[MUD-Dev] story vs. screenplay

[Nicholas E. Walker]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:38:59PM +0000, Marian Griffith wrote:

> 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.

<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

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

<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

> 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.

My purpose for the original article was to try to look at
role-playing in another light, in an attempt to explore a
redefinition with members of the lists.

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.

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.  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..

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

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.

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 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!

So, a request to the list at large: Can we all make an attempt to
foster development, instead of squelching it?  Misunderestanding or
lack of understanding is no reason to put down an idea.  I'd much
rather have people emailing me privately asking what I meant then
reading through a stack of people telling me why I am dumb.

But maybe that's an ego thing.

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

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