I went and read the wikipedia entry for FF5 and it says the meteorites are used by people of the second world, where the big bad and the second set of crystals are, to travel to the first world, where the protagonist starts out. After failing to protect the crystals on the the first world, they travel to the second one. Thematically there's probably also a connection between space as a void and the big bad having been sealed into something called "the void" by the original division of the two worlds and set of four crystals.

I have to confess I don't like the storytelling style/structure of Game of Thrones, or the Malazon series which is the same kind of thing. They just seem like a sadistic soap opera to me, no offense intended. I'd argue that those stories which aren't about individual characters but instead about some great upheaval in a large setting are inherently epic, and I'm just not a fan of epic. It's probably connected to the issue of plot-driven writing rather than character-driven writing. IMO a good story is both but the characters should be where everything begins and ends because they are what I really care about (and I imagine that many readers feel the same way, though not all). And what the audience is supposed to care about is how you determine where to start and end your story - you start it where some character (generally either the antagonist or the protagonist) has a strong desire to do something, and you end it when that desire (or what it has morphed into over the course of the story) is satisfied or exhausted/destroyed.

Actually GoT is totally character driven. All the events are derived from the characters actions. Because a character does this or feels this way such and such happens.

I think maybe you really enjoy stories with a single protagonist or group of protagonists who are allied are unambiguously the good guy and focus of the story.

GoT and BotF both focus on complex stories where there are both varying levels of bad guys existing at the same time and complex characters who often have done and continue to do terrible things.

For instance I am a huge fan of Valdemar but its hard to argue for any shades of grey. Malazan stories are just more complex and interesting. Valdemar can even be epic, but its cut and dried. Its a fantasy world, where fantasy is used in the most positive sense. Malazan is a fantastic world but its not really a fantasy world. Each of the nations has a story that is just as complex as the story of the USA which is a country that has done many good things, especially for its own citizens, and for allies who are basically parts of the global north whole, but which has done terrible, terrible things also to people who disagree with its guiding ideas, and no, I didn't misspell ideals and to countries who have no way to respond.

Those series are not SADISTIC. They are REALISTIC.

Those series are not SADISTIC. They are REALISTIC.

The author is sadistic though ;)
I really love how they're able to dismiss incredible characters because the story demands it. This is something, I, as an author, would chicken out of, and this is why they are much better authors than I'll ever be. They don't do it just because its fun or because it brings a nice cliffhanger, but because the story demands it.

I think maybe you really enjoy stories with a single protagonist or group of protagonists who are allied are unambiguously the good guy and focus of the story.

GoT and BotF both focus on complex stories where there are both varying levels of bad guys existing at the same time and complex characters who often have done and continue to do terrible things.

For instance I am a huge fan of Valdemar but its hard to argue for any shades of grey. Malazan stories are just more complex and interesting. Valdemar can even be epic, but its cut and dried. Its a fantasy world, where fantasy is used in the most positive sense. Malazan is a fantastic world but its not really a fantasy world. Each of the nations has a story that is just as complex as the story of the USA which is a country that has done many good things, especially for its own citizens, and for allies who are basically parts of the global north whole, but which has done terrible, terrible things also to people who disagree with its guiding ideas, and no, I didn't misspell ideals and to countries who have no way to respond.

What I really like are stories where there isn't anyone that's outright evil or cruel, instead the characters are all mostly-good people who have conflicting philosophies and desires. Problems where sufficient creativity can find some sort of win-win solution even if not everyone is perfectly happy with it. Sometimes there's no solution, but everyone endures and moves on and finds ways to be more or less happy. I think that's realistic, because that's the majority of what I see every day in the world around me. People dying right and left is a lot less realistic - in 30 years of life I've never seen anyone be killed in front of me, no one I know has died from anything other than old age, illness, or accident. When I see people suffering it's mainly due to the economy, or some kind of prejudice, or the pervasive problems with our legal system. I understand the concept that fiction typically places characters in a world freed up from a lot of the laws and bureaucracy of the modern world, and that some real places and times are/were very violent. I've written about one character killing another when it was important to the main part of the story, and I think murder and death are things that can be interesting and meaningful to write about. I just think that the popular taste for "darker and edgier" isn't really very mature or tasteful, it's like... the equivalent for anger that being emo is for sadness. Or like "reality" tv which is totally scripted and exaggerated like a soap opera.

