The coupled cliche conundrum

[Dirigible]

It is the gamer's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nearly every situation in fantasy literature, movies, television, computer games and published game material (and, if you've been playing long enough, your tabletop experience) has been done.

What's more, the variants have been done.

This would be the nub of the problem.

I played a game not so long ago that featured a town held in terror of a nasty beasty that roamed the night, killing people. Investigating, we discovered a moderatly convoluted conspiracy involving the town magistrate, an outcast witch and her two monsterous sons (shades of Blair Witch and the Dunwich Horror abounded). The way events turned out got me thinking: if it had turned out the witch was evil and sending her children to wreake vil, that would have been a cliche. If it turned out the magistrate was maligning her to cover his owne vile deeds, that would have been a cliche too.

Ah, nub.

Has anyone else experienced the sensation of realising that whichever way a plotline resolves, it will be predictable?

 

[EricNoah]

It may be true that there's nothing new under the sun, but that's ok. Sometimes we watch a movie/read a book/play an RPG to experience something new, to see the pattern broken. But there can be equal pleasure in seeing the pattern fulfilled to perfection.

Plus from a player's point of view, even the most simple plotline can feel convoluted when you only get to see bits and pieces of it at one time.

 

[Silveras]

Eric is correct.

A lot depends on the level at which you look at something, too. At the most generalized, all plots fall into one of 16 (IIRC) basic definitions. There are actually professional writers' handbooks on the markets that describe this issue, and talk about how to deal with it.

The details add a lot. The specifics of why the villain/villainess wants revenge (for example), coupled with the development of the character (the reader getting to "like", or at least sympathize with, him/her) also does a lot to enhance the experience.

When it comes to fantasy gaming (as opposed to writing in general), there are many standard elements that have been "done to death". However, one of the appeals of fantasy gaming (as opposed to some other types) is the interaction of known quantities -- archetypes, and iconic representations of virtue -- in traditional situations.

The quote Eric mentions "There is nothing new under the sun" comes from the Sherlock Holmes stories, and is particularly appropriate. Holmes was bored by most crime; he knew who did it, because he had catalogued all the known variations of crimes. The cases he took were ones that presented him with a new variation.

 

[jerichothebard]

Yeah, but the gold is in the telling of the story - put a new spin on it, keep the plot obscure for a while...

Eventually, my players are going to figure out that I ripped off the plotline for my whole campaign from the Fifth Element... at least they'll know what to do with the elemental amulets...

But at the moment, they have no freakin' clue. And this has been going on for almost two years.


jtb

 

[RangerWickett]

Tonight I saw something I never expected. It was called Failsafe, and it was basically "Dr. Strangelove" without humor, and with Don Cheadle instead of James Earl Jones. Oh, and Moscow gets blowed up good.

Yes, details help tons. I mean, last week, I watched this movie about a common man who is oppressed by the world and who feels overwhelmed by the duty he sees before him. He has powers beyond those of normal men, and an unusual backstory. He tries to save his fellow man and ends up dying by the decree of the establishment. But then, miraculously, he comes back from the dead, and saves the day.

Now, what movie was this? If I said the man was a priest and nonviolent, it would be The Passion of the Christ. If I said the man wore a black trenchcoat and knew kung-fu (and looked like my roommate), it'd be The Matrix. If I changed man to woman, and put in katanas, it could almost be Kill Bill.

See, details make a difference.

Sadly, some cliches are too hard to pull off without being seen as derivative. I really want to write a story about a character who uses two scimitars, because the visuals of it and the possibilities for cool fight scenes intrigue me. Unfortunately, as I developed the character, I realized he was a ranger, and that he'd be going into the Underdark. Oh well, I guess that's just the way that it is. Don't bother none. Won't help at all to worry 'bout it.

 

[tarchon]

The quote Eric mentions "There is nothing new under the sun" comes from the Sherlock Holmes stories, and is particularly appropriate. Holmes was bored by most crime; he knew who did it, because he had catalogued all the known variations of crimes. The cases he took were ones that presented him with a new variation.

"There is nothing new under the sun" is a cliche since it's well known from Ecclesiastes and often quoted in other works. "Every random number generator has a finite cycle" would be a more original way to express the idea, since chances are no one's ever heard that metaphor used to express the idea before. The downside to novel metaphors of course is that they tend to be difficult to understand and are thus very difficult to do well. A cliche is "tried and true"; you know it's going to work. This is true of plots as well. IMO, the old chestnut about there only being N plots (also neglecting the problem with defining what constitutes a distinct plot) is just a lame excuse invented by lazy writers to explain why they can't be bothered to invent something new. There are plenty of possible new plots; it's just that it's extremely difficult to communicate them efficiently because the audience isn't familiar with them already.
Because of the shear volume of fiction produced nowadays, you can figure that anything even remotely easy to come up with as been done repeatedly, so the regions of plot space that haven't been explored yet must take an extraordinary amount of work (and risk) to reach, which is why so few authors ever manage to get there or even dare to try.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Thanks for that lovely Kill Bill spoiler, Wicket :\

 

[Peskara]

Thanks for that lovely Kill Bill spoiler, Wicket :\

Believe me, it's not really a spoiler. The devil really is in the details on that one.

And I believe Failsafe was written before Dr. Strangelove, so that Dr. S was a parady of it. I'm not 100% sure on that.

I'm actually glad there are no new plots. It takes the pressure off and lets me focus on the details, which is what I'm good at anyway. I just wish more people would do the same.

 

[two]

Believe me, it's not really a spoiler. The devil really is in the details on that one.

And I believe Failsafe was written before Dr. Strangelove, so that Dr. S was a parady of it. I'm not 100% sure on that.

I'm actually glad there are no new plots. It takes the pressure off and lets me focus on the details, which is what I'm good at anyway. I just wish more people would do the same.

This is the laziness Tarchon was posting about.

There are of course new plots, ideas, etc. An infinity of good ones. It just takes time and effort to find them/incorporate them.

This concept that "there are only a finite number of plots" is just stupid, and a cop out. Don't cop out.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

I'm talking off the cuff here, but I believe that Dr. Strangelove and the original Failsafe were released the same year. Seems to me that the Doctor hit the theaters just a bit earlier though. Really took the wind out of Failsafe's sails. A shame really since both are very good movies. Caught part of the remake last night, it was okay but not up to the original.