[MUD-Dev] story vs. screenplay

[ghovs]

On Thursday 07 February 2002 03:33, Nicholas E Walker wrote, among
other things:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:56:34AM +0100, ghovs wrote:

>  - 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".

Not lesser, just different.

>  - 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)

Actually - I don't agree with this point, since a book leaves about
one square micron of interpretation up to the actor, removing every
hint of a creative process, where a screenplay leaves some room to
at least breathe in.

> 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.

I'm not sure, but I think we're actually agreeing.

In my experience a pose like:

  Raul grins, "That's what you think."

is (almost) insultingly short.

I'd expect something along the lines of:

  Raul's eyes show a mirthful twinkle as he grins, shaking his head
  ever so slightly. A not so subtle hint of disdain is in his voice
  as he says, "That's what you think."

I'd possbily feel like smacking someone in response to:

  Raul playfully pinches your nose and you jerk back. He grins and
  says, "That's what you think.", making you pout.

Note how all three are about actions, and not thoughts, even the
third one, which is about deciding another's reaction (which is a
very big no-no). Only the most crass RPer would literally state
their emotional state.

On the other hand, _only_ when people make it clear from how they
act out their own character _and_ when they give me the impression
they're mature enough to not pretend they can read minds (where that
skill is absent :), will I include literally what my character is
thinking. This is in no way meant to be anything other than vastly
amusing.

Sometimes the fun is just too much for one person to bear.

> 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.

Sounds like you're a victim of 'powerplay', where people try to
force a scene in their own direction. I wouldn't bother with people
like that, nor would a lot of others. For me it tends to very much
be about negotiation, and not about some sort of personal
vindication in conquering the roleplay.

> 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.

But how can you do that?

An actor will have a predetermined set of lines and scenes to
display, and let hear. When roleplaying, you make the story up as
you go along, while also acting it out. With text-based RP, you
don't have any other means to write up a sort of embellished
screenplay that tries to look like it could be in a novel.

How do you remove the many authors, without turning it into
powerplay?

Also, reading text-based RP is usually only really entertaining for
the people in the scene and their friends. The intended audience
isn't quite the same as that of a short story, or novel. The main
goal of text-based RP is not a coherent and easy to follow story at
all.

> 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.

There's in many cases an audience. There is almost always a story
evolving as the scenes go by. It's not making sense to disavow these
things. Also, actors are very rarely just acting freely without any
sort of lines, at least in performances I've seen.

Also, who'd be the director? Who would -accept- the director? Other
than the rules of the specific game (as stated in the help/info
files) any non-participant saying what can and can't be done is
perceived as a major annoyance.

Ofcourse, I'm assuming that game wizards/gods are meant by 'set
designers'. I certainly don't view them as much more than that, just
creating an environment in which RP can take place, and sometimes
chugging some random mayhem at the world either because they can, or
to entertain other people. Or both.

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

That role is almost not represented in the game, and seldom even
figures in the minds of players. I'm pretty certain that that's a
-good- thing. You set up a world, and then stop interfering (aside
from Events which can open up new opportunities, or simply make
things a bit more interesting), letting the people enjoy it.

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