After many years of Roll20 D&D campaigns, we have whittled the process down to the bare essentials: there are only three of us now, with one DM and two players running two characters each. Having completed many of the classic modules of our youth, we are now tackling an extension to the Mines of Phandelver - Shattered Obelisk. Because this is golden age D&D from when we were teens, we chose a classic lineup. My friend is playing a half orc fighter and wood elf rogue, while I'm playing the dwarven cleric and high elf wizard.

What is new for us this time is that the DM is brand new to the position. He's been a player forever but has never had the time to run a campaign. These pre-packaged modules make things quite easy though so we're delighted to finally get the forever player behind the screen so that the two normal DMs can really play this team to its potential. It's been a blast.

But what I realized yesterday is how different his style is, and that's what I'd like to discuss here. I come from a theater and Hollywood background as a screenwriter/playwright and character actor. I also have a ton of improv comedy experience. I'll throw out a number of story elements or NPCs and just cut loose, completely fine with where the dice and the player decisions take me. Our other usual DM is also a Hollywood guy, but he's a producer. So for him it's all about marshaling the resources, optimizing the setting, and conducting the grand scenario. He cuts right through all my roleplaying to get to the tactical play as soon as possible.

Well our new DM is a senior medical doctor at a teaching hospital. I just realized as we played last night that he isn't narrative in the slightest because he is presenting each of the scenarios or NPCs as if he's on his rounds with a knot of junior doctors, giving them a brief outline or quick synopsis of each patient's condition before moving on to the next. It's such a different way of approaching this kind of data that it took me a few months of this before I realized what he was doing. All of us are trained to our own methods, that's for sure.

How do you and your tables present information and move the game forward? I fear that the success of Critical Role, etc. has given too many newer players the idea that there is only one way to conduct these kinds of games and I'd like to hear of more original approaches.

Lately I've been interested in different types of narrative structures, namely upon discovering Kishōtenketsu, the Japanese four-act structure and how it contrasts to the traditional western three-act structure.

Obviously narrative is not an exact science, and these structures are best thought of as guide rails to get you started, and a story can be told in so many unique ways. Which brings me to this post's title: The Bear.

The Bear has strong themes revolving around family and personal growth, that's for certain, but when it comes to narrative, it is very unique. Episode length can vary quite a bit, and so too can episode content. Episode 1 of the most recent season was a time-bending, heartstring-tugging montage. Episode 2 was essentially just a single conversation.

And while there are some episodes with a traditional narrative structure with a clear beginning, climax, and ending, I would say most episodes steer away from this concept. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any sort of resolution is very rare in this show. Episodes, or even entire seasons can pass without many of the major conflicts or problems being resolved, which certainly adds to the high-pressure, anxiety-inducing mantra of the show as a whole.

I'd say The Bear leans heavily into the Slice of Life trope. Where we're being invited into brief glimpses of the lives of the characters, where relationships are complicated, problems aren't always solved, and life is simply messy and unorganized. The Bear doesn't follow any sort of formula that audiences would find satisfying (but that certainly doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable).

So, back to the question in the title. Does anyone know where I might read or learn more about the type of narrative structure that The Bear employs? Is there even a name for it? As innovative as the show is, is still has this certain air of nostalgia that reminds me a lot of Sopranos, which is another show that I believe breaks the mold of traditional story structure, especially in an episodic format.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Enjoy your day, and godspeed.

Do you prefer kinetic VNs (where there are no choices, just story), choices that slightly alter the dialogue but don't impact the story much, or choices that result in new scenes/routes/endings?

Personally, I'm a fan of having choices in the game and having them impact the narrative -- either by unlocking a new route, a special scene with a character, or getting an alternative ending. Stein's;Gate was a lot of fun for me.

I do enjoy a good kinetic novel when I just want to listen to music and read, though. Queen Beast is a great recent example -- go check it out!

I recently played through 2013's Tomb Raider and it was a delight -- a wonderful reboot that modernized a series whose originals I loved but that are quite dated by today's standards.

In the game, Lara, the main character, is in peril constantly, and she is driven into worse and worse situations in an effort to save her crewmates and friend. The narrative of the game demands immediate action -- any dawdling risks all of the characters' lives.

Of course, we know that games' timelines aren't necessarily time-driven but character-driven, so it is trivial for Lara to stop at any point in the game and not advance the story. The killers who are prepared to murder your friends will patiently wait around as long as necessary. Furthermore, the game gives you plenty of reason to do so! There are collectibles to find and story and lore bits scattered about the levels that you have to go out of your way to encounter. Finding these gets you more XP and resources which unlock skills and weapons that make the game easier. The game lets you fast travel back and forth to different areas as needed, and I spent a good amount of time at the story's height of tension not resolving that tension by advancing to the climax but by ignoring it and scouring the island for all the things I missed instead.

