[MUD-Dev] story vs. screenplay

[Marian Griffith]

<EdNote: Lightly edited from the original>

On Thu 07 Feb, Nicholas E. Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:38:59PM +0000, Marian Griffith wrote:

> There have been numerous trolling replies, this one included, and
> they have expressed nothing useful, and have made me feel bad.  I
> will attempt to respond to this one, as reading the responses does
> point out obvious miscommunications in my original message.

I am quite certain nobody meant for you to feel bad. The phrasing of
the original post made it easy to misunderstand what was meant, and
therefor lead to responses in another direction than I think you
wanted.  Of course it is also quite possible that some did not agree
with the original premisse.

> First of all, plays are not without "visual clues" and they are
> not "just about the action".  I suggest you read one, or go to the
> theater.

Thank you.  I have done/been to both.  I studied plays (for school),
librettos (one year school of music, vocals), choreographies, been
an actress (amateur theatre production) and even have auditioned for
a motion picture (non-speaking part and no, I did not get the
role). So I think I am not entirely clueless though I would not
claim to be an expert either.

>  Plays are about getting inside of the head of the > characters
>  through their actions!  Let me attempt to define a > difference
>  between the mindset of the playwrite and the novelist:

> The novelist has characters in mind.  They are introduced to you,
> explained to you, and you follow them through the "action" being
> told how they respond to things.  People "are shocked", we hear
> their thoughts.  There are notable exceptions..

There is of course this old adagium for new writers: Show, not tell.
But yes, given the restrictions of the medium this is the only way
you can conveniently tell a story in novel form (or in fact in any
medium that only uses words).  There are of course several different
styles, including first person and third person omniscient which
tend to be the most convenient and popular with the audience.  It is
definitely possible to write in a strict third person which only
"shows" and does not explain, but this tends to be experienced by
readers as "distant" and "unemotional"

> The playwrite has characters in mind.  The playwrite becomes the
> characters, and writes through them.

<EdNote: This is true for some playwrights, not all -- this is
already a field rife with unexamined generalities so let's not
introduce more>

I know you do not mean it like that, but I think that most authors
do have their character(s) in mind as well.  The distinction is not
so much intent as well medium.

> The playwrite becomes several people, and envisions an interaction
> between them.  He describes the interaction.  A brilliant play
> allows us to experience the emotions, feelings, the inner workings
> of the people--without being told what they are!  You never read
> "Romeo was heartbroken as he saw Juliet lying prone on the
> altar.".

No, because that would not work in a visual medium. However, there
is no easy way to achieve the same effect as *seeing* Romeo being
heart-broken on stage by using only words and exactdescriptions. You
could of course describe in excruciating detail Romeo's facial
expressions and posture, but it would be very difficult indeed to
create an engaging story out of that.

My reaction to the original post was primarily about the comparison
of screenplay format with roleplaying (storytelling) format.  I may
have been entirely wrong with assuming that was what the first post
was about.  If so, then perhaps we should start again.

> There are people who combine both.  Harlan Elliso, famous short
> story author, creator of the world of Babylon 5, and etc. writes
> short stories that would translate very easily into plays.  He
> lets you get to know people as if they are real people.  Not as if
> they walk around emoting 5 paragraphs of text with every thought,
> or with thought bubbles over their heads.

> If one studies literature in college, one will take a Shakespeare
> course.  The way Oxford and the best teach that course is to have
> the students read the plays over and over and over again.  And to
> debate about what the characters must have been thinking in order
> to act in that way.  To get inside the playwrite's head by first
> getting inside their characters' heads.

> Reading a play isn't hard, either.  If you're resistant to it,
> it's probably because you're not used to the form.  If it is a
> skill, it is trivial to learn.  Try taking some non-engineering
> courses in school.  Like literature.  Or just pick up a play and
> read it.

I am not resistant to it, I just commented that it is an acquired
skill (mind that reading narrative is equally acquired, but it is
familiar to most people from young age as opposed to reading
screenplays). It tends to be disjunct and lacks "flow", and as such
makes it difficult for the reader to suspend disbelief and be drawn
into the story.  It may well be that I am familiar with different
styles of screenplay than you are refering to and that is where the
disagreement comes from.

> Walking around in a virtual world where people spout prose just
> isn't -real-.  When I walk around on a non-roleplay social MUD,
> this is how people interact:

>  * they say things
>  * they emote things
>  * they use/interact with/pass around props

> Sounds like a screenplay to me.  Why should a roleplay be any
> different?  If I am demonstrating a lack of experience (only seven
> years of roleplaying), or a lack of insight (where does that come
> from?) please do tell me.

I think there is nothing wrong with neither your experience nor your
insight.  We may however disagree with the essence of
roleplaying. As somebody else in this thread said (sorry, could not
find the original so I could not properly attribute it) most people
approach roleplaying as a form of collaborative story telling, where
everybody does a little narrative reacting to the situation and the
other characters.  It certainly is not a screenplay, but then it is
not intended to be.  Instead it attempts to tell stories (to the
limits of their story- telling abilities). In doing so they are
facing the same restrictions as writers do, and tend to use the same
traditional solutions as can be found in storytelling.

This does not mean that it is not possible to roleplay more along
the lines of screenplay, but the question is if that is the best use
of the medium. It certainly is more difficult to pull off and things
are not helped by the fact that, as a rule, roleplaying games are
rather poor on the interactivity.

> I said at the beginning of my original post that I was introducing
> an idea.  A fledgling idea.  I hoped by saying that people would
> respond and help me develop the idea.  This is a development list,
> after all.

> Instead, all of the people with anything positive to say responded
> privately!  And the people responding to the list flame me, -and-
> demonstrate that they don't know enough about literature to be
> able to think about the difference between a novel and a play!

The discussion started with a comparison between roleplaying as a
narrated story versus a screenplay approach of describing only what
is happening.

To me there was some unclarity what exactly was meant by the post
and two points stood out, to which I responded.  First the statement
that roleplayers limited the autonomy of the response by others
(which I pointed out is generally considered bad form by role
players though in mild cases it is unavoidable).  The second is that
an example of a screenplay is given to show how dialog should be se-
parated from scene and both (only) should be used to communicate the
emotions and motivations of characters. To which I (somewhat unluck-
ily) responded that in my opinion that was not a format particularly
suited for storytelling on a roleplaying game. I am still uncertain,
and I would certainly like an example, of what you feel is the wrong
type of roleplaying that prompted the first post.  I believe it may
help clear up misunderstandings what we are actually talking about,
as I increasingly feel we talk about different things here.

I do certainly agree with your point that roleplaying is more
interesting if players act as actors instead of storytellers.  Or
better yet, if they can separate the roles, because there rarely is
a director around and roleplaying therefor is collaborative.

[snipped]


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