Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8302722" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Again, I don't see how. You keep <em>saying</em> that it's there. I'm trying to see <em>how</em> it's there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Coherent," "interesting," and "entertaining" are <em>dramatically</em> more subjective than "tactically sound" or "logical for the character," though, and that's kind of my point. "Coherence" is <em>anything you want it to be</em>, when you are the author who is currently writing the story. You can make literally, genuinely, absolutely ANYTHING "coherent" with enough authorial effort. And that's why I said there are no rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>When you analyze a story that's already written, yes. But a story you are <em>currently writing</em>, you can do anything with. You can make literally any move work, if you work hard enough. There is no such thing as "nonsense in context" actions for story-writing, because <em>you have the power to make ANYTHING make sense</em>. The author, <em>while writing the story</em>, IS God; it is only <em>after</em> the story is written--once it is expressed text, no longer clay on the potter's wheel but fired and <em>fixed</em>--that literary criticism can begin. That's, quite literally, why we care about the "Death of the Author" and such; once the text is released from the author, it is independent thereof. <em>Before</em> it is released, however, the author retains infinite freedom and the story retains infinite potential.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Genre choice" is something you can change as you're writing. You can always decide that you're going to pass the limits of a genre while you're writing the piece--who can tell you <em>not</em> to inject some fantasy into your sci-fi if that tickles your authorial fancy or paves the way for the thing you want to achieve as an author?</p><p></p><p>As for the second and third bits--those are literally the things I already called out as the limits of "roleplaying" and "game." They don't come from storytelling-<em>qua</em>-storytelling.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but there's two problems with this. First, you're only able to say this because there's a significant body of Agatha Christie mystery canon to draw upon. If she had chosen to do that with her <em>first</em> mystery, this criticism would have no ground to stand on other than critiquing whether Christie had earned such an ending....but an author can always work harder <em>before publication</em> to earn such things. Heck, even WITH such a canon, you can change the direction of a series if you like, <em>with effort</em>.</p><p></p><p>Asimov's <em>Foundation</em> novels start out as vignettes of sociological analysis on real and utterly vast populations (psychohistory), but pivot into far more speculative, high-adventure stories later ("mentalics," Gaia and the potential for "Galaxia," etc. and following Golan Trevize as he escapes death in various ways). Or consider <em>Dune</em>, where the first book is focused on planetary ecology and noble houses etc., and then pivots into philosophical musings on the conflicting desires and behaviors of humanity. Ending <em>Dune</em> with a quick summary of Leto II's Golden Path and how it saved humanity from extinction would've been a handwave of the highest order and very poorly received, but with two full doorstopper novels to tease the ideas out, it works perfectly well.</p><p></p><p>Second, we're talking about a pretty closed-door thing. You don't need to appeal to whomever-might-read, like a book author does. Really, you only need to appeal to <em>yourself</em> and your DM; the other players are optional, though it is quite nice when you can appeal to them too. It's a hell of a lot easier to convince <em>one person</em> that whipping out a laser sword and announcing, "Aliens did it! ATTACK!" is the correct thing to do, than it is to convince whomever-might-read. That's a pretty vast difference between the kind of post-publication storytelling that literary criticism addresses, and the pre-publication storytelling that is relevant for TTRPGs.</p><p></p><p>This is what I mean by "you can go anywhere you want." Unlike tactical decisions or extemporaneous roleplay, storytelling at the level of "what is the most interesting/satisfying narrative direction I could go" has no time horizon. You can build up to the story you want for as long as necessary. You can add elements gradually, introduce genre shifts by supporting <em>that</em> the genre should shift. With tactical decisions, your behavior is limited by a fixed, discrete clock of turns and rounds. With roleplay decisions, your behavior is limited by a discrete, non-fixed clock of scenes and scenarios. But with storytelling? There is no time limit, you can build toward things for any amount of time you like.