The art of subversion by chekhov's gun is not if the gun will be used, but how. The gun above the door could be fired, as expected, or used as a club, used to block the door, used as a crutch, and so on.

I relate to the “what’s the name of this rum” question so much. In my DnD campaign, I had a crazy guy give the party a handful of grass and he than immediately left town on “business”. Rather than follow the obvious plot hook, a player asked what kind of grass it was, and for like, 20 minutes the players were discussing the grass and what they can do with it. It was just grass I gave a random name.

When you mentioned "Chekhov's gun" I immediately thought of the object known as a glass candle in George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. A glass candle is supposed to be like a crystal ball or palantir from "Lord of the Rings". The glass candle is mentioned several times throughout the novels but I don't recall any instance of one actually being used...

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes things get lost or forgotten about when you are writing huge stories, or stauff gets left on the cutting room floor for time (in movies and tv) so I understand that sometimes these things happen. And perhaps in the witcher show, all these things will be explained and this video will age incredibly poorly. I guess we will have to wait and see. Maybe George will tell us what the glass candles were for one day, and maybe he won't haha

@StarlasAiko

2 жыл бұрын

A Song of Ice and Fire is still not finished (and at this point probably never will be finished). it is possible that their relevance would have come in one of the later books if they had any chance of actually getting written.

@annamiau8116

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the glass candle will be king in the end because "...who has a better story than Tess Fangle, the glass candle?"

@Suzanne_sf

Жыл бұрын

I only remember it being mentioned and used once because you reminded me of it. It is something that no one is able to light and if you light it, I think you pass a test.

One rule that I have with myself when writing is "own what you don't know". If there is something in the story that has no explanation, don't explain it. Don't even acknowledge it. Instead, focus on the effects of it on the characters and on the world. This does two things; 1) sets up a situation where the story writes "it" on it's own and fills in the blank 2) it doesn't and the rest of the story makes the lack of "it" unnecessary and becomes part of the story I have accidently written myself out of hole so many times with this method. There are other rules that I use as well this is the primary one.

@calladricosplays

2 жыл бұрын

This makes me wish I could send you my current work in progress. It's so much fun to write this way

I once described a random area in a random cave for my DnD group. It had a support pillar, a small pool and what appeared to be a small waterfall. Everything looked natural, everything was unimportant, I was trying to stall while writing notes. 15 minutes later, I had to drag the party away from investigating the stupid waterfall. I learned to not give random, meaningless filler

I’m literally a DM currently writing a book where everything my party does is in the book, some of them even co write it with me, this is perfect for me, also entertaining so far.

@micahp.4356

2 жыл бұрын

I had the exact same idea.

@amandabadger9441

Жыл бұрын

I hope it works out! It sounds like a really cool concept

@annamiau8116

Жыл бұрын

I am also a dirty monk. Which chapel you go to?

One of my biggest gripes with season 1 of The Witcher was the time jumping. At that time, I hadn’t read the novels. It took me until episode 3 or 4 to realize we were on different timelines. Now, having read the books, I see that the show runners were trying to imitate the story telling method Andrzej Sapkowski uses, particularly in Tower of Swallows. The difference being, Sapkowski indicated the dates so the reader can follow along. Netflix chose to not do that for unknown reasons. But then again, Netflix chose to do a lot of things with the Witcher I don’t understand lol.

I think your note about the rum is a good point. Perhaps telling the players "this is San Sabillia's Rum, a very common rum in these parts" if the rum isn't of any importance, or perhaps "you note the bottle of rum, San Sabillia's. A name which you've never heard in any of the taverns of the region" if it is important. Stealing from video games a little bit, commenting on the rarity of ordinary objects will frame in the player's mind that one item is not especially important while another is, without explicitly stating "this is important, this is not"

@Dang_Near_Fed_Up

2 жыл бұрын

I like your examples. I use a small description to do the same. "This is a tasty but relatively inexpensive rum. You decide you might drink it regularly, should you ever pass this way again." Pretty well makes it clear that it is common without clearly stating it. ... Of course mentioning the price could also be a huge clue if you work that into the story. "You find a small bottle of rum with a faded but still legible price written on the bottle. 6 copper." Then you could go further with "Oh well not a fine treasure, but better than the rotgut you had with last night's meal though." if you so choose.

@WhatIfBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

Because my games tend to run long I tip my hand when I feel the characters should understand the detail is unimportant. So I might say, "Uh, I dunno. The bartender lifts up the bottle, squints at the label and says, 'Who cares rummy? It is rum, not some fancy wine vintage. If it tastes bad I'll fix you a hot toddy with honey.'"

@kaydoughlow4679

2 жыл бұрын

@@WhatIfBrigade I wouldn't offer a description of something unimportant if the players didn't ask, so the premise here is that they are asking about the rum, maybe because they have a wild hunch about something. So if they've asked, then I'll give them a dismissive descriptor. Why wait for an unnecessary NPC interaction to hamfist an excuse to stop asking questions? Indeed, such forced dismissal of an object by an NPC may serve only to spur the player on, assuming the bartender telling the player that the rum is not important is actually hiding something. Now, I'm the type of GM to go with that. Rewarding a player's intuition, even if it's misplaced from where you're sitting, is a good way to make them feel smart. And maybe they are? Maybe tracking rum shipments is a way to find the bad guy, or his motives, or some other hook you want to reel them in with. So it's first important, in a TTRPG game anyway, to entertain the things that you, as the GM, might consider "unimportant."

I've never much cared for the term world building. There are exceptions to the rule, Tolkien, I prefer the term setting, The setting for a story. But I was taught and I prefer the authorial concept of creating a small knowable world that the characters exist in, no matter how big the larger world is suggested to be. Character is story, story is character. Setting is character too ,and flavor.

Even though I’m not a writer, dungeon master, or director this whole conversation is quite interesting from just a viewer’s/consumers pov. It’s essentially put into words the feeling I have gotten from media that I couldn’t explain myself.

I have noticed this in many movies, and more than a few mystery books. I absolutely hate the killer being the 3rd cousin once removed that was never so much as mentioned, until the reveal on the last 2 pages of the book. It is poor story telling, and absolutely infuriating.

@AnotherDuck

2 жыл бұрын

Mysteries should follow at least the idea of the rules by people like Knox of Van Dine. One of them is that the culprit has to be a significant character who's introduced early on.

@meganjaime7728

Жыл бұрын

And that is why good ole’ mysteries like Doyle’s, Sayers, and Christie stand the test of time. They weave every character into the narrative and the bad guy is always mentioned if not in a way that makes you the reader unsuspecting. Christie for example is so good at subverting who the villain is. Sometimes she has the villain be the narrator but you don’t know right away because it’s not blatantly said. You can definitely go back and notice where the clues are which is always so cool about her stories. Doyle does this as well. He will introduce key characters in the background and later like Chekovs gun they pay off.😊

The Tower is just architecture. It's akin to a prop. You do actually have to have nice-looking set pieces in your show/movie/game/whatever, it doesn't necessarily make them Checkov's guns. Some people are also more visual, and it helps engross them in the story if you show them nice looking scenery, costumes, props, etc. Secondly, sometimes it's ok to have decoys. When you are telling a murder mystery for example, you HAVE to have a few clues that mislead the main character (and the audience) or else it makes the plot too easy to figure out. Remember, rules are made to be broken. If you have enough experience and know what you are doing, you can both build a world that is detailed and immersive, and yet not every single item in the world needs to be plot. Sometimes it can just be there for rule of cool. I'm not saying the storytelling in the Witcher was perfect. I think the time-skipping made things a little too convoluted, to the point most events seemed disconnected. But I don't think that you can always apply all the lessons from D&D and Tabletop RPG's into storytelling in other genres.

