[MUD-Dev] story vs. screenplay

[Nicholas E. Walker]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:56:34AM +0100, ghovs wrote:

> While it's true that some people (very) richly lard their
> text-based RP with comparisons of epic nature, deep musings and
> flashbacks, it also contains a very detailed description of
> expressions, movements, mode of speech and other visible signs of
> emotional states.

<snip>

> While that's a very interesting exercise, and I can really see how
> you could simply enjoy reading a screenplay, its main attraction
> is that it doesn't go over all the nitty gritty details as much,
> leaving a lot of how the characters look, sound, and 'feel' up to
> you.
 
> It's a little cruder than a fleshed-out story.

<snip>

> Mostly becuase books tend to be much longer than any producer
> could
 
> afford, both in terms of money and in terms of having their
> audience fall asleep.  You can't expect them to sit at the theater
> for 73 hours straight.
 
> That, and you need something concise to work with when rehearsing
> a part.

I probably cut out some relevant bits of the post to which I am
responding.. I'm going to try to come up with more pithy versions of
the arguments you bring up:

 - The goal is not to take roles and act them out, but instead to
 take turns telling bits of the story from one's own point of view.

 - Screenplays and plays are a lesser art form than novels because
 they are not "fleshed-out".

 - Books can be acted out just as easily as plays, just in a longer
 period of time.  (this is off topic, and i will not respond to it)

I disagree with all of these.  In my experience, roleplaying goes
much smoother when people 'say' when they have something to say, and
'pose' or 'do' when they have an action to express.  It is my
feeling that their feelings, emotions, internal workings should be
discernible from their actions and what they say.

This runs into the second point.  I'm in way over my head getting
into analyzing literature, but I will continue.  With a novel, a
short story, we learn about characters, get to know them, and watch
them as they move through the plot.  With a play, we have only the
consequences of the internal workings of the characters.  We can see
their actions, hear their words.  Their minds remain undescribed to
us.  We must get to know them as we get to know a person in reality,
by interpreting their words, actions, reactions.  When there is a
person on a stage, instead of a line on the page, that actor if they
are any good knows who they are, they know their character, and the
actions and words they make on the stage are a natural consequence
of being who they have become on the stage.

Someone mentioned in a previous posting that the best roleplayers do
not seem to be roleplaying.  When people speak as though they are
authoring the story in which their character participates, it is
pretty obvious that they are not who they are trying to be.

Role-play often seems like a combat of wits to twist the story in a
particular direction, rather than a collective of people who are
just acting naturally as a person who they are not.

What I was trying to bring up as a point with my original post is
that roleplaying is much more interesting if people conceive of
themselves as actors instead of as storytellers.  A story with as
many authors as characters is bound to be confusing and frustrating
to read.

It is my feeling that with role-playing, there should be no story,
no audience, none of that.  Just actors, acting.  And set designers,
and maybe a director or two to keep things in line.

And a line for the producer, the one who hosts the MUD.

--
Nicholas E. Walker <new at gnu.org>

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev