean to posit myself as the all-knowing expert whose standards you have to meet, but these are some things I think are genuinely helpful for a RPers to keep in mind no matter how long they’ve been writing. But also, just my opinions! SHARE THE SPOTLIGHT This is the biggest, first and foremost. RP is a two-way street, and I think the bulk of RP sins all trace back to people not understanding this and thinking that their character is the “main” character and everyone else is just an NPC in their story. This takes a ton of variations, with commonly seen ones being insisting that other characters act OOC for their sake (your character should fall in love with mine despite the fact they just met, your character should bully mine so I can be the victim in a hurt/comfort drama even if that’s totally unlike them to do that, your official-head-of-something character should bend the rules for mine because they’re just that special, etc.), needing to be the center of attention (the character who ALWAYS limps into the room having just suffered some terrible tragedy and needing immediate help, the character who always saves the day in such a way that the others weren’t even needed, etc.), or the character whose writer just can’t stop reminding everyone at all times how tragic/beautiful/powerful/helpless/witty/skilled/etc they are. This can go in opposite directions—the helpless character who always needs to be saved vs the all-powerful character who saves the day every time all on their own—but it comes from the same mentality, that their character is the star and everyone must revolve around them. This isn’t to say you can’t have RP arcs that “star” your character and are devoted to their story/development, or that your character can never be the hero, or never need to be saved, or any of that. That’s NOT what I’m saying. I’m talking about the person who does it EVERY time, often to the detriment of the story, derailing the plot, or showing up someone else’s cool moment to get the attention back on their own muse. If you’re gonna do that, just write your own fiction. DON’T DO PASSIVE STARTERS Something I see repeatedly in RP, whether it’s at a board or on Tumblr or on Discord, are starters where the character is just…sitting there. They’re studying in their room, or chilling at a coffee house, or just standing around at a party, or overlooking the ocean from a beachside balcony, or brooding silently in the corner… …and not making any move to interact with anyone around them. It’s on the shoulders of the person replying to have their character make the first move and find some reason to walk up to them and engage with them. A starter is meant to begin an interaction, so if the second person is starting that interaction, why even bother with the starter you made? Starters where your character is just passively waiting for someone are not usually good starters, and that’s a big reason, in my opinion, why people usually don’t reply to a starter, because they’re stuck looking for a reason WHY their character would just walk up to this person and begin an interaction. My solution to this is, if it’s a planned starter, talk to the person you’re starting it for and try to work something out. For instance, let’s say the starter is going to be at a party. Ask your partner “hey, could it be a costume party?” and ask if their character might be dressed as a character from a show/movie/book that your character really likes—that gives your guy a reason to walk up to theirs and begin a conversation about that thing, and there’s your first post right there! A much more active starter! If it’s an open, it can be a little more difficult, but still doable. For instance, in one open I did, I wrote that my girl walked in and spoke to whatever person was nearest; she was carrying a basket of Halloween decorations and she asked said person help her decorate the place. I did not specify who the person was, so whoever replied could decide if it was their character or not, but it was “active” in that she gave my partner something to respond and react to, rather than if she had just, say, quietly come in by herself without greeting anyone or doing anything. Obviously this might not work with characters who are shy or antisocial, but if you’re the one who decided to play that kind of character, it’s up to YOU to find ways to get them engaged; it’s not fair to make everyone else do it for you. For instance, I write a villain who is NOT a friendly person like my decorations, but I had him immediately address another person in one open by creating a situation where he’d have reason to do so, and would be stuck interacting with them for his own survival/gain. MAKE YOUR CHARACTER REALISTICALLY APPROACHABLE. This often goes hand in hand with passive starters; not only will the character not be engaging anyone around them, they will in fact be in situations giving signals that actively DISCOURAGE engagement. For instance, if someone is sitting in their bedroom, it’s entirely weird for anyone to come in that ISN’T their sibling or roommate. In a Discord college RP, one guy wrote his character going home and walking into his house and had that be an open…no one played any of his family members, so I’m not sure what he expected, that someone from school would just be waiting inside his house? There are also lots of situations where people are around, but realistically are not going to speak to you. Having your character studying in the library, sitting on the subway, or at a table in a restaurant are all common starter types I’ve seen…and all of them are situations where it’s extremely unlikely someone would engage you, unless it was an absolute emergency or they completely lacked any understanding of social norms. And if that’s the case for the character you planned it with, go ahead, you’re good. But if it’s not, or it’s an open, ask yourself—”If someone else made this open, how could my character realistically