@Etzlo1

2 жыл бұрын

also some background information, even if not directly related to the plot is important, like how the magic in the witcher works and stuff, sure, it's not directly relevant at that moment, but it is information, I, as the audience, like to have, otherwise you get the good old question of "why not just magic it away"

@jonanderson3050

2 жыл бұрын

I think to be a bit more specific, it should be said that if you're doing things to draw attention to the gun over the mantle it needs to be used. Obviously if you had a scene set in an armoury that wouldn't require every gun to get used. But if you go to the armoury to collect a gun, dammit, use it for something!

@neoaliphant

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonanderson3050 Exactly, difference between scripted prop and set dressing

@melchiorkaczmarzyk5165

2 жыл бұрын

Everything that is "just an architecture" or just a prop could also be something that adds to the story. You have to have nice looking props, but they can be meaningfuly nice looking. And ofcourse, not every nice prop has to have some deeper purpose, however, the more does, the better the story.

@melchiorkaczmarzyk5165

2 жыл бұрын

Regarding the point about murder mysteries, just look at the example of doll scene from Witcher 3 that is in the video. Decoys should feel fair and have a reason to be in the story and I don't think the kind of decoys used in the murder mysteries is not the kind of decoy that is criticised in the video. It's something that looks *interesting* and makes you ask questions about its purpose or origin that end up unanswered and turn out to not be important to the story.

Thanks for making this! I'm currently planning a short D&D adventure for my nephew and niece, and this will help immensely. I'd love more advice on how to be a successful beginner DM.

A bit late to the party here, but this reminds me of one of Brandon Sanderson's lectures. Paraphrasing here, he described each plot & subplot as a series of setups & payoffs staggered throughout the story. No matter how insignificant, always lay the seed of the plot before springing it on your reader.

I enjoyed this and you are right about The Witcher series. They threw us into a non-congruent timeline or mashed up episodes. The first thing in storytelling is to keep your timeline smooth and flowing in the path you want the characters to take. I would have hated the long info dumps more in order to set this series right. As a writer, I find time jumps terrible. Memories can be played, but you always have to let your reader know these things have no sequence in the current timeline. Sure your world can be great, but if you jump back and forth in time and sequence of events in it, the readers simply get lost. Worldbuilding is not in affect anymore in most stories. I read some new authors and ask the questions of why when they write one thing once and a different thing farther into the book. Worldbuilding is as much of an art as is writing itself. Many having no practice as a DM will never understand the complexities and how to reveal them without an info dump. Sorry for the length, but I really enjoyed this vid.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Really glad you enjoyed, and agree with some of my points. In comparison to the LOTR movies, they actually re-ordered scenes from the books that were out of order, so they would be in chronological order in the movies. But the witcher writers did the opposite and chose to make it even more confusing. And the worst part is, they didn't even tell us that this would be a mechanic in the story. So not only was the plot hidden from us, but the method by with the plot was being conveyed was also being hid from us. Fantasy writing (and script writing for that matter) are very different than just being a "good writer" or having a degree. It really seems like they chose writers that had no experience in the genre and no allegiance to the source material, simply because they had the credential of "writer".

It's funny, on my version of your multiple choice question E was, "None of the above. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

@docstockandbarrel

2 жыл бұрын

When in doubt, frag it out.

@Dang_Near_Fed_Up

2 жыл бұрын

Having read more than a few books where the killer was a never mentioned throw away NPC until the last page I agree. The nuclear option is best for disposing of the entire story, just make sure the author is well INSIDE the blast radius at the time of detonation.

I agree in RPG's that plot relevant details should never be behind a roll. They should be up front and the flavor context can sit behind a roll.

@AnotherDuck

2 жыл бұрын

It depends on how many ways of accessing that plot detail you have. If it's the only way, the only reason to have a roll is to determine how much information the characters learn, but even failing should be enough to learn the vital bit. On the other hand, if you have three or four ways of learning that bit of plot, you can make it harder to learn. But at the same time, you should make it obvious that it's not just some random thing, but something important the characters are attempting to learn.

I myself write noir novels, not fantasy, but since they do contain some esoteric/mystery elements, I thought I'd weigh in on this. Sometimes, when details clearly do happen, but are hard to explain or outright inexplicable, I simply leave it open to interpretation. Not only does it add to an eerie atmosphere, it also removes needless fluff.

With D&D there's also the issues that can come across with information. I've, normally, tried to create flavor text for, at least, magical items because I want to push that magical items have more meaning than the just another +1 in an RPG. A magical item without a name is something unusual enough to be of note. Sure, the players might not always find those names or information, but it's something that helps make it work and is often not important to the adventure anyway...and even non-magical weapons might have names given them. It also tends to help deal with situations where there's a hidden item or something in a room that the players are supposed to be searching for...and it's given away entirely because it's given a description in the text that's far more detailed at a base layer. It also tends to be something that can be a jumping off point for other things in it if the players burn through an area more quickly than expected and stands out less if they go more slowly as just something else they can't follow up on...or might be the start of something else entirely.

Excellent points. Another danger in bad storytelling full of macguffins is sometimes the 'reader' will feel the need to fill in parts of the story themselves, using the information available. They might even come up with a really cool potential storyline. And if the 'actual' storyline is not as good as the story the reader is telling themselves that's even more disappointing. If your red herrings are suggesting a more interesting plotline than the one you're intending to follow, you've got a problem.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

This has happened to many times in recent memory, where I will predict what cool plot events I think will happen based on the established world, they won't happen, and then I'll think..."I should have written this. WTH"

@beksc9209

Жыл бұрын

That's part of what happened to Disney's Star Wars, methinks.