For RPGs in particular, IMO the goal is to create a world that players can enjoy their adventures in, not one that depresses them, scares them, embitters them, grosses them out, or makes them cry. That's what I want as a player, anyway, so that's what I think is the ideal to aim for in creating them.

The author is sadistic though ;)
I really love how they're able to dismiss incredible characters because the story demands it. This is something, I, as an author, would chicken out of, and this is why they are much better authors than I'll ever be. They don't do it just because its fun or because it brings a nice cliffhanger, but because the story demands it.

For me, since I don't want to write or read a story that demands that kind of thing, it seems like a sadistic choice of thing to create, and yes a sadistic way to treat your characters. I mean, I'm fine with other people enjoying writing and reading stuff that's dark, violent, tragic, horrific, dystopian, or whatever. I just don't want to and don't at a gut-level understand why anyone would. I understand being afraid that the world is headed for a grim future, but it's generally unwise and self-damaging to dwell on that kind of fear in the way that would be necessary to write about it. I only object strongly to unpleasant content in fiction if I manage to accidentally consume something like that because it's packaged misleadingly, or it's a new dark twist on characters I like from an existing IP.

[quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1341648537' post='4956593']
I think maybe you really enjoy stories with a single protagonist or group of protagonists who are allied are unambiguously the good guy and focus of the story.

GoT and BotF both focus on complex stories where there are both varying levels of bad guys existing at the same time and complex characters who often have done and continue to do terrible things.

For instance I am a huge fan of Valdemar but its hard to argue for any shades of grey. Malazan stories are just more complex and interesting. Valdemar can even be epic, but its cut and dried. Its a fantasy world, where fantasy is used in the most positive sense. Malazan is a fantastic world but its not really a fantasy world. Each of the nations has a story that is just as complex as the story of the USA which is a country that has done many good things, especially for its own citizens, and for allies who are basically parts of the global north whole, but which has done terrible, terrible things also to people who disagree with its guiding ideas, and no, I didn't misspell ideals and to countries who have no way to respond.

What I really like are stories where there isn't anyone that's outright evil or cruel, instead the characters are all mostly-good people who have conflicting philosophies and desires. Problems where sufficient creativity can find some sort of win-win solution even if not everyone is perfectly happy with it. Sometimes there's no solution, but everyone endures and moves on and finds ways to be more or less happy. I think that's realistic, because that's the majority of what I see every day in the world around me. People dying right and left is a lot less realistic - in 30 years of life I've never seen anyone be killed in front of me, no one I know has died from anything other than old age, illness, or accident. When I see people suffering it's mainly due to the economy, or some kind of prejudice, or the pervasive problems with our legal system. I understand the concept that fiction typically places characters in a world freed up from a lot of the laws and bureaucracy of the modern world, and that some real places and times are/were very violent. I've written about one character killing another when it was important to the main part of the story, and I think murder and death are things that can be interesting and meaningful to write about. I just think that the popular taste for "darker and edgier" isn't really very mature or tasteful, it's like... the equivalent for anger that being emo is for sadness. Or like "reality" tv which is totally scripted and exaggerated like a soap opera.

For RPGs in particular, IMO the goal is to create a world that players can enjoy their adventures in, not one that depresses them, scares them, embitters them, grosses them out, or makes them cry. That's what I want as a player, anyway, so that's what I think is the ideal to aim for in creating them.
[/quote]
Well, I live in the most dangerous city in America crime wise, although compared to something like Ghana its not that bad. I only know a few kids under 18 who got shot as opposed to whole villages getting torched. But still I dunno if its so bad. Even compared to medieval times its pretty realistic. Hell a game of Crusader Kings has like 10x the assassinations and back stabs as all of GoT. And its not like Malazan is popular. Its arguably darker and certainly more supernaturally dark than GoT and its cultural phenomenon status is not even in the same ball park.

I mean I understand if you live a relatively sheltered life it could be pretty intense.

Also, in all fairness, there is a book more popular than almost any other in the world with more ficticious violence, death, rape, incest, murder, stealing, mutilation and general nastiness than GoT and Malazan put together. It rhymes with libel.

Also, in all fairness, there is a book more popular than almost any other in the world with more ficticious violence, death, rape, incest, murder, stealing, mutilation and general nastiness than GoT and Malazan put together. It rhymes with libel.