respond to it?” And if you have a hard time, change things to make it easier for the other player and their muse. This also applies to muses who are hard to approach regardless of the situation. People who are shy, or antisocial, or just for whatever reason do NOT want to engage with others. Those characters are great and I’m not saying not to play them, I play lots of people like that. But you shouldn’t expect other people to have to PRY an interaction out of them, and I see people do that—they write their cool loner or shy wallflower brooding in the corner, and if someone actually DOES walk up and talk to them, the character keeps pushing them away. It relies entirely on the other character just having to be that desperate to talk to them for some reason. And again, some characters will be, like I write a perky cheerful friendly girl who definitely WOULD pull someone out of their corner and into the party…but don’t RELY on other people doing that. Instead, try to find ways to make your character have to be engaged, instead of other people making them. See my villain example again. My villain doesn’t normally like to talk to anyone unless he’s giving an order or has something to gain, but I found a reason he would for him. To use another example, there’s a very grumpy guarded girl that I write, she doesn’t trust people or like them to begin with, and I put her on a subway car, aka one of the examples I gave about places where people realistically aren’t going to talk to you. No one talks to each other on subway cars, unless you already know each other; people will think you’re really weird, probably mentally ill and/or begging for something, if you do. So, how did I make it work? Well, I started the thread with just her and a few other people in the car. One of these people was a large man acting in an extremely threatening manner, pacing the car and muttering hostile things and occasionally shouting at the other passengers. It was in NYC, that shit happens. She kept her head down and ignored it, as most people would do, but when he singled her out and began to get her face, she confronted him back and stood her ground. I got things just to the boiling point, then had the subway doors open to let a new passenger in. Whoever stepped in would be walking immediately into a conflict, in a closed-off situation they couldn’t get out of once the doors shut again, and they would have to react to it in some way. If their character was the type to get involved immediately, great. If their character was the type not to, that’s also fine, because I could have the big scary guy turn his attention to them, basically dragging them into it. Either way, my open created a situation to REACT to, instead of just hoping the other person would do it, and it created a situation where interaction could realistically occur, even though it was in a setting when normally it would not. Btw speaking of that—”my muse bumps into yours on the street/in the hall/etc” is rarely a good idea for this reason. What do you think people normally do when they bump into each other? They say sorry, maybe help the other person pick up something they dropped, and go on their way. It’d be very odd if I bumped into someone and they tried to make an entire conversation out of it. Likewise it’d just be completely bizarre to, say, join someone you DON’T KNOW at their cafe table, etc. You can make these work but, as with the subway situation, you MUST get more creative to make a reason why it would work. “YES, AND” OR “NO, BUT” Okay, you got your interaction started, how do you keep it going? Well, there’s this rule in improv theatre for how to keep a scene going, and it’s that all your responses to your acting partners should be “yes, and” or “no, but” What this means is, whatever reply your character makes, it has to give the other character some hook to continue the interaction. Here are some examples. BAD Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Yes. GOOD Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Yes, and can we grab some pizza on the way? Joe doesn’t just agree to do the thing, he gives Sally something to reply to and keep the conversation going. And he could do this even if he DIDN’T want to go to the skating rink! BAD: Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: No. Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: No, but I was thinking, do you like the aquarium, how about that? Basically, whether he’s responding yes or no, he’s not closing the conversation. Of course, you do not ACTUALLY have to use the phrases “yes, and” or “no, but” just do stuff that will give the other person something to answer. Here are more good examples: Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Yes, I loved skating as a kid, but I haven’t been able to do it in years, so I might make a fool of myself! Promise not to laugh? Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Yeah, that would be great! It’ll be my first time. Do you skate a lot? Can you help me? Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Hell yeah, I’m the skatemaster! Prepare to eat my rink-dust! Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: No, I hurt my ankle last Saturday, it’s a…long story. Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: No, and listen, Sally? I think you’ve really misinterpreted our relationship. We’re co-workers, and I think that’s what we should stay. Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: No, I’m sorry, my mom is sick and there’s just…so much shit going on. I don’t know what I’m going to do if this keeps up. Sally: Do you want to go to the skating rink? Joe: Are you serious?! That’s what you’re thinking of at a time like this?! I can’t believe you! Some of these are positive, negative, angry, happy, sad, competitive, but they all keep the conversation going better than a “closed” response does. I hope this helps folks! Feel free to add tips of your own in reblogs!

