Forked Thread: On the Value of Uncertainty

[frankthedm]

Am I the only one who grows tired of how by the numbers most 'entertainment' is? Movies, novels and TV series all tend to have given levels of predictability. Even my favored genre of horror can be very contrived, though thankfully the success, let alone survival, of the protagonist is far less assured than many other genres.

Forked from: On the Value of Uncertainty

Hrothwulf, son of Beogar, Axe of the Fafnir Clan, charges forward, snarling like a wild animal as he closes the distance between himself and the frost giant. By the time he is within arm's reach, his blood is boiling and his axe is raised high. He swings, a stroke powerful enough to hew through frozen skin, taught muscle and iron like bone to sever the monster's leg. But the giant steps back away from the blow and brings his iron hammer down on Hrothwulf, piledriving him into the snow with a red spray. So ends the life of Hrothwulf, son of Beogar, Axe of the Fafnir Clan, Red Stain on the Snow.

While the preceding would be quite the anti-climactic scene for a novel or film, it is a very real possibility during the course of D&D play where the dice are as powerful determiners of the outcome of events as the player's choices or the DM's rulings. The extent to which the dice impact the “story” in a D&D game is largely dependent upon the mechanics of the game – which vary from edition to edition – as well as the regularity with which dice are rolled – which is more dependent upon the the participants of the game, both player decisions and DM rulings.

Almost invariably, combat is most likely to have its outcome determine by the uncertainty of dice since dice are rolled with more frequency (and ferocity!) in combat than any other situation in the game. Even outside of combat, however, a single dice roll has the power to drastically alter the ongoing “plot” or “story” of the game: a crucial saving throw, a desperate diplomacy attempt, even a simple roll for wandering monsters or random treasure can shake the campaign to its foundations. While this inherent uncertainty can result in unforeseen consequences to otherwise apparently innocuous or rote activities, it is just this uncertainty and these unforeseen consequences that separates the game from more linear, narrative and consequently limited forms of entertainment. No matter how skilled the writer or director of a novel or film might be, no matter how much tension he is able to convey, there is always the great likelihood that with 100 pages or 45 minutes left to go in the story, the hero of the piece is going to make it through an exciting chase or visceral fight scene. But in D&D – and RPGs in general – there is a very real possibility of something unexpected (and tragic) happening to one or more of the story's heroes (or villains) at any time, regardless of how much “plot” remains to unfold. This creates true tension, by its nature preferable to false tension.

 

[RangerWickett]

One of my friends was about to start reading my novel, and was commenting about the ending, and how he hopes that someone dies. My response was that, well, I had considered having a main character die, but I felt like I'd be doing that arbitrarily, just to be different.

I don't like 'by the numbers' stories, which is why I think novels are a more interesting form than movies. You don't have enough time in your average movie to screw around with unusual stuff, but in a novel, you can go in all sorts of weird directions, and still have time to get to a satisfying end.

If you want a good horror film, one that plays with conventions but doesn't slavishly adhere to them, I suggest you track down Feast.

 

[frankthedm]

If you want a good horror film, one that plays with conventions but doesn't slavishly adhere to them, I suggest you track down Feast.

Good recommendation, but I already own it.

 

[Celtavian]

re

What exactly do you mean? Can you be specific? I see alot of emulation. As in one successful show leads to a bunch of knockoffs in the hopes of making money off a successful formula. But the most successful shows generally break the formula in entertainment and take a show idea to a new place.

For example, when The Shield first came out, you didn't see alot of cop shows about dirty cops. Most shows were police procedurals with a little drama. But The Shield showed you could do some different things with a police show, same with Miami Vice when it first came out. Alot of people think of Miami Vice as a corny 80s stylized police show, but that show was actually very dark with alot of hopeless endings. The problem was that the darkness reached a point of absurdity and you wondered why Tubbs and Crockett didn't just blow their own heads off.

There have been alot of good movies and T.V. shows that have been very different and interesting. Some go on far too long and end up becoming parodies that go to far from their roots to continue.

But what shows are you talking about in particular nowadays? This is a bit of an entertainment dry spell, but there are shows out there that still offer some good entertainment. You certainly couldn't have an ongoing show if the main character dies very early.

But as far as movies go, what are you talking about? What are you looking for exactly? Mainstream movies are almost always going to go with the satisfying, happy ending. But there are alot of Indy films that have endings where the main characters die or have unhappy ends.