As someone who studies Creative Writing, this is a great piece of advice to anyone who enjoys writing or stories. Its a very common trend in Western media anyway, where Subversion of Expectations = Good Writing. Which is simply not true. Now that doesn't mean subverting expectations is bad either, it is rather if the execution is nailed. For example, the death of Snoke in The Last Jedi, yes no one expected Snoke to die a nameless and frankly nothing character, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to write him that way. It's essentially the equivalent of me going out to buy some milk and then getting a right hook to my jaw. Sure, my expectations were subverted, but that doesn't mean it was a positive experience. A good example of expectations being subverted is the character of Eren Jaeger from Attack On Titan. Eren starts off, very in line with other protagonists in the shouen genre, however, the world he lives in forces him to become a bitter and genocidal individual, but keeps the core of who he was. It is the natural corruption of his character Obviously I could go more in depth on both situations, but I don't wanna repeat myself too much as there are many people who've pointed out the failure of Snoke and the brilliance of Eren. Your audience is smart and its easy to give them something that surprises and exists them or something that shocks and disappoints them

As a general rule of thumb, in my writing I never do ass-pulls. I always state the existence of a thing before it ever has an opportunity to be utilized (or disregarded). An imperial platoon will not appear out of nowhere to hassle the parry in non-imp territory. A macguffin will always be Chekhov'd. A sorceror will never use a psionic ability he has no facility with. Random setvobjects don't necessarily need to be Chekhovs. They can just be characterization, either for the set or a character with ties to the set. Decoying can and should primarily be used a a plot device; it's not bad in of itself, but it can easily be *done* badly, and that's where the pitfall lies. You really have to plan ahead of you're gonna do a deliberate mislead, decoy, or fakeout.

You made this video about the Witcher TV series, but your critique hit hard at home on the BBC series Sherlock, After the first episode they never ever gave the audience a chance to solve the mystery, they constantly withheld information from the audience only to have Sherlock solve everything with knowledge we have no chance of knowing.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I hadn't noticed that about the show when I watched it years ago, though I definetly remember disliking the last season for this reason among others. Perhaps I will give it a rewatch with a new frame of mind.

This video has me realizing that books & video games have the advantage of unrestricted space & time to tell stories. In terms of time, movies & theatre performances are both limited by how long the audience is comfortable sitting and watching. In terms of space, movies are limited by how much information can fit into each camera shot before viewers can't keep up. Theatre is restricted by the size of the stage.

@nevisysbryd7450

2 жыл бұрын

Film and somewhat theatre is also much more difficulty to set up, requiring costumes, props, cgi, paid actors (and many other jobs), recording devices, and people to administrate all of that. It is **way** more complicated and expensive, by and large, and they have a much more difficult time conveying certain types of information.

@brettsteinbook5370

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, because movies take so long and have so much budget and so little time to tell a story, it should be easier for them to realize this mistake and cut it out. You don't have time in only 2 hours to set something up that's not going to be paid off later. Movies have the opposite problem of having pay offs with no set up. In bad movies things don't make sense because they didn't show us the important thing that resolves a plot point later. The author is like, winking at the audience, saying wasn't that clever? and the audience is like, no, you just hid that behind your back, we are not amused.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

The way that books are written vs how plays are written vs how movies are written is also very different because of how differently the story is presented. I can't confirm this, but it feels to me, like because of the nepotistic nature of hollywood, that perhaps some new movies or shows are written by people that are good writers, but do not know how to structure a script, which is a completely different skillset. Someone else said it here, but the constraints of the size of the stage or camera information should be used to tell the story, rather tahn being viewed as some obstacle that must be overcome to tell the story.

@ajrobbins368

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder... Do these differences between storytelling mediums *contribute to disappointing/unpopular adaptations of books & video games into movies? (*Contribute, not cause this result.)

I agree with most of what you say in theory (I don't know the examples you cite), but I would say to be careful about applying literary theory to TTRPGs. As a GM, you're not there to tell a story: you present a world and give plot hooks. The players and the dice tell the story. Unlike in a movie or in a novel, in a TTRPG you don't have as much control over the attention of the audience (the players). The world is developed somewhat in real-time and the questions of the players have an impact on it. You might describe the early 20th-century study of a posh Englishmen and a player might ask "Is there a gun over the mantle?". Yeah, sure, why not... or maybe no, it is important that there isn't one; you have to make the call. If you decide that yes, there is a gun, even if you introduce it before any prompt from a player, is it a Tchekov gun? The concept fails in TTRPG because you have no way of knowing for sure if someone will or will not fire that gun before the end of the scene (or in a subsequent scene). Books, movies, video games, theatre, TTRPGs are all different media that each comes with their own limitations. Of course, some concepts transfer from one another, but there is not always perfect equivalence. Even in design a set for a theatre or a movie is different: in the theatre set, you can get away (and it might even be preferable) with a very minimalistic set, where only the important elements are present. In films, this approach doesn't usually work.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I think I wasn't clear in the video, in my view, the concept of chekhov's gun is more than just about physical props, and I believe this is what chekhov meant as well. It is mostly to say that "elements of the story that are not usefull to the telling of the story should not be introduced". So yes in an RPG, having a gun on the mantel isn't directly a violation of this because it is a living world where anything can happen. But if the DM introduces something in a character backstory, a detail about a villain or plot, a history of a culture or place, and the path that this information creates isn't designed to go anywhere, this is a violation of the principle of chekhov's gun, even though it doesn't pertain specifically to the use of a physical object.

@MrMaxBoivin

2 жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism I understood that you didn't just mean for physical objects, but it is the same for NPCs backstory: you might introduce something in the background of a character with the intention of it mattering, but the players might never engage with it, and then it just becomes useless trivia. And the opposite can happen to: you might just give a random piece of information in answer to a prompt from the players with no intention of it being important, but the players can decide to get hooked on it. Just go with it, roll with the punches.

@MrMaxBoivin

2 жыл бұрын

Also, sometimes things can seem random, but they help flesh out the world. They might not be random at all, but the connection might not be obvious. When I first visited Cadiz in pain, on the first day I was there, I was shocked by the number of people walking around with canes or crutches. After spending a bit of time there, witnessing how fast people were driving in the narrow medieval street where the pedestrian have to put their back against the wall to let the cars pass, I understood why so many people had a cane or a crutch. If I were to just describe the place with a lot of people walking with some form of aid, it might seem random and useless... but it might be an indicator of some danger existing in the environment; a danger that the locals are no longer aware of on top of it. For them, it is just normality.

I haven't watched The Witcher, but everytime I've asked someone who has what it's all about, the answer has always been vague and confused. The only things that end up surfacing is the song "toss a coin to your witcher" and that Henry Cavill is hot. Oh, and the ballsack armors.

I like that you use the concept and model of that staff in your explanation. 1st time I DM a game I actually had a staff modeled after one that I actually made 1 summer. The player came across it and actually said that's a cool staff what does it do. I said I put it in the game and you have to figure out what it does on your own if it does anything at all. He spent the entire game trying to figure out what that staff does and protecting it. Towards the end of the game he figured it out while setting at a tavern table drinking and playing cards noticing everybody else was getting drunk and he was holding his staff to keep somebody from stealing it and he was not getting drunk. After that he put his character upstairs in its room placed the staff on the bed and stared at it trying to figure it out. Eventually he had the bright idea of cutting his hand picking the staff up and watching as the staff healed his hand. The staff was an item that healed wounds cured poisons and illnesses. However he spent so much time protecting the staff that all the bad guys started going after the staff thinking it was valuable. He never figured out what it did until close to the end of the game. But Hey a staff of magically perfect health.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

That's a sweet staff, shame he didn't get to use it haha!