</p><p></p><p>What tactical decision-making allows you to hit pause, go off and earn more XP and treasure elsewhere as much as you like, then come back and apply that to that <em>specific</em> turn? What roleplaying allows you to step out of the scene, experience as many entirely different scenarios as your heart desires, and then step right back into the scene you had left? With storytelling, you can set your end-goal story for tomorrow or next week or next year or next <em>decade</em> for all you care, and you can stretch out the time between in-story "now" and in-story "after" with nearly absolute freedom (truly absolute if things like magic or sci-fi are in play, what with time travel and the like).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that I didn't say <em>all</em> formulaic writing is bad. Because it's not. Disney's <em>Sleeping Beauty</em>, for example, is one of the most utterly formulaic pieces of animated cinema ever made. It's also one of my favorite Disney movies. At the time, it was panned for being "sentimental" and even trite, but today it's understood to be a beautifully-animated ultra-classic love story. It checks all the boxes, has all the features, but because they're executed <em>well</em>, it works.</p><p></p><p>Formulaic writing is often <em>risky</em>, in a specific sense, because formulae are, of necessity, simple and straightforward. Just as, for example, composing a chiptune is artistically risky, because there is <em>nothing</em> standing between the listener and the melody. You <em>have</em> to have a melody worth listening to in order for it to be compelling, because kickass orchestral or choir sections can't carry any of the weight for you, nor can 1embellishments and finery dress it up. It becomes really <em>obvious</em> if a formulaic story is bad, because you can see exactly where it goes wrong. But that doesn't mean formulaic works are axiomatically bad--because <em>nothing</em> is axiomatically bad while you still have the ability to write more (and, as noted, this can include even such things as stark genre shifts <em>if</em> you take the time to build up to them first.)</p><p></p><p>Greek tragedies follow an extremely rigid formula, for example. (Introduce hero of high stature; establish the hero's <em>hamartia</em>; show how the <em>hamartia</em> leads to the <em>peripeteia</em>; feature the revelation of the change; conclude with the hero destroyed, often killed, as catharsis.) I don't hear people saying that <em>Oedipus Rex</em> is bad due to following the Greek tragedy formula to a T. (Can you tell I just watched the OSP video on this subject? Hah!)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8302722, member: 6790260"] Again, I don't see how. You keep [I]saying[/I] that it's there. I'm trying to see [I]how[/I] it's there. "Coherent," "interesting," and "entertaining" are [I]dramatically[/I] more subjective than "tactically sound" or "logical for the character," though, and that's kind of my point. "Coherence" is [I]anything you want it to be[/I], when you are the author who is currently writing the story. You can make literally, genuinely, absolutely ANYTHING "coherent" with enough authorial effort. And that's why I said there are no rules. When you analyze a story that's already written, yes. But a story you are [I]currently writing[/I], you can do anything with. You can make literally any move work, if you work hard enough. There is no such thing as "nonsense in context" actions for story-writing, because [I]you have the power to make ANYTHING make sense[/I]. The author, [I]while writing the story[/I], IS God; it is only [I]after[/I] the story is written--once it is expressed text, no longer clay on the potter's wheel but fired and [I]fixed[/I]--that literary criticism can begin. That's, quite literally, why we care about the "Death of the Author" and such; once the text is released from the author, it is independent thereof. [I]Before[/I] it is released, however, the author retains infinite freedom and the story retains infinite potential. "Genre choice" is something you can change as you're writing. You can always decide that you're going to pass the limits of a genre while you're writing the piece--who can tell you [I]not[/I] to inject some fantasy into your sci-fi if that tickles your authorial fancy or paves the way for the thing you want to achieve as an author? As for the second and third bits--those are literally the things I already called out as the limits of "roleplaying" and "game." They don't come from storytelling-[I]qua[/I]-storytelling. Sure, but there's two problems with this. First, you're only able to say this because there's a significant body of Agatha Christie mystery canon to draw upon. If she had chosen to do that with her [I]first[/I] mystery, this criticism would have no ground to stand on other than critiquing whether Christie had earned such an ending....but