Posts made by Arkandel

Also when you respond to a player (character? sometimes the distinction is unclear) doing something stupid by introducing consequences for it, you often enrich the plot. Not everything that's IC bad is a bad thing.

Also also, What STs - especially new ones - should probably avoid is introducing situations where the entire plot is destroyed if the PCs don't do a specific thing; keeping things flexible in that regard, or having backup options to deliver critical information can be a very good idea.

A classic example is very important but thinly detailed NPCs - maybe the guy your entire story is based around is supposed to be this cool, shady guy for whose development you have so many amazing plans about, but whom the party decides to murder in cold blood when they first see him because he's all shady and stuff. Plot armor can be frustrating but there are ways to introduce contigencies without being heavy handed about it.

@tragedyjones said:

Just a little self-masturbation

1. Is there another kind?

2. Reported.

Storytelling is just like everything else - you improve with practice.

It's a misconception that people might judge you or be disappointed by a plot you ran because it's not good enough; trust me, unless it's really catastrophic any plot you run will be better than sitting at a bar, and people who have more significant roleplay to do at the time will simply not show up for PrPs.

If anything the only limitation is on your end; how much are you willing to do? Players - some players - can be difficult to handle.

So here's my advice - start by running plot for your friends, people who know and like you. Don't worry too much about asking them what to run unless they have specific requests, just do it. Throw scenes at them, then if one wants to bring their buddy over for something let them. Expand your circle of players organically like that.

And just have fun. If you don't it's all for nooothing.

@faraday said:

You don't read a novel expecting the protagonist to get killed off halfway through. Yeah, sometimes it happens (I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones)

Game of Thrones isn't a novel series.

<smug, arrogant look>

@Roz said:

@Arkandel Certainly the Marvel Netflix shows are the best superhero TV happening right now, but the nature of Netflix programming almost makes it seem like an entirely different medium. Like, they're really more like extended movies or miniseries. I imagine they also have much bigger budgets available to them.

But why? Let's break it down.

Budget - I'd say Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. probably uses way more special effects than Daredevil does. Most of its budget must be going to fight choreography, it's not like they need to depict people shooting lasers out of their eyes on a regular basis.

The format... I don't know why monster-of-the-week is still a thing - and I can't imagine I'd watch Daredevil less if its episodes were being released on the traditional weekly schedule, for example. Dedicated nerd tastes however might not apply to a regular viewer who might not tune in every single week... but I don't see it. It's not like ultra successful action-based shows like The Walking Dead don't rely on a very strong continuity (I won't mention more cerebral shows like Breaking Bad since we'd be comparing very different things).

Which isn't to say that someone probably couldn't make a similar type of show in a more traditional TV setting, or that you can't make TV of that quality outside of Netflix. Not at all; we're in a Golden Age of Television. But I do think that the various variables of Daredevil's situation allow it to be more focused and tell a more cohesive story. The closest equivalent on traditional TV, IMO, is Agent Carter: totally different tone and style, obviously, but the fact that it's a shorter season run means that it's a lot tighter and more focused and avoids the issues of filler.

I wonder if it's just that regular TV stations are still partially stuck on the customary model, the filler episodes... all of those trappings that perhaps aren't needed any more. Maybe in the 80s you needed self-contained stories where the main character beats up some bad guy of the week but after many shows succeeded on the strength of those cohesive stories you mention maybe there's been a paradigm shift while they weren't (?) looking.

Something else that offends my own sensibilities in superhero shows is when they try to promote spin-offs a bit too aggressively and in ways that don't fit the overall arc. For example Arrow and Flash got caught up for several weeks in their Legends of Tomorrow launch which derailed their regular direction. There were mentions of say, Jessica Jones in Daredevil (and vice versa) but they were subtle and not intrusive... they hinted at a wider world but it didn't feel like shameless promotion, you know?

So I don't know what makes Daredevil different than other superhero TV shows (with the possible exception of Jessica Jones - another Netflix show) but it just seems... bigger than the others, more focused and character-driven. I like it a lot more.

That's while comparing it to both series with a central protagonist (like say, Arrow or Flash) but also more assemble productions like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - it just seemed to have far more gravitas than others of its ilk. Maybe it's the pseudo non-episodic nature, that it didn't have any real filler episodes or monsters-of-the-week, but it just worked.

Even its villains were cooler, whom I won't spoil here by talking about, from their visuals to their complexity and interaction. Matt seemed constantly outmatched and struggling to keep it together in ways other shows which also had their protagonist beaten within an inch of his life - or beyond, I mean Ollie was stabbed through and thrown off a freakin' mountain - never got a similar emotional response from me. And Stick was great, his casting was perfect and every line he had was right for him.

I'm by no means claiming the show is perfect but something about the writing, acting and direction agreed with me quite thoroughly more than similar productions on TV. Do others feel the same way or is it just my own itch being scratched here?

@Duntada said:

@Halicron said:

A common one you see is 'Bill walks up, then gasps and faints to the ground'. Unless you're playing an amoral savage, if Bill's a friend, your character MUST get up to respond to that entrance.

Or just play like me and go aa@Duntada said:
@Halicron said:

A common one you see is 'Bill walks up, then gasps and faints to the ground'. Unless you're playing an amoral savage, if Bill's a friend, your character MUST get up to respond to that entrance.

Or just play like me and go ahead and play an amoral character.

Do you mean you only play amoral characters? Because that sounds rather limiting.

@Tyche Sure, mock my unbearable agony.

I just noticed we have a @Ninjakitten and a @VulgarKitten.

I don't know what that means but.

@HorrorHound Think of a... you can look at it as a... It's like a...

... I got nothing. Second Life is more like Second Life than anything else is.

@Glitch - begone, necromancer.

@VulgarKitten SL is still running?

I woke up with a stiff back and sort of feeling generally achy.

After the deadlifts my back feels great - it feels tired but right.

I clipped my thumb nail too far. Contact with the salt from my fries alone is not making my life more fun.

@Admiral I'm not a lawyer, but that's bullshit. And they are horrible bosses.

@Kanye-Qwest said:

I had the unreasonable expectation that if I jumped through all the hoops set before me, I'd eventually be allowed to <snip>

Oh, that's easy. If staff put hoops to jump through between me and telling stories I go tell stories elsewhere where they're more welcome.

I just would rather not have to pay attention to my high scores here at all. People tell me I'm in good standing, that's great, but I still don't want to have to care.

If I do then I'm no longer posting, I'm posting with an agenda.