@dawall3732

2 жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism Yeah everybody in the party laughed. He spent so much time protecting it and trying to figure it out. At least until the end he managed to use it quite well during the last part of the campaign. You know a staff of magically perfect health comes in pretty handy duringa fight. He was more upset at all the in game money he spent in the campaign on healing potions. All the while he had that staff sitting there. :)

As a DM (who wears the official robes, so take me seriously), I approve this message.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, god of the game table

i actually enjoyed the first season of the witcher, even though i never played the games. But i'll have an eye on the critique you brought up if i come to watch it a second time, it's always interesting to take another point of view. And thank you for this video, it is very helpful for writing my werewolf-dark ages campaign; i'll put more focus on the way i describe the scenes and distinguish treasure from texture. :)

In rewatching this video I actually had the thought that I often experience what you describe in reading The Wheel of Time, of which I am on book 9. But in WoT, every little detail in the entire story is a Chekhov’s gun that will at some point be fired, and boy are there a ton of them! But that’s really just as big a problem, because it simply has too many to keep track of, and most of them are so subtle that you probably missed them anyway. And if you did notice them, Robert Jordan will wait several books before bringing it up again. I’ve also found the most obvious guns have been fired in the most unsatisfying ways possible. I often feel like I’m being forced to choose which details to remember, because I know every last one is in some way important, but I only have so much room in my brain and I don’t know which ones will be the most worth remembering come the resolution.

If the character and personal life of the hero is important to your story at all then ideally you should see the hero: Do It, Run, Don't, and Unsure. All of them and how the hero feels about them should be explored if possible. Yes I answered the question seriously.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Very good answer

Great video! Looking forward to part 2.

Hey I just wanna tell you I made my own Ruana Cloak because of your videos one it. I really love it, and its probably gonna end up as my got winter wear.

thanks to you I finally decided to read the last wish, the first book of Gerald and MAN! I fell in love, now I'm glad me and my friend didn't finish ep 1, because I'm this story without previous images on my mind, except the game, bu t I didn't play it yet... man I'm loving the books so far

I really get what your saying. Ive probably done this myself. One thing i got tired of in one show was hidden scenes they would back peddle to when some plot twist came up. Its not always bad and even necessary. But these were moments of conversations the audience was a part of long before. It was a mystery show you were trying to peace together as the plot unfolded and it always seemed like a bad corner to cut and felt really cheap as a story element

i have no idea who in the production team said "hey, maybe we should completely screw up the timeline of the episodes so nobody understands anything" and why the hell they decided it was a good idea, but that is so stupid i can't put it into words. anyway please continue this series (maybe using other stories as examples too cause i'm trying to forget the witcher) i'm trying to write a short story and i don't wanna screw up

Thanks for the video! Definitely good things to keep in mind for sure! :)

the stories currently written for public entertainment tend to be made for people who dont want to be an immersed thinking audience =) please dont forget most people are fine not knowing any deeper meaning in their actual life or a story they are presented with, they are totally happy with allure and illusion as long as there is a fake meaning they can just accept shallow mindedly. appreciated your video and the important points you made.

What you said at the end, about the show's audience needing to know who witchers are, what they do, how their potions work....the first prequel book didn't explain those things well. Maybe they were supposed to be mysteries, which worked, 'cause I was curious and slowly pieced things together. But the world-building I found very confusing. Without a map, I had no context of where anything was or why anywhere was significant, which I found very confusing/distracting. The stories were also not in linear order...or if they were, they didn't always seem to be and I was often confused about the who, where, when, and why. Again, perhaps this was intentional or would make more sense if I had read the original books first. But if one must read the original books to understand/appreciate the prequel(s), then the prequels are fairly pointless.

When it comes to DMing you can also accidentally mislead the players. When i was running a game, i stated "Everyone from this Area carries a distinctive type of knife, and you can tell people are from here by their knives. Also if you your PCs are from here, you will have a knife or dagger for free." They then got super paranoid that even random children and Barmaids had knives.

Thx for this video I'm using it currently as a checklist for my upcoming dnd campaign to see if it will be good or bad story telling

As a DM I use items to push the players down the proper game path. Inevitably the players will decide to turn left when the mission and goal requires them to go right. For instance after a random encounter on the wrong path the party finds a scroll that needs to go to a Duke down the path they strayed from. As far as randomly dropping the party somewhere... I do that. My party has certain characters that are modeled after themselves and their equivalent stats. These characters are 21st century people who are suddenly teleported to a realm for an adventure. In their general life they don't walk around in armor or carry swords. These games begin with a standard question... "What do you have in your pockets" This means starting gear will vary greatly. For instance.. Once I asked my kids who wanted to play D&D. There were calls of Yes from all over the house. So... " What do you have in your pockets" My daughter screamed " not fair, I'm in the shower" My one son called from the door " no problem I've got you" and pulled out two of his change jars from his duster as he was about to leave to go cash it all in at the bank. He outfitted the entire party of 6 with change to spare.

I love your videos, questions more than answers, just the way I like it.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

A bit of irony on my part, given my critique of storytelling asking too many questions ;)

Nice! I'll be checking it out when I can

The kind of video you said is comming up is the kind of content I love, making a story work where it doesn't. Regarding the final points about The Witcher, I think it's probable that creators didn't do the best job in showing us how things in the world work and why they are there because they assumed the audience is familiar with the source material. I'm not saying it was done on purpose, but they could afford to explain things badly because of how many people already knew a lot of answers.

@jonanderson3050

2 жыл бұрын

I could see that being the case. It's a good way to ensure that your fan base never gets bigger.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I agree! I still think it's a bad decision even if we know why they made it. For one it's still bad storytelling even if we know what the story is supposed to actually be, and also they aren't marketing to fans of the story, they are marketing to new viewers who just want a fantasy flick, so they are marketing to people who are definitely not going to know what is going on. It's a very confusing approach

I'm currently DMing my first campaign and I had sometimes felt like was putting in work for nothing, designing the world around my players not realizing if the thing I am designing actually matters to them. I can spend all day prepping by creating some cool-looking algae that grows in a river they will traverse, if it's useless to them I am wasting my time and should have spent that time thinking about how the gnolls plan to take over the city.

These videos about the Witcher cause me no regret at all that I haven't watched the series. I knew of the game but never played it. This does make me want to read the books though.

The rum example made me think of red dead redemption 2. In that game different foods help fill your health stamina and dead eye (slow motion bullet time cowboy stuff). Meat usually fills the most health, plants usually fill stamina, and unhealthy stuff like alcohol and cigarettes fill dead eye. And because it’s a game made by rockstar everything has small details on the packaging and stuff and they call the rum Guarma Rum because it’s made on the island of Guarma. And you think oh that’s cool just a little whatever detail but later you actually get trapped ON GUARMA and have to fight a rebellion against the Cuban army and smuggle yourself back to America. Yet one more thing to add to the infinite list of reasons why I love red dead redemption 2.

Excellent thoughts. How would you reconcile your advice with the intentional use of Red Herrings?