 

[Ranger REG]

Mainstream movies are almost always going to go with the satisfying, happy ending.

Most mainstream movies are screened by a test audience. If they have a strong negative reaction to the uncertainty value of the film to the point of "No way, I ain't recommending this film to anyone!" Then they're going to re-edit it, may go so far as to re-shoot new scenes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't mind happy ends so much. They have their places.

But what's getting a little annoying sometimes is when I can predict the outcome just because I know the tropes and rules of a show.

For example, shows like CSI or Bones often feature the "surprising" suspect in a short scene before he is finally identified by the investigators. Way too often mere "meta-gaming" allows me to identify the real criminal. "Okay, Suspect A and B make all sense, but here was this guy C that was somewhat related to the plot that I saw in that scene with the janitor - I bet it was that guy!"

The ride to the expected end should contain few more twists and turns then that. Or at least a twist or turn you wouldn't expect.

One trick of course for such shows is to be aware of these tropes and sometimes use them and sometimes consciously not use them.

One of my favorite shows these days is still Battlestar Galactica (mild spoilers for anyone not into the 2nd and 3rd season) - you don't really know what will happen (and part of this was because the writers itself didn't know when the show started). You can predict some stuff, but other things come as a surprise. They never killed off one of the primary characters (IIRC), but they killed off enough secondary characters to make you sometimes think it's just a matter of time. And since you have built a certain familiarity with these characters, their is always a feeling of real loss, as opposed to the typical "Redshirt" that keep dying in other shows. Pegasus wasn't destroyed shortly after it was introduced (like you might expect by typical genre tropes and the original show) - it sticked around for the remaining season and even until the start of the new show.

 

[Umbran]

Movies, novels and TV series all tend to have given levels of predictability.

True. And for good reason - that's what people like. Fiction of all sorts is subject to a sort of darwinian selection. Things that people like tend to sell better than things that people don't like so much. Thus, a formula is born.

If you're a writer or publisher that wants to sell, there's a strong incentive to use the formula. Some will, on occasion, step outside formula in order to perhaps find something new that folks like, but like mutations in genetics, these are usually selected against.

Or, another way of looking at it - every art form (poetry, genre fiction, what have you) has rules and tropes, required for most full understanding and appreciation of the work. A workmanlike artist can perform within those rules. True masters know when to selectively break those rules for added effect - because defying expectations is part of art.

If you break the rules willy-nilly, your work loses impact, because it becomes difficult for the audience to understand what all the deviations from the rules are supposed to mean. So even the masters will tend to follow the rules, except when they don't

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Problem though, is that "Hollywood" has become so damned formulaic, it's crap!
If something doesn't please Middle America for a film...nope, not gonna happen.
So we get more and more "mind-mush"

Compare the gawd awful umpteen sequels and re-makes we have being crapped on us now, to the original D.O.A. Damn, that was a fantastic film!!!
That shows you how to do it, amazing acting (from a real human being, not a barbie doll), to a tragic but good ending (guts/honour are not a joke).

or, read Alan Dean Foster's "The I Inside", or "The Man WHo Used The Universe" novels.
Wonderful twists in the plot/character.

Good stories should challenge, scare, enlighten, bring hope, terror etc, not be...Keanu Reeves as "Klaatu."..omg, am I dreading that re-make of one of Hollywood's great creations, sigh.

I swear there must be a "Caller in Darkness" or Cthulhu hiding out in Los Angeles,sucking the creative marrow out of film/tv

 

[Ranger REG]

Problem though, is that "Hollywood" has become so damned formulaic, it's crap!
If something doesn't please Middle America for a film...nope, not gonna happen.
So we get more and more "mind-mush"

It's the only way to ensure the investment of high-budget films get a high return.

Compare the gawd awful umpteen sequels and re-makes we have being crapped on us now, to the original D.O.A. Damn, that was a fantastic film!!!

I dunno. Sequels are good, some bad, depends on one's flavor.

Good stories should challenge, scare, enlighten, bring hope, terror etc, not be...Keanu Reeves as "Klaatu."..omg, am I dreading that re-make of one of Hollywood's great creations, sigh.

Then don't watch it. As for good challenging stories, you're better off watching independent film. Though low-budget, you don't get the kind of interference from Hollywood "experts."

I swear there must be a "Caller in Darkness" or Cthulhu hiding out in Los Angeles,sucking the creative marrow out of film/tv

And yet you wonder why most people love Lovecraft. Most (sorry, not me).