[MUD-Dev] story vs. screenplay

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 05 Feb, Nicholas E. Walker wrote:

> Continuing in the vein of previous posts, I'm just kind of tossing
> this idea out there.  I've been reading the "Advanced use of ..." 
> posts, and it reminded me of this thought I had about roleplaying
> specifically in terms of MUDs.

> Most people seem to roleplay in the style of a narrated story.
> They emote what they are feeling, but often try to limit the
> autonomy of the response of others.

Actually, this is considered Twinking, and is generally frowned
upon.  It certainly is not desirable behaviour in a roleplaying
oriented environment.

> Speech emits are embedded in lines of descriptive text.  A lot of
> people consider this real or good roleplaying.

> But people don't talk like that.

The main reason for doing this is to supply the "visual clues" that
you would otherwise have when interacting with somebody.  On a mush
you do not even have infliction to guide you on how to interpret a
bit of speech, let alone body language and facial expressions which
normally would allow you to interpret more accurately what somebody
is saying.

> People don't compose their thoughts and emotions in that way, and
> the only way people have to influence the thoughts/emotions of
> other people is through the way they act.. not through how they
> write prose.  Does this make any sense?

Yes, but a mush is first and foremost a storytelling environment if
used in this form.  Some conventions from that genre have to be
adopted to be able to communicate accurately.

> The point/thesis of this all is to bring up the difference between
> prose storytelling (short stories, novels, fiction or non-) and
> screenplays.

> With prose storytelling, the author is narrating the story.  A
> single point of storytelling.  The author picks a point of view to
> narrate from, and perhaps even switches around.  But there is
> always a single point of view.  (I may be wrong, but I don't think
> I have ever read anything for which this is not true--except maybe
> Finnegan's Wake? But that's aside from my point..)

> Most important with prose storytelling is that the author gets
> inside the head of the characters of the story.  Emotions,
> thoughts, beliefs, childhood, any of that is fair game to be
> explored.

Not necessarily, in fact, though stories that stick strictly to the
observable facts tend to be excruciatingly boring.

> Now, contrast that to a screenplay (or non-screen play).  The
> elements of this style of writing include descriptions of the
> scene, actions, and speech from the players (perhaps with a
> modifier such as "nervous").  They aren't mixed, either.  Speech
> from the players is clearly identified as such.  As an example:

True, but not exactly relevant for roleplaying games which are more
alike to storytelling (what you call prose) than to screenplays.  If
only because screenplays are excellent for transfering a story into
another medium (e.g. movie or stage), but are nearly impossible to
read as a story.  It is similar how a design document for a building
helps the designers and contractors construct the building, but is
all in all a very poor way to show how the building will actually
look, feel and function.

> The crux of the screenplay, the -huge- difference from
> story-prose, is that we use the dialog, the actions to get inside
> the head of the characters.  There is nobody telling us what they
> are thinking/feeling, we have to either observe the character on
> the screen, in the theater, or if we are reading the screenplay,
> in our head.

This is not necessarily, or even particularly, good when it comes to
roleplaying. There is a reason why novels are never written in this
format after all...

> I've come to enjoy reading screenplays as much as any other form
> of writing.  Reading them is almost a refreshing difference from
> reading story-prose.  It requires directing the movie in one's own
> mind.

Which is quite difficult and an acquired skill. In roleplaying it is
even something of a problem because the actual information passed on
between players is very dry indeed. The story itself has very little
emotion in it unless you, as you say, visualise it in your mind. But
in itself it is not engaging to read, unlike a story.  Roleplaying
games attempt to strike a balance between these somewhat conflicting
requirements of on the on side providing an interesting narrative
that is in itself engaging to read, and on the other hand providing
freedom for the other participants to act out their own
contributions.  Good roleplayers do not so much avoid providing
background information (which might even be presented in third
person) as well as try to avoid directing the other players.  E.g.
She sighed, and you notice she had difficulty talking about the sub-
ject would be perfectly acceptable roleplaying in most
circumstances, but She glared and you got angry at her evasions
would be considered twinkish in most situations.

> So I just wanted to bring up the difference between acting/RPing a
> part in a movie/play, and acting a part in a novel.  There's a
> reason books are rewritten as screenplays before acted out...

Of course. But that does not mean roleplaying is the same as acting.
There are similarities, and there are differences.


marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey

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