As a new D.M. I have found this very helpful, thanks. brain tangent: Your face and hair reminds me of a old friend of mine, and that couch reminds me of his house.

naming the rum... i think it woudl give value towards world building if used properly like a rare variety of rum that could hold value or if bought and traded for information. as for the Witcher... having binge watched the series several times now i believe people "think" they know who and what whitchers are but do they really?? i could say the same of myself being a soldier and overseas contractor with 35+ years under my belt that my friends that i have known since i was a kid only know a very small part of me. yeah they read the paper and watch the news and know where i've been from time to time when i get the chance to see them back home. (home is wherever you happen to hang your hat btw) but with them never leaving the safety of home they truly don't understand who and what i am compaired to the person i was when we were all togather back in school almost 40 years ago. i think the same can be said of a Whitcher.

good points, thanks for sharing :)

I grew up playing D&D in the 80's. We never worried about stuff like this. We just played the game and went with it. Perhaps it was just a simpler time. 😄

Every object has a story behind it, but most of them aren't worth telling so don't worry about it lol. If it is worth telling, or if the object is integral to the plot, then don't be afraid to tell it. Don't worry about people guessing what will happen next because if your plot is logical then they will be able to guess it if they have enough accurate information.

I like this channel. He knows things.

2:50 for world building. I don't like the concept of Checkov's gun, more often than not I find it make for poor world building, where everything must have a plot purpose (oh, how convenient that he just had exactly what he needed right there), when, in reallity, people have things merely for aesthetic pleasure, cultural affinity, to remember some event where they aquired it or simply just because. Think, for example, those two giant statues in LotR, the Argonath... they have no plot purpose to be there, but they help pass the idea that this world is old and living, with it's own history and culture, rather than just a bunch of plot points tied up together. Overall, I find that Chekov's Gun weakens immersion, because every little thing, every person, every object, every information given... they are all connected to the main plot somehow. It makes the entire world seen "2D", just a bunch of plot points with some make up to disguise it. I much prefer stories where, from times to times, things happen mearely because the characters live in a world that doesn't rotate around them and their plot. People exist, animals exist, nature exist, and some times things will happen because of external factors that are not a all related to whatever you wanted to do. I even give some pass to the eventual chekov's gun inserted in such stories, such as when in Shadow of the Conqueror the pirates that attack the protagonist mid book end up having information on the antagonists of the last part of the book, or how in a Thosand Li: the First Step the protagonist gets attacked by wild animals during his travels and the skin of one such animals end up becoming valuable enough that he can use as a bargaining chip later on to aquire something that he couldn't have otherwise (important point on this last one: out of the multiple demon-beasts that attack the protagonist, only one of them ends up becoming a Chekov's gun, the others become an excuse as to how he is aquiring money throughout the travel, and, most importantly, by not making the sole creature that attacked him a chekov's gun, it helps with immersion. It wasn't a "look how convenient that the one time he is atacked it becomes important later on" thing, which I find to be the biggest problem with Chekov's Guns in general). Now, the reason why I say that the problem is Chekov's Gun, and not it's "bad" implementation, is because Chekov's Gun says that EVERYTHING must have a plot point. There is more to life than "look how convenient that literraly everything around is somehow involved in the plot or used to solve it" and any book/movie/show that fails to show me a living world breaks my suspension of disbelief. EDIT: k, I saw the rest of the video now. I agree with the point that the authors should never create false "chekov's guns", even in the examples I mentioned it is quite clear when something is "common object" (the wolf pelt or warthog meat the protagonist of Thousand Li sell to finance his travel) as compared to when it is actually important to the plot (the skin of a giant demon-snake that is relient to blades that a lieutenant of the guard will show interest on when the protagonist arrives at his destination), but I keep my point, Checkov's Gun says that everything should be important to the plot, and the author could just ignore the dynamics of travel, skipping everything but the snake attack that generates a bargaining chip, and I find that that makes for poor world building, and more often than not I see worlds lacking depth because the authors cut everything that isn't "plot relevant" out of the story rather than an overuse of badly implemented red herrings

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. My I'm referencing chekov's gun, not to say that it is how worlds should be built, but because specifically in the case of the Witcher, they are building the world mostly through the introduction of objects or locations which should be defined as architecture. That is, the world building is heavily reliant upon the "set" and "set dressings and props" if this were a stage play. So because the world building is reliant on props and the set, AND they introduce false flags, therefore, the rule of chekov's gun applies to how to fix the world building here, at least imo. You're absolutely right that if you reduce absolutely every plot point and item to having direct relevance to the main character, that is contrived. I'd say that knowing when to use what tools is what separates and experienced storyteller from an inexperienced or bad one. Great comment, my friend. Cheers.

Writing at 1:19 : ....very clever. I can picture where this is going and I agree

Elaborating on the points made a good example of these concepts I´d say are both the MCU and B. Sanderson´s Cosmere Both are well made movies and books series that have an intertwining plot spaning multiple movies/book series As a viewer you remain constantly vigilant and can´t let your guard down because at any moment something or someone might apear that references another movie/book Like when Captain America´s prototype shield appears in Ironman 1. The entire theater went [Insert Leo Dicaprio Meme pointing] because they knew what that references and they know the implication of that being there and generates expectation towards how will that play out. Same happens when you are reading the Mistborn and see this weird guy Hoid which then appears in Stormlight which is another book series entierly that takes place in a different solar system. At that point you are like.. ok something might be up here if people can jump to other planets in an age with no spacetech this gonna be lit. At the same time these are not distracting if the viewer doesn´t immediatly recognize them. If someone didn´t know who cap was before Ironman 1 they just keep watching because not enough atention was brought to the shield for the viewer to be like "Hey what about that shield you made such a fuss about before"

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Great examples! A way to do this same thing poorly, would be if you wanted to foreshadow cap's shield, but also wanted to gatekeep it at the same time, so you hide the info at the same time you share it to create "mystery". Completely changing the design of cap's shield so it is unrecognizable and then telling us that we "missed it" later in Capt America the first avenger would have felt very cheap indeed

At the beginning with the quiz, I actually did choose E! Except in my head it was "none of the above" instead of "use the macguffin." XD

You make great points here, and I'm not going to argue with them (because I agree), but I did want to point out that there is a type of story-telling mechanic that hinges on an unreliable narrator. It's called, rather creatively, unreliable narrator. Often its played for comedic effect, such as in The Emperor's New Groove, where the audience learns quickly that the narrator, Emperor Kuzco, has a skewed perspective of events. Another great example is in the video game The Stanley Parable, where this strategy is used brilliantly. That being said... the audience in these cases are *aware* that the narrator is unreliable, and that fact adds to the experience. As a DM myself, I've often considered how it might be possible to do a one-shot or short campaign around this concept. It would be difficult... Could be fun, though.

The only way to make a good witcher series is to make outside Hollywood, BBC and all alike companies. Great video.

Your really easy to listen to, and you dont ruffle peoples feathers which makes your videos more enjoyable. 💯😁👍🏼

I like how the contrast in the filming makes the black, furry pillows appear to be part of the shirt. Crom, what a piece of costumery.

@spacedinosaur8733

2 жыл бұрын

Crom, no one will remember the names in the comments of this video, only that many stood against bad storytelling.

I respect good story telling it is a noble yet humble craft.

9:25 i think thats a great cauntionary tail. I want to create a mysterious story kinda like twin peaks.

I have idea, for the info about random topics(althpugh this is more for video games, it may still be worthwhile) What if you stay really specific with info about the surrounding world, but not throw it in that audiences face. Like, keep it there, just more subtle so it won't overshadow the actual story. Like little bits of pieces that are placed so that only those who want to see will see, while the story is still seen by those who just want story

How do you feel about subverting expectations when telling a story? Classic example- in Wizard Of Oz we are told that Glinda is a witch, and later we are told she is a Good Witch. At the time a witch was a witch, and they were all bad. The fact that she was good was essential to the story- was saying she was a witch a "lie" or was it a surprise reveal that she was good? I think the latter but some think it was a dirty trick. For a while I've been trying to write a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover that does this repeatedly and I'm struggling with this particular issue. I don't want readers to think I'm springing an unfair surprise.

@brettsteinbook5370

2 жыл бұрын

This is not a good example. In the Wizard of Oz, Glinda asks Dorothy when she meets her if Dorothy is a good witch or a bad witch and therefore sets up the expectation in the audience that difference is important in this world. It's not a trick or a surprise. What movie did you watch?

@markfergerson2145

2 жыл бұрын

@@brettsteinbook5370 My point is that the very idea of a "Good Witch" was revolutionary at the time. Some people still can't wrap their heads around the idea even in a fictional medium. Witches were Bad, period. That's the expectation Glinda subverted.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Subverting expectations is fine, but I think there is a good way to do it, and a lazy way. The good way is to have the outcome that wasn't predicted still be based on the rules of the story/setting/world that have already been established, the audience might have guessed what would happen based on this information, but what actually happens is a creative twist on what was provided, and it was predictable, it just wasn't the obvious choice, or it puts what happened into a different context or perspective once it happens. The lazy way to do it, is to purposfully lead the audience to think that one thing will happen, just to pull something comepletely random out of nowhere for the sake of having the story be a "surprise".

@spacedinosaur8733

2 жыл бұрын

​@@LivingAnachronism I make the distinction of subverting the trope/cliche vs subverting expectations. For instance, in above example Glinda the good witch subverts the cliche of all witches being ugly & evil. As you point out, subverting tropes/cliches changes the way we see, or expect the world to work, but doesn't' break our immersion in the world by subverting our expectations. I don't remember the name of the cable sci-fi movie, but they masterfully subverted the trope of 3's/car escapes. While being chased by the monster, the hero runs down the street with a whole line of parked cars (How many will he unsuccessfully try to open before either coming across one unlocked, or smashing the window and getting in that way to escape?) None, the first one he checks is unlocked...and as he leans down to 'hotwire' the car, he notices the keys are in the ignition. My expectation that he would get away to learn how to defeat the monster was not subverted. Terry Pratchett is a master of subverting tropes & cliches to make both his Discworld novels and, well let's be honest almost all of his books a delightful read.

@markfergerson2145

2 жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism That's what I was hoping you'd say, and that's exactly what I'm struggling with. A particular character has a history of doing "A" but in the situation I'm putting him in, he diverges from his historical, "predictable" action and does something else that he has done before, just not as often. It's absolutely essential to the overall story that he does this and I worry that it will come off as contrived. I'll have to find a way to justify it in the story perhaps by having another character talk him into it.

I keep telling this to people, and they all look at me like I'm crazy. But stories are NOT an accurate portrayal of real life and all of its randomness. Nor are they meant to be. Stories are constructed narratives, thus the situation has changed from "life is random, lol, deal with it," to "everything now matters, even something small and seemingly random." Therefore, any detail one includes in their story, no matter how minute, must serve a purpose. From small things like a character's habits to large things like key plot events are all part of a construct that is the story itself. So of course this applies to any item you give enough importance to. If it isn't important to the narrative, it didn't NEED to be included. All too often, people want to write epics like Tolkien's Legendarium, or Brandon Sanderson's Cosmere, and such, but they all fail to realize that those epics are the size that they are because every detail that's important to those respective stories needed to be there for the story to work. You can't just pad out a story and make it feel as deep as Middle-Earth by just adding stuff without expanding on it. The more you add, the more it needs explained, and anything you add must be necessary for the story you want to tell. The best way I've found with storytelling is that you often get a much better story the more you try and get to the point. Even in large epic/high fantasies, and even then it's more strict even though it seems like you'd have more leeway for info-dumping. Basically, good storytellers are masters of prose and pacing, and they know what's important, and what details to include to help them tell the story overall. Just my two cents.

I hate whoever came up with "subverting expectations". All I ever think is "Dick move, bro" and never read or watch them again.

I have some friends with whom I play Cogent Roleplay, till now I´ve allways done the narrator as the DM is called in this system. Because we just meet every now and then we just play oneshots. I give the a single mission and of course I place lots of jackov´s guns but they often don´t shoot with a single one and do it completely different. They choose how to solve the mission, sometimes we leave the prepared area and I have to improvise. Last mission I gave them a crossbow but they didn´t need it. I placed a shrine to communicate with the high priests, but they didn´t try to do that. I placed loads of korsars they didn´t kill one or even tried to...

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah that's a good way of doing that, they don't all need to be used if they all serve the same purpose, for sure

Superfluous...that is the word that first comes to mind. I see a lot of that in most storytelling mediums nowadays. I can't really figure out why it happens so much, but I find a lot of those irrelevant bling-covered visual turd nuggets annoying as a viewer. Or maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety a la Shirley McLaine's *"Steel Magnolias"* character kind of way. *grins* Also, I'm an old tabletop RPGer myself both, D & D and GURPS, so you just made my nerdy day. And when I say old...I mean old. I started playing in the early 80s!

Since we share most of the same criticism for the Witcher show, maybe we can share the same curiosity of how posible would be a Witcher kind of " class " in our world. A how realistic a Witcher would be? Minus the mutations of course and maybe using all your knowledge, gear, and KZread you could make a video about it, and I'll make sure to comment on it. Can't wait to see.thr next one awesome video.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Witcher Reenactment is definitely in the works. Eventually I want to see what types of real world historical medicines might be equivalent to witcher potions, what sort of training to do, I even have a theory about the type of swords they seem to use in the books, much shorter blades with longsword handles. Much more to come!

0:59 E: All the above!!!

Oh, you are from US. Your sound state of mind and calm demeanor don't seem american at all and thats a compliment. Nice job on resisting the negative cultural inflections (and probably embracing the positive ones) I guess? Its interesting to me. Idk. Sorry. Cheers. Great video as always.

Thank you for the video. I've watched this to help me be a better writer. This is the one case where Netflix should have given creative control to its star, Henry Cavill, who knows all about the books and games. Either that or spoiler for season 2: . . . . . . . . . . . . not kill almost all of the Witchers and contradict its own anime or both.

@LivingAnachronism

Жыл бұрын

I wish Henry was producing the Witcher

@Suzanne_sf

Жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism I wish he was producing it too. He'd do a much better job because he lives and breathes The Witcher to the point he knows what lines fit a scene like he stuck in that line when *spoiler*. . . . . . Roach died. He didn't think they'd let him keep the line, but thankfully they did.

