Case against continuity

[pemerton]

Its an interesting thesis, and I can definitely corroborate your core observations. Personally I'm less enthralled with the idea of replaying and reworking these things, but that's how it goes, we are each uniquely weird! I mean, it might be fun once in a while to perfect a particular scene or something like that. Mostly I just figure I'm going to go on and do something else similar instead. Not sure why to be honest.

Here's one thought: working to perfect a particular scene puts us under pressure to do better. Which, at least for me - a mild-mannered intellectual - is a pretty demanding way of engaging with the aesthetic domain!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's one thought: working to perfect a particular scene puts us under pressure to do better. Which, at least for me - a mild-mannered intellectual - is a pretty demanding way of engaging with the aesthetic domain!

Right, it could be challenging. I have always been kind of an 'operate on general principles and improve those' kind of guy. Like, usually if there's a new war game, parlor game, video game, etc. I'm the one with some degree of mastery right out of the gate, though pretty soon other people start to catch up. Perfection through repetition isn't my thing.

 

[Manbearcat]

There are two different things that I mistakenly lumped together in the OP:

1. I have trouble caring about my own characters until I have played them (or maybe with them?) enough to figure out who they are through play; but at that point, there are lots of missed opportunities for things that I would play differently only if I understood the character's personality better.
2. Dealing with consequences of something can be a real pain in the ass. Like, a character can make a heroic sacrifice only once. Or finally confess their love to another character for the first time. Or embrace darkness within themselves. Or whatever. Things that fundamentally change (or recontextualize) the character are "expensive", and if they are rewinded back to the square one afterwards it, uhm, drives the price down.

The two are related: who the character was may become clear only after something irreversible already happened. In an S&V game my character, Photographer, didn't really have much personality until he rescued a girl in what amounts to a random encounter, paid her medical bills and took her, and several sessions latter something along the lines of:
— Why are you doing this? Helping me, I mean?
— I... I don't know. Repenting for my sins, I guess. I've did a lot of despicable things in my life, I'll never be a good man, but I can do at least something good.

Then, it clicked. He is a hardened criminal who knows that he can't be anything other than a hardened criminal, but is remorseful about that.

Too bad he was a "charsheet with legs" for the majority of the campaign and there was absolutely no foreshadowing of this development, and too bad I can't do jack about it now.

This is very interesting both (a) as a piece of commentary from you that pushes back against your lead post and (b) as a singular element of internal heterogeneity in the corpus of your contributions that I have read (not sure I would have predicted this particular lament coming from you).

I'm going to try to change your mind a little.

No one who knows me would confuse me for someone who leans "woo." I am not that guy.

However, how about this. It seems to me that human life is a never-ending process of self-discovery and recontextualization. We aren't finished products. We never are. We are constantly churning. And in that churn we find out things about ourselves...or hell...we make it up. Then we do it again. Then we're dead and maybe we've left behind loved ones or a legacy that does the same thing about us in our stead.

So I guess I'm saying I'm not sure the "I can't do jack about it now" lament is warranted. Just keep moving (you and with your character or whatever new thing). That strikes me as a fair enough "case against continuity."

 

[clearstream]

This is very interesting both (a) as a piece of commentary from you that pushes back against your lead post and (b) as a singular element of internal heterogeneity in the corpus of your contributions that I have read (not sure I would have predicted this particular lament coming from you).

I'm going to try to change your mind a little.

No one who knows me would confuse me for someone who leans "woo." I am not that guy.

However, how about this. It seems to me that human life is a never-ending process of self-discovery and recontextualization. We aren't finished products. We never are. We are constantly churning. And in that churn we find out things about ourselves...or hell...we make it up. Then we do it again. Then we're dead and maybe we've left behind loved ones or a legacy that does the same thing about us in our stead.

So I guess I'm saying I'm not sure the "I can't do jack about it now" lament is warranted. Just keep moving (you and with your character or whatever new thing). That strikes me as a fair enough "case against continuity."

I'd like to add an "and" to your thought here, which is "and games allow us to do that which we cannot do in the real world."

Hopefully not obscuring your point, but casting additional light.

 

[ART!]

If you’ve talked to me for more than fifteen seconds, you probably know that I’m quite firmly in a storytelling camp. I love Apocalypse World. I love Fate. I love MUJIK IS DEAD.

But the thing is, I kinda don’t give a crap about stories. I love cool, gripping scenes. Pretty much all the storytelling wisdom is about arcs, resolution of conflict, change. Maybe I’m a hack and I just suck at creating interesting characters, skill issue, yeah, maybe. Or maybe there’s something valuable in the distinct lack of change.

We’ve all played role-playing games. Pretty much regardless of the style, continuity is the king: fiction can’t, or at least, shouldn’t be retconned, shouldn’t be rewinded, it should triumphantly march forward, crushing all the words unsaid beneath it.

A leads to B to C to D.

But I’m a renegade. Screw this. A leads to A to A to A to A, until there’s nothing but a barren wasteland, devoid of feelings to extract, and only then we move to B to pick its bones clean. I crave stagnation the same way I crave suffering. Perpetual torture in a purgatory of an eternal song and dance, edging at the brink of release.


It's similar to fanfiction.

Fanfiction hinges upon the established, familiar characters, and that what allows it to cut to the chase: you don’t need to spend words upon words to make the reader give a damn about your heroine and her love interest, they already do.

Instead, you can focus on what happens to them, or who they are in your AU, or whatever, go nuts. Your idea can burn bright, so hot it would burn the story into ashes in seconds, and you can observe the inferno with a sadistic glee, without care in the world that you’ll have to clean up the mess you’ve created afterwards. Or it can be too modest to be interesting: “what if the main character worked at coffee shop” isn’t something you can mine for several seasons. You can mine it for fifteen minutes, though.


Inner Sanctum was my first stab at this general idea: it’s played in scenes, and these scenes don’t have to be connected to each other in any way, shape or form. You can play out the same conflict with the same characters over and over and over again, every time reaching a different climax.

I’ll work in this direction more, but for now, I’ll probably pause design work. Online play for Inner Sanctum ain’t gonna implement itself, after all.

For better or for worse, I think this is my default way to run a game.

Sometimes I use a published adventure as the scaffolding to hang scenes on. It's just convenient: the adventure has one or more possible sequences of events, maps, statblocks, etc., but mostly I'm interested in "cool" moments.

I basically can't keep track of intricate plot-webs and character backgrounds. I've used idea-mapping programs and apps, but very quickly they become unwieldy and I'm back to not being able to handle it anymore, and so not caring anymore.

 

[Celebrim]

If you’ve talked to me for more than fifteen seconds, you probably know that I’m quite firmly in a storytelling camp. I love Apocalypse World. I love Fate. I love MUJIK IS DEAD.

But the thing is, I kinda don’t give a crap about stories. I love cool, gripping scenes.

This is a very important point that I don't think enough people appreciate. Games with Nar elements are rarely about creating great stories and are instead focused on trying to create great scenes. So for once you sound like someone who both knows what they like and likes what they know.

But I’m a renegade. Screw this. A leads to A to A to A to A, until there’s nothing but a barren wasteland, devoid of feelings to extract, and only then we move to B to pick its bones clean. I crave stagnation the same way I crave suffering. Perpetual torture in a purgatory of an eternal song and dance, edging at the brink of release.

I'm not really sure what you are going for here unless this is your idea of the low melodrama aesthetic frequently seen in soap operas or TV sitcoms with soap opera elements, where the same basic conflicts get rehashed over and over again with things always appearing that prevent resolution. For example, "Will they get together?" is often a question that can't be resolved in a sitcom, because if the main characters finally ever do resolve the romantic tension, the primary driving question of the show is now resolved and the show is over.

That said, literal stagnation and suffering are unlikely to be popular aesthetics with all players. You are going to have to exercise the same creativity that show writers do to keep zero sum going without it feeling cheap - for example, just when the two characters seem likely to work things out the ex-lover arrives to complicate the situation.

Or it can be too modest to be interesting: “what if the main character worked at coffee shop” isn’t something you can mine for several seasons. You can mine it for fifteen minutes, though.

I think it really depends on the goals of the campaign and the writing chops of the participants. You almost certainly could mine "what if the main character worked at a coffee shop" for a long time. "Cheers" went on for like 11 seasons with the premise, "This guy owns a bar."

I think there are big advantages to episodic play over long term story forms. One of them is that episodic play tends to empower players to make their own choices more than a having a big epic storyline does. If you have a big epic story going on then the players often have no choice but to prioritize the big thing over what they would like to be doing this week. Whereas if you have episodic play, there is a lot of room for character development and bringing in side plots.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there are big advantages to episodic play over long term story forms. One of them is that episodic play tends to empower players to make their own choices more than a having a big epic storyline does. If you have a big epic story going on then the players often have no choice but to prioritize the big thing over what they would like to be doing this week. Whereas if you have episodic play, there is a lot of room for character development and bringing in side plots.

Is the problem with 'long form' play, or with trad allocation of ownership of the plot and setting totally in the hands of one participant?

 

[Celebrim]

Is the problem with 'long form' play, or with trad allocation of ownership of the plot and setting totally in the hands of one participant?

Strawman.

No interest in rehashing this with you. At one time I had this idea of proof texting from your favorite games just how completely off base you were, but I have two campaigns I'm writing for write now and no time. Thanks for stalking me. I'm flattered, but no thanks.

 

[loverdrive]

So I guess I'm saying I'm not sure the "I can't do jack about it now" lament is warranted. Just keep moving (you and with your character or whatever new thing). That strikes me as a fair enough "case against continuity."

Eh, there are rubicons that can't be crossed back.

Characters aren't really people. They are vessels for emotions, first and foremost. Artificial constructs. Making them retread previous ground while retaining continuity cheapens the turning point (that is already cheapened by the lack of foreshadowing).

 

[billd91]

Eh, there are rubicons that can't be crossed back.

That doesn't prevent the existence of other milestones. Caesar wasn't finished just by crossing the Rubicon. That was just the start of something new, not the end.

Characters aren't really people. They are vessels for emotions, first and foremost. Artificial constructs. Making them retread previous ground while retaining continuity cheapens the turning point (that is already cheapened by the lack of foreshadowing).

True, they're not really people. They're totally under your control and infinitely replaceable. So if you've blown all your turning points with one, and can't think up more opportunites for it, make up another character. And another. I mean, what other options are there other than stopping?