|
Vlad!
|
 |
« Reply #80 on: October 14, 2003, 05:11:40 PM » |
|
Hey, I'm an evil bird  After discussing the matter with Josh and a few of the people involved (Rokran, your response was of no usefulness whatsoever, congratulations), the consensus was that we start a new story with stricter rules and, if it fails the way this one did, just scrap the whole thing entirely. Now I myself was only marginally interested in the story in itself, but I liked it because it gave some activity to an otherwise fairly inactive board. So I want to see it succeed. What are some things that you'd like to see in a neverending story? Keep in mind that they usually start out pretty well but as various people tend to write the story into a corner then entropy takes effect. Perhaps a "don't end the neverending story" rule would be inefficient, but rather the story is like a repeating cycle, where after one part ends another part picks up, perhaps even marginally related to the previous part. If this doesn't make sense, consider a story with Bob as the main character and Andy as a secondary character. Bob ceases to be interesting, dies, or otherwise fails us, so Andy now becomes the focus. Anyway, give me some feedback. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
GusX:
|
|
« Reply #81 on: October 14, 2003, 11:24:09 PM » |
|
Im gonna give up ending stories  Maybe I might give it something promising. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
But of course, I could be wrong... [ But I doubt it. ]
|
|
|
|
RokrantheGreat
|
|
« Reply #82 on: October 15, 2003, 09:55:59 AM » |
|
Sounds good, Vlad. And I'm proud of my un-usefulness. =D I enjoyed the "neverending" story, too, but it just got too wacky and stupid for me. So I did my best to end it and start somthing better. But a certain admin... j/k. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the former.\" - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #83 on: October 15, 2003, 12:55:28 PM » |
|
it just got too wacky and stupid for me. Thats the way of these types of things. Love it or leave it, but please don't end it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #84 on: October 15, 2003, 03:03:25 PM » |
|
Ok, so in my basement laboratory, I've cooked up this preliminary rule set:
Neverending story
1. All posts must continue the story in some fashion.
2. All posts must be completely on topic. Any discussion of the story should go on in another thread.
3. You MUST work with what others write, even if you don't like it. If someone ends a story arc in some other way than you wanted it to end, too bad.
4. Main characters may be killed, and if so the story shifts to a different main character.
5. Main characters cannot be killed until at least 35 posts after they are introduced.
6. After a main character is killed he/she/it cannot be brought back as a main character, though he/she/it may re-enter the story if it turns out said death has really not occurred.
7. The story never ends, though it can change focus, protagonists, and settings.
Anything to add? Anything here that seems silly?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
RokrantheGreat
|
|
« Reply #85 on: October 15, 2003, 03:44:23 PM » |
|
Sounds good, Vlad. Maybe we should make it so if a character dies, he's dead, though. The "but he wasn't really dead" posts annoy me. Which is the ultimate reason to leave it out, right? =D
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the former.\" - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2003, 04:31:26 PM » |
|
My original ruleset had that rule in there. But I don't want to limit the literary prowess of those who might make it seem like a character was killed off but (in a plot twist) have him or her come back later. I guess it doesn't really matter since these stories don't tend to exactly be works of Shakespeare...
Unless anyone else objects, Rokran's suggestion will stand: no bringing back dead characters.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Masta_K
|
|
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2003, 06:37:08 PM » |
|
i agree with Rokran, and i also see your point. i would just say that if it is stated clearly, then the death is final. if someone wants to leave the possibility of a return open, then he/she can just remain a little ambiguous (e.g., post 1: "the massive watermelon of doom plummeted to the earth at mach 21... SURELY he could not escape death THIS time..." and post 2: "...oh but wait! the intense air resistence on the melon has caused it to slowly erode and disintegrate...")  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I AM BATMAN. |
|
|
|
RokrantheGreat
|
|
« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2003, 07:25:18 PM » |
|
i agree with Rokran, and i also see your point. i would just say that if it is stated clearly, then the death is final. if someone wants to leave the possibility of a return open, then he/she can just remain a little ambiguous (e.g., post 1: "the massive watermelon of doom plummeted to the earth at mach 21... SURELY he could not escape death THIS time..." and post 2: "...oh but wait! the intense air resistence on the melon has caused it to slowly erode and disintegrate...") Wow, Masta K. You are truly a "Masta" of being random. =) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the former.\" - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #89 on: October 15, 2003, 07:32:49 PM » |
|
I can see that, but one thing I want to avoid is "he died" "No he didn't! You just THOUGHT he did" "no, he actually did die" stuff, like we saw at the end of the first one.
How about this: a dead character cannot come back for 15 posts. And the restriction on dead characters not becoming the protgonist again still holds.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Masta_K
|
|
« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2003, 08:10:18 PM » |
|
no. just stick w/ rokran's original idea. you're getting too ambiguous and allowing too many loopholes. if a character is dead, he is dead. all i was trying to say is that if he isn't actually dead, you don't have to assume that he is. it's all in the grammar. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I AM BATMAN. |
|
|
|
Harenil
|
|
« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2003, 09:22:25 PM » |
|
I dunno. I sorta like Vlad!'s idea about main characters coming back if its evident they died...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -Solomon Short |
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2003, 09:31:48 PM » |
|
allowing too many loopholes. Thats me! I would like to see opened endedness in the story. I'm just fine with whatever crazy stuff we come up with. Thats the fun of these things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #93 on: October 16, 2003, 08:15:19 AM » |
|
Regarding the existance of loopholes...this concept of a round-robin type neverendi9ng story really depends on the goodwill of the posters and the desire to keep the story alive. Loopholes can be found, and all it takes is one petty person who decides the story isn't going his or her way to ruin it. So I guess the question is, should the story be heavily moderated (that is, Josh and I delete posts that seem to be intended just to sabatoge the story and the rules list is as long as my arm), or can I depend on people to obey the spirit of the thing even without heavy constraints? I tend to lean towards the latter, but after seeing what happened to the previous story, I think more constraints are in order.
Anyway, my point is that if this becomes something that is more of a blight on the board than a fun thing, we'll just close it off. So I'm depending on you guys as much as any amount of rules I make up to keep it alive. So I'll allow "dead" characters to come back within the restraints I mentioned in my previous post.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #94 on: October 17, 2003, 05:02:48 PM » |
|
Masta_K here: its quite simple. 1. a list o' rules is obviously needed 2. follow logic in the construction of these rules. dead people are dead. they cannot come back unless they are superhuman. if so, then they can if resurrection is an ability ascribed to them. and of course, close calls and death are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Harenil
|
|
« Reply #95 on: October 17, 2003, 05:07:21 PM » |
|
I say unless its evident they are dead, they can come back to life!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -Solomon Short |
|
|
|
RokrantheGreat
|
|
« Reply #96 on: October 17, 2003, 05:41:53 PM » |
|
I say unless its evident they are dead, they can come back to life! Oh, go back to outer space. [_[ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the former.\" - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #97 on: October 17, 2003, 05:47:46 PM » |
|
Well, you may recall Mr. Sherlock Holmes who, after a determined effort by Sir Doyle to kill him off, returned to life through not superhuman but still slightly miraculous means and had several excellent stories written about him afterwards. So I don't want to rule that sort of thing out. But on the other hand, I don't want people (irate that their pet character was killed off) bringing dead protagonsits back to life and wreaking havoc with them.
The plan right now is to allow people to bring back characters that THEY killed, but they can't bring back someone that another person killed. This solves many of the problems nicely.
Discussion of this or any other proposed rules is welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