In mine I asked them questions got faced with one player trying to turn this into a video game instead of roleplaying. Another used his wife's character as a sidekick, but since she wasn't that interested in the game it didn't effect her enjoyment. The last player was happy to keep quiet and in retrospect I think I should have focused on him specifically as he was the only one by the end felt like he was actually trying to roleplay but that might be hoping one of them was invested in the game and that I cannot confirm. They didn't ask questions about the setting and barely about the game I think in at least one case they thought they were being clever instead of asking the questions they really should have been had they been interested.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes the idea of a ttrpg is more appealing to people than what it takes to actually play the game. And it can be a bummer, but ultimately (I hope) you can find a group that your play style meshes with. I once had a player who tried to treat it as a video game, literally smashing barrels in search of loot. Eventually you either role with the punches and the game turns into something else that's fun, even if it isn't what you planned, or the game disintegrates like mine did. That was years ago and I was very new to running a game, I've since had much more success, so there is always hope!

@Darkwintre

2 жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism What this made me understand is that I should have just asked him why his character was a folk hero instead of finding a way for that character to be a folk hero. Its been a little over a year for that lesson to finally sink in. Took three viewings for that to finally sink in.

For the algoooorithm!

The rum is called Kraken.

Red herrings can be tricky

I once took a rest in a strange forest during my travel. I made a fire to warm myself and cook some supper for me. As I watched for my kettle boiling, a beast walked from the forest to my fire and ate some of the flames from it. The beast thanked me for the food and then turned back and walked back into forest. Your turn :DDD

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

It was a dark and stormy night. And the Captain said, "Gather round men, and I'll tell you a story...It was a dark and stormy night, and the Captain said, '"Gather round men, and I'll tell you a story...It was a dark and stormy night, and the Captain said, ""Gather round men, and I'll tell you a story, '""It was a dark and stormy night, and the captain said....

I feel many series do that, like Mr Robot and Lucifer. Every episode is filled with apparently important events that are actually not. Worse, the end of the episode makes the audience think that the main character suddenly made huge progress, or learned a life-changing lesson that they completely forget the next episode (like in Lucifer), or something does happen to undo all the progress (like in Mr Robot). This is why I don't enjoy that kind of show. I love watching series that don't do this, one of the most obvious examples in my head right now being Squid Game. But sadly, when an actual story is told, there is an inevitable end to that story... Edit: I am much more forgiving with the Witcher show, even if the narrative precision is not always on point, it doesn't feel as lazy as those examples mentioned above.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, the Witcher show doesn't feel lazy, it feels perhaps, misguided or misdirected. I don't get the sense that the writers are phoning it in or they lack experience writing in general, but perhaps that their passion towards the Witcher is aimed at telling a different story than the books their are adapting tells.

mix in some outdoor episodes with gear and fire and food and the ways of old.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

We'll be getting back to those. Weather and working on my armor has kept my time outdoors very short for the last couple of weeks. We will be outside again

I feel like this video explains all of the problems with the Harry Potter series. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Harry Potter, but some of the mysteries (notably most clues in Goblet of Fire) are completely over shadowed by red herrings while most of the actual information used to explain the mystery at the end of the book is so arbitrary that it's impossible to tell what's important and what's not. For an in depth example: In The Goblet of Fire, Harry sees Mr. Crouch's name on the Marauders map, and decides to investigate. But after getting stuck in a staircase, he needs to get saved by Barty Crouch Jr. pretending to be Mad-eye Moody so that Snape doesn't catch him. But after getting saved, Mad-eye Moody asks if he can keep the map, and Harry agrees, and while doing so Mad-eye Moody says out loud how suspicious of Snape he is, and if we're being honest, he has a point. Someone close to Voldemort has snuck Harry's name into The Goblet of Fire, and the only person who could have done it is someone with powerful dark magic, as well as a proximity to the school. And we know that Snape has all of these check boxes filled, as well as a specific hate towards Harry. This is also starting to get closer to the end of the book, so it's not unexpected that we might be close to the answer. Now, if you've read the books, you'd know that Snape is innocent, and the culprit was actually Barty Crouch Jr. shapeshifted to look like Mad-eye Moody. How many clues towards this conclusion did the book have? Well, they hinted towards Barty Crouch Jr. using a potion why Harry notices that he always drinks from his own flask, but Ron immediately provides a different context, saying that Mad-eye Moody is so suspicious of everything, he never drinks from anything handed to him, and only drinks from his own flask, discounting this as relevant evidence. We also see him behave strangely when presenting the three unforgivable curses, but this is forgiven when he apologizes to Neville with a talk over a cup of tea, and it's even inferred that Mad-eye Moody got permission by Dumbledore during this lesson, minimizing the use of this scene as evidence. And lastly the scene that I already mentioned in the beginning, where it's foreshadowed that Mad-eye Moody is not who he seems, as the Marauders map shows that Mr. Crouch is in the vicinity of Mad-eye Moody before disappearing... That's it?! And this evidence is also surrounded by the fact that Snape was also in the vicinity, and was acting more suspicious, and the fact that the Map didn't specify weather it was Barty Crouch or Barty Crouch Jr., and yet even then, it should be inferred that it's Barty Crouch, since we've been told that Barty Crouch Jr. is dead! Which is another convoluted mystery all by itself, which is made more convoluted when Barty Crouch was also a (kinda) red herring, seeing as how he has consistently shown favoritism to Harry during the Tri-wizard Tournament, the very competition that's trying to kill him! (I guess Mad-eye Moody/ Barty Crouch Jr. also does this, which is the only real evidence against him). And then you have to remember, all of this information and evidence is spread across a 700+ page book! Basically, it's nearly impossible to suspect Mad-eye Moody or Barty Crouch Jr. until it's revealed to Harry in the end, and these constant impossible to solve mysteries caused a lot of people to stop liking the series, even if there's actually a lot to like about it. (Sorry for ranting so long, I just started typing and didn't quite realize how much I wrote until the end. Sorry.)

You're talking about red herrings. Something that draws attention and or focus that ultimately has nothing to do with the macguffin.

I hate the macguffin more than the failed Chekhov's Gun. Thankfully there are a lot of stories that have done these very well.

Can you make a video on how to worldbuild and make a deep story properly.

@LivingAnachronism

Жыл бұрын

This is something I am very interested in and am still learning about and unravelling. I do want to discuss it on the channel, I'm hoping I can eventually bring on some more experienced world builders/game masters/authors to share their advice and experience too.

@epikindinos21

Жыл бұрын

​@@LivingAnachronism That would be awesome. I have always wanted to start writting and I have a lot of decent ideas, but I am not a writter thus it is very difficult for me to piece them all together.

The 1 dislike is from Sheeve. He wanted to do it.

How about a glass of wine? I think my mouth staid open for that explanation well well lol I am old school

I agree with the majority of your points, but I would add useless background areas to make the world actually feel alive and doesn't just revolve around the MCs. BUT, making it so that you have to visit random and pointless locations that isn't part of a quest, that is a big NO for me I rather would just do a tiny description IF the players ask.