[rpmemesbyarat]

It’s fine for your muse not to be fantastic at their hobbies. They don’t have to be great at painting to enjoy it. They don’t have to be a champion at their favorite sport. They don’t need to be an expert on a subject they like to read about. Of course, it’s fine if they are. It is fine for your muse to be good at things, to be great at things, it does NOT make them a Mary Sue, OP, etc. But also consider letting them be middling, or talented but not in the top percentage, or even just sucky but devoted nonetheless. I tend to only see muses who are FANTASTIC at whatever their given hobby is---which is, again, not bad---and I think there’s a general mindset in our society that you need to be good at everything you do to justify enjoying it. But you know what? Nay, I say! Let your muse struggle with the fundamentals of anatomy when they draw. Let your muse write stories with a ton of flaws. Let your muse suck at a sport. Let them fail, or be mediocre. Or not. Your choice. Just a thing to consider. Especially since writing someone passionately persevering through a hobby just because they love it can be a very compelling thing! Again, it is NOT bad for your muses to be GREAT at things! It’s just also not required. Also---a journey from being a sucky beginning to getting better is a great thing to write! But they also don’t need to become great either. Lots of people work hard at hobbies who never become great at it, and that’s fine too. It is worthwhile to do things you love, just because you love them.

[rpmemesbyarat]

Adoption vs Foster Care

I sometimes see these two used interchangeably or otherwise confused in fic and RP, so I wanted to write a guide about the differences and also clear up some misconceptions that I see. I think everyone understands what adoption is, but just to clarify—the child is now legally your child, just as if you had given birth to them, and this is lifelong. Even when you are an adult, you are still legally related to them, it doesn’t have an expiration date any more than a biological child does, and you get all the same rights as a bio-child with regards to inheritance and things like that. Foster care is different. Foster care is a TEMPORARY arrangement. When a child is taken away by social services, or surrendered to them willingly by the parent/guardian, then they are placed in foster care. Foster care does NOT automatically mean the child is up for adoption; in fact, the goal of foster care is that the child should be returned to their parents if at all possible. Foster care is meant to be a safe place for the children to stay while the parents have time to get their act together. Unless they did something REALLY awful to the kid, they often get several chances at this before the government terminates their parental rights permanently; a little more than half of the children placed in foster care are eventually returned permanently to their families. A foster home/family/mother/etc is the person that takes care of the kid while they’re removed from their parents, but they are not their legal parent forever like an adopted child, just their current legal guardian. The kid may be moved from one foster home to another for whatever reason, and they can no longer stay when they legally become an adult. Giving a baby up for adoption does NOT mean that the baby gets placed in foster care. That would only happen if you gave the baby up to the state. However, most adoptions are done through adoption agencies, in which the parents are extensively screened ( which includes criminal background checks and a home study  to ensure they’re prepared to raise an adopted child. ) and the birth parent(s) will often get to have a hand in selecting where their child will be placed (which is not the case with foster care, where the state makes the decision). This is typically done only for babies—some parents may even arrange an adoption prior to the baby’s birth—but some will take children up to a few years old, while there are other non-profit agencies which can assist with the placement of older children; people looking to adopt an older kid will usually go to foster care though. Depending on if it is an “open” or “closed” adoption, the parents may or may not choose to have contact with the child, receive updates on them, and/or have their information accessible to the child should the child ever wish to meet them. Most adoptions in the USA today are open; you can read more about open vs closed adoptions HERE. Now, some children ARE adopted from foster care. This is when the government has terminated the rights of the birth parents permanently. In these cases, the child will often end up placed with a family member, such as the grandparents or aunt/uncle  But sometimes people with no relation will adopt them as well, often the people who fostered them and got attached, though sometimes total strangers. Parents who adopt from foster care usually work with a public agency or a private agency that has contracted with the state to provide services. They also are screened, and will usually undergo some kind of training or therapy so that they can be prepared to deal with whatever trauma the child has gone through, as is often the case with foster kids. Adoption from foster care often costs little to no money, whereas adopting from an agency can be very expensive. One thing that people tend to forget when writing their character going to foster care OR adoption is that before either of these things are arranged, the State or the family will often first try to arrange for the child to go to a FAMILY MEMBER. So if your character has grandparents, aunts. uncles, or even adult siblings or cousins who are willing to take in a child and in a position to do so, the kid will probably go to them. For instance, when my nephew was born, neither of his parents could take care of him, so he’s been raised by his maternal grandparents and maternal aunt who also lives with him with her own two children. So he’s grown up with his grandparents and aunt as basically his parents and his cousins as basically his siblings, and while his bio-mom has vanished off the face of the earth, he still sees his bio-dad consistently and always has. And it works out for them. There are lots of arrangements you can end up with! It’s not automatically “your parents are dead so it’s off to the orphanage for you!”—which, btw, orphanages are NOT a “thing” anymore for the most part in the United States! It drives me NUTS seeing modern-day American characters being put in Dickensian orphanages in their backstories >< TO SUMMARIZE - Foster care is when a child is taken by the State or surrendered willingly by the parent(s). A foster home and foster parent(s) are intended, ideally, to be temporary, with reunification of the parent and child being the eventual goal. When a child turns 18 and are legally an adult, they are no longer able to be a part of the foster care system, and are on their own. The foster parent(s) no longer have any legal claim to them at that point. - Adoption is when a child legally becomes the child of a new parent(s). They are not to be given back to their bio-families. It is typically done through a private agency, not the state, and the bio-parent can be very involved if they wish to be, such as selecting the family, meeting with them, and even retaining contact with the child or being allowed to contact them in the future if they wish. - A child can be adopted from foster care if the State has seen fit to terminate the rights of the bio-parent permanently, rather than aiming for reunification. - Children are often placed, temporarily or permanently, with family members if possible, either by the State or the arrangement of the bio-parents. - Foster homes and adoptive parents are typically heavily screened. While abuse, neglect, and shadiness occurs, it’s not a given either. - Orphanages are almost entirely a thing of the past in the US.