And that puts a most interesting spin on sunandshadow's comment about mostly good people, with conflicting philosophies. The early Israelites, in a world of violence and depravity, were violent and depraved, but rationalized it with an in-group moral philosophy. Its fascinating, really, and I think makes fertile ground for a game plot (thus, you can both win! it will be a dark, violent, but realistic, and uplifting, and probably confusing, story).

So, for awhile I've wanted to make an entirely story driven, single character rpg (in the old fashioned sense of playing a role). The story is entirely derivative (because, I think there are a lot of good themes that have never been properly explored in games, and it makes sense to try those, as a stepping stone to more complex and original work), but would hopefully be engaging or thought provoking:

You are on a journey. It's not clear where you're going, but you've been walking for a long time and you'll be walking for a long time yet. There is a haze far overhead that makes the sun look enormous, but does nothing to lessen its burn on your neck and arms. As the miles stretch on, your feet ache and your belly growls, but you don't stop walking. Desiccated grass and leaves crunch underfoot, methodically marking time. You occasionally pass dry, dying tress, leaning back towards the dirt that pushed them up, but mostly the landscape is bright, and empty...
Eventually you reach a river, but it's dry. A few boats lay sideways on the rocky bed. Bleached scum coats the rocks, but there is nothing green or living in sight...
After a long time, you will come to the city, and you will find her dying, her broad avenues crumbling, her powerful skyscrapers collapsing. She will not be empty like the other places.

What I want is basically a reverse-RPG, in which the character is slowly dying in a dying world. The story is sort of a pilgrimage, in that the character is seeking some sort of understanding, except that there may not be any to find. Feel free to share any thoughts. One concern that I've considered is that a game that focuses entirely on the minutiae of a dying man's journey through a dead environment is likely to be boring, but I'm hoping it will be a new kind of boring.

Sounds kinda like the Book of Eli.

I haven't seen it, but mostly this was influenced by The Road, only without the kid
Edit: I mean, most directly influenced, not mostly influenced, as of course, there are dozens of other stories with similar themes.

http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/173819/on_player_characters_and_self_.php?page=4

This entire article is good but the relevant part is the "Storysense" section. It's what I am trying to strive for in my game. A well thought out world with lots of story threads and hints but little actual story involving the main character. It lets you in a sense interject the character into the little stories how you want. It can be very jarring to a player to have a certain type of character in mind and them have him act completely out of character in a cutscene.

The GTA example is probably the best. Say you want your Nicolai to be a pedestrian murdering psychopath. You can, but then you get a cutscene where you save someone's life or something that your character wouldn't have done. The cutscenes can vary in extreme ways from how the player sees the character and this is no fun at all.

I read your comment, thought, "man, this guy should read that article about the player character" then clicked the link. Apparently, Tadhg Kelly has a lot of ideas about game characters! I've thought about that before. I think it's especially important for non-linear games and games where you can customize your character. It just doesn't make sense in those cases to try and force some designer's story line on the player's avatar.
I think this kind of storytelling could work really well in an open-world zombie game, where you can sort of briefly look in on, or take part in, the lives of apocalypse survivors, but the story of your character is really that of the people you meet.

I'd like to write a story about modern issues framed in a fantasy genre. If done well I think it would be a great way for players to explore ideas, experience situations, and grow personally.

For instance, in my fantasy world all individuals and creatures would be grown forms of a single type of organism. If I had fantastical species or races like dwarves and elves, then they would both be grown forms of the same type of organism, but they would have differentiated based on different factors. Factors might include where the organism grew up, who its parents were, and other inherited and environmental factors. This would also apply to the benign and malignant creatures populating the world. Now in this world, conflict would arise between various groups over this base type of organism. One group could believe that all instances of this organism are sacred and must not be killed for any reason. Another group could believe that it is acceptable to kill this organism for any reason, and has members that regularly do so. And of course there would be various groups in the middle. The player would get to explore how this system works, what happens, experience the various situations that can arise out of this interplay, and select how to respond.

Say a famine in an area causes the base type of creatures to differentiate into monsters that steal food or eat people. The player could witness the group believing in the sanctity of these organisms defend the base type of creature until it turns into the monsters and fight anyone who tries to cull these creatures. Or the player could witness the endangered villagers killing the creatures that - in different circumstances - would grow into regular people. The player would have to internalize this, and choose how to respond. They could protect the creatures and cause a village to be destroyed, but maybe a few people would grow out of the saved creatures. Or maybe they could cull the creatures themselves and have to live with their conscience.

It's a idea I haven't really spent a lot of time on. I don't even have anything committed to paper.