an author can always work harder [I]before publication[/I] to earn such things. Heck, even WITH such a canon, you can change the direction of a series if you like, [I]with effort[/I]. Asimov's [I]Foundation[/I] novels start out as vignettes of sociological analysis on real and utterly vast populations (psychohistory), but pivot into far more speculative, high-adventure stories later ("mentalics," Gaia and the potential for "Galaxia," etc. and following Golan Trevize as he escapes death in various ways). Or consider [I]Dune[/I], where the first book is focused on planetary ecology and noble houses etc., and then pivots into philosophical musings on the conflicting desires and behaviors of humanity. Ending [I]Dune[/I] with a quick summary of Leto II's Golden Path and how it saved humanity from extinction would've been a handwave of the highest order and very poorly received, but with two full doorstopper novels to tease the ideas out, it works perfectly well. Second, we're talking about a pretty closed-door thing. You don't need to appeal to whomever-might-read, like a book author does. Really, you only need to appeal to [I]yourself[/I] and your DM; the other players are optional, though it is quite nice when you can appeal to them too. It's a hell of a lot easier to convince [I]one person[/I] that whipping out a laser sword and announcing, "Aliens did it! ATTACK!" is the correct thing to do, than it is to convince whomever-might-read. That's a pretty vast difference between the kind of post-publication storytelling that literary criticism addresses, and the pre-publication storytelling that is relevant for TTRPGs. This is what I mean by "you can go anywhere you want." Unlike tactical decisions or extemporaneous roleplay, storytelling at the level of "what is the most interesting/satisfying narrative direction I could go" has no time horizon. You can build up to the story you want for as long as necessary. You can add elements gradually, introduce genre shifts by supporting [I]that[/I] the genre should shift. With tactical decisions, your behavior is limited by a fixed, discrete clock of turns and rounds. With roleplay decisions, your behavior is limited by a discrete, non-fixed clock of scenes and scenarios. But with storytelling? There is no time limit, you can build toward things for any amount of time you like. What tactical decision-making allows you to hit pause, go off and earn more XP and treasure elsewhere as much as you like, then come back and apply that to that [I]specific[/I] turn? What roleplaying allows you to step out of the scene, experience as many entirely different scenarios as your heart desires, and then step right back into the scene you had left? With storytelling, you can set your end-goal story for tomorrow or next week or next year or next [I]decade[/I] for all you care, and you can stretch out the time between in-story "now" and in-story "after" with nearly absolute freedom (truly absolute if things like magic or sci-fi are in play, what with time travel and the like). Except that I didn't say [I]all[/I] formulaic writing is bad. Because it's not. Disney's [I]Sleeping Beauty[/I], for example, is one of the most utterly formulaic pieces of animated cinema ever made. It's also one of my favorite Disney movies. At the time, it was panned for being "sentimental" and even trite, but today it's understood to be a beautifully-animated ultra-classic love story. It checks all the boxes, has all the features, but because they're executed [I]well[/I], it works. Formulaic writing is often [I]risky[/I], in a specific sense, because formulae are, of necessity, simple and straightforward. Just as, for example, composing a chiptune is artistically risky, because there is [I]nothing[/I] standing between the listener and the melody. You [I]have[/I] to have a melody worth listening to in order for it to be compelling, because kickass orchestral or choir sections can't carry any of the weight for you, nor can 1embellishments and finery dress it up. It becomes really [I]obvious[/I] if a formulaic story is bad, because you can see exactly where it goes wrong. But that doesn't mean formulaic works are axiomatically bad--because [I]nothing[/I] is axiomatically bad while you still have the ability to write more (and, as noted, this can include even such things as stark genre shifts [I]if[/I] you take the time to build up to them first.) Greek tragedies follow an extremely rigid formula, for example. (Introduce hero of high stature; establish the hero's [I]hamartia[/I]; show how the [I]hamartia[/I] leads to the [I]peripeteia[/I]; feature the revelation of the change; conclude with the hero destroyed, often killed, as catharsis.) I don't hear people saying that [I]Oedipus Rex[/I] is bad due to following the Greek tragedy formula to a T. (Can you tell I just watched the OSP video on this subject? Hah!) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
Top