For me, if everything in a big story (not a short anecdote, but say a book or a movie) is relevant to the main storyline, it breaks immersion for me. That's not how real life works - as we progress to whatever goals in life we have, we will encounter stuff irrelevant to our journey. Sometimes interesting stuff, that we enjoy wasting a moment to enjoy... but stuff that adds nothing to our big journey. Not seeing anything like that in a fictional story makes it seem unrealistic to me. Same with side stories - if all questions are answered by the end of the book/movie, we know exactly what happened with every important character, all mysteries are solved, all villains defeated, every protagonist achieved what they wanted, and basically there's nothing left for the imagination... that's REALLY BAD, from my point of view. I don't get people who complain when stories end with unfinished side arcs, unanswered questions, people whose whereabouts are unknown etc. That basically means this world dies when the movie ends... there's nothing left to do. In a real world, and in fantasy worlds that I prefer, there's always stuff to do, mysteries unsolved, new things to discover... And books/movies like that leave plenty of room for fans to fill in the gaps and unknowns with their own creativity. I prefer this over a world where the author answers every possible question, and the only way to create fanfiction is to contradict the original author and say "in my alternative universe, this and that is different" as opposed to adding something that could still be a part of the original story, just left out by the original author.

@Tennouseijin

2 жыл бұрын

In the context of role playing games (as in real life, to a degree), it's about having the option to make things relevant. It's up to you as a player (or person in real life) to decide if something will stay irrelevant, or if it will be made relevant. Say, you enjoy watching football... but so far it's been just 'interesting but irrelevant to your goals in life'... well, if you make some new friends while watching a game together, or if you decide to start playing football, you suddenly made it more relevant. Same with the name of the rum in the fantasy tavern... the players have the option to make it relevant. For example, say a guard questions the players why they've come to the town, because he suspects them of malicious intent. A player may answer they really like the local rum (mentioning its name) and that - as a GM - I would consider a very convincing lie. They know the name of the rum which the guard can know, or confirm to be true... which wouldn't be plausible if they were just making up an excuse on the spot. In a good, immersive game (as in real life) you don't need to turn every thing you come across into something relevant. But it's nice to have many options, so that when opportunities arise, you can pick and choose which ones to make relevant, and which ones to leave for later (which may never happen).

Kramer. Get to the forest. Take your sword . Take your flint. Come back. Tell me what you’ve learned

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I'll get back out there, I promise. Working on my armor and bad weather has limited my adventure time as of late.

I'm of two minds on this, feeling differently for the Witcher vs. RPGs. Fair warning I basically quit on the Witcher TV series after the 1st season while my wife is reading the books and diving in so like you I was kinda unsatisfied. I do give some latitude because I understand the TV show needs to make props work on a budget and if you spend big on a piece that ends up getting cut out of the story due to time constraints it is hard to let that go. I also feel the series unexpected popularity may have pushed for several re-writes so some of these abandoned plot lines might have been originally intended to wrap up in one or two seasons but were then abandoned immediately. I'll make a separate comment for RPGs.

@WhatIfBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

For RPGs, I never really liked Checkov's gun because I think it limits the possibilities. For inanimate objects sometimes the gun above the fireplace is supposed to convey a style of decoration, sometimes the rum is just rum. Sometimes the players don't really understand how healing potions work and may even be using them incorrectly. I grew up playing Palladium system RPGs and the provided adventures were jammed with red herrings. But beyond that there were also very weird items that always lead characters down extremely strange paths eventually. For example there was a bizarrely friendly & obedient undead and a cursed item that made undead creatures very powerful. The vast majority of players ignored or killed the undead and discarded the cursed item (you 'heal' all damage, but every HP 'healed' becomes undead flesh until you are transformed into an undead.) But the ones who gave the cursed item to the friendly undead ended up with a dim witted but loyal nigh unkillable undead friend. Is that a Checkov's gun? Or should it remain on the mantelpiece? To be honest, I'm never quite sure and I feel like all of the choices are valid. So obviously I'm biased because I grew up playing RPG games with multiple unused Checkov's guns, but I kinda like it. I've ruined adventures by discarding powerful, but cursed macguffins where I really felt it didn't fit with my character and wasn't worth the trouble so it probably would've helped if the GM had backup macguffins.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I think in terms of RPGs, perhaps I mispoke or wasn't clear, but the idea of Chekhov's gun is much more how differen't elements of a story are used to tell that story, rather than just whether or not an item is used. In an non-interactive story it makes sense for the allegory to be a piece of the set, because the main point is that "no information that is useless should be included" but in an open world game, it's much harder for the concept of Chekhov's gun to be applied to individual objects because the world has so many options, so if an item is introduced but never used, I wouldn't say that is a violation of the rule. But if information/history/lore on an object or character or place is introduced and is never actually used for anything, I would say that is a violation of the rule, because you are forshadowing something that isn't ever going to happen. Great comment!

@WhatIfBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

@@LivingAnachronism Thanks!

The first question, I was so confuzed I hid space on wronk keyboard, witch of course did not pause the video and thus I saw the answer, next time pls leave more time to think about it. (So we can be even more dissapointed by "corect" answer)

What are some ways to avoid falling into this pit trap?

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

Depends on the type of media you are writing for. I have some basic things that I have found helpful for DMing towards the end of the video. Know what the story is and be confident in telling it faithfully, if the audience guesses what is going to happen, let them have that and let them enjoy it, don't punish them with a "gotcha!" moment for any reason. And if there is going to eb a plot twist, make sure it is also possible based on the information presented, it is a just a different, more creative, creative outcome based on the rules already established. When, in my case, the problem was introducing decoy paths, red herrings that lead to know where just to be intriguing, the answer is simple. Don't do that. Or if you already have, find a way to make those red herrings tie into the story, and then it will all seem like it was planned from the start.

It's like people who made Witcher series were sure that most of us played the games, so we know characters and places and history of that world... And, in that case, they can skip some explanations.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I would be more ok with this approach if they were a) basing the show off of the games or b) marketing to people that already knew about the wticher. But their marketing strategy seems to be geared towards new people, or people that want romantic witcher fanfics, as I have noticed in their comment sections on IG.

You Build All This World ... To Not Even Use Half Of It. It s frustrating, but part of the job description.

Not giving information when a player asks can also be world building, or character building rather. "What is the name of this rum?" The barkeep turns around to stack the bottle back onto the shelf. "Rum" he answers sourly. "Yes, but what is it called?" The barkeep squints at you for a moment and eventually spits on the floor. "It's called rum." he finally answers, "What do you want? Have a conversatiion with it?"

At convention games I have been in it is not uncommon for the GM to put a red herring in to the game to stretch the game time.

@LivingAnachronism

2 жыл бұрын

I think it is defensible in some cases, but in my case, or as I argue is the case for the Witcher, when most things are red herrings, and the plot isn't even discernable, that is a huge problem

i'll never be a good story teller haha either i'd put too much detail or not enough, i wouldn't know where to draw the line between what is important and what is not

Moon base or Yukon? I get it.