I use Tomb Raider as an example here, but I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples where the game directly incentivize actions that outright subvert its story. What I find interesting is that, on paper, I should care about this discrepancy, but in practice I really don't. In fact it's customary for me to do this in nearly every game I play, as I find that I like "checklisting" and cleaning things up rather than advancing the plot (of course -- do I actually like that, or do I merely like that I get rewards for doing so?).

I don't have a singular question to ask but instead have some jumping off points for discussion:

• Is this undermining of narrative tension an actual issue, or is it just part of the suspension of disbelief embedded into the medium of gaming?
• Have you felt that particular games were made worse due to this issue? If so, why? If not, why not?
• What games are counterexamples -- games whose narrative tension is not undercut by their gameplay? What makes them work? Does that aspect benefit the game, or would the game be roughly the same (or better) without it?
• If you consider this an issue, does the "responsibility" for it lie with the developer of the game for incentivizing gameplay counter to narrative, or does the "responsibility" lie with the player for ruining their enjoyment of the narrative by pursuing other goals?

Also, don't feel limited by these questions or my choice of game and feel free to address anything else relevant to this idea that you feel is important or relevant.

In school we teach kids that good stories have conflict and have them fill out plot diagrams, analyzing the different parts relative to the conflict of the story.

Every time this comes up, I always wonder about its universality. As it's taught to kids, this is "how stories are" and conflict itself is considered essential to storytelling. The conventional wisdom goes that a story without conflict is "boring".

Is this the case, though? It's always felt to me like a very limited way of looking at stories -- fine for children but something that doesn't necessarily scale up past the early stages of literary analysis -- but I don't have anything to back that up. I don't have enough in my repertoire/expertise to really go beyond it, and I'm left with just a sort of empty suspicion that may or may not be justified.

• Is conflict essential to storytelling?
• Are there examples of good stories without conflict?
• Is teaching narrative in this way effective, or limiting?

Romantic relationships in gaming are often heavily debated, with lots of criticism and lots of support for the myriad experiences out there. I don't have a single specific question related to the topic, only some guiding ones. Feel free to answer any/all of these, or simply give your thoughts on the topic:

• What are some games that you feel have handled romance well?
• What are some games that you feel have not handled romance well?
• What particular advantages does gaming have with regard to portraying romantic relationships?
• What particular disadvantages does gaming have with regard to portraying romantic relationships?
• Are there any games that have depicted romantic relationships that were particularly resonant to you?
• What would you define as some "best practices" for game writers/designers with regard to in-game romance?
• What would you define as some "mistakes/errors" for game writers/designers to avoid with regard to in-game romance?

USgamer put this series of articles out over the last week. Here's links to the 3 parts:

1. Out of the Wild West: Inside the Evolution of Games Writing
2. Narrative Paramedics: Meet the Writers Called in to Patch Up Games
3. From The Witcher 3 to Queer Dating Sims: How Writers are Expanding the Boundaries of Video Game Storytelling

So, i just rewatched the prequel trilogy and had soem thoughts, far removed from my first watching, and also after the new films, The Clone Wars, Rebels etc.

It comes down to this. If you don't buy the Anakin arc, it doesn't matter how good or bad the rest is, it all fails. And for many of us, we don't buy it, for several reasons.

• There is really NO foreshadowing in The Phantom Menace (TPM) that Anakin will turn bad. He's the blonde, ever helpful, committed to others all American good kid. Missing out on putting something in here was insane. Also, relying on the acting talents of a kid this young is rarely going to work out. I think the only thing they tried to do was show he had 'attachments' to peopel which was incompatible with Jedi-ism, but this wasn't greatly effective. It always seemed to clash with the emphasis on connections between peopel Obi-wan talks about in ANH.

• I don't find the relationship between Padme and Anakin believable. I mean, I don't think anyone does. Remember this is basically THE lever for his shift to the dark side. An awful script and terrible acting aside, I don't see how it was ever going to be believable. He had a boyish crush, she is interested in youngsters? There is no development fo their relationship to speak of, he's sold from minute 1 and she doesn't seem to have any journey to falling for him. Maybe he radiates a midichlorian pheromone? I don't see what we are supposed to think drove the relationship, even had the script, acting and direction been on point. And there were so many better ways to do it. Make them the same (ish) age when they met? Then you'd have a teenage crush as an ember they both carried that reignites later. There are many other ways, but it almost seems like they didn't try any of them.

• Anakin's dark side is tied to teenage against not to character traits. He's as emo as Kylo Ren would be later. The greatest danger to the galaxy is teenage hormones and the rage that comes from intractable acne. Again its exacerbated by the acting/dialogue/direction but still. His darkness is all driven by protecting people, but very selectively some people over others. And the other part is his entitlement, that he deserves more, which is really not compatible with the character in TPM. Also, he is selective what barriers he maintains. He never goes back for his mum but he is happy to get jiggy with Padme. If protection of those he loves is his main driver, why didn't this happen in any way between TPM and AotC.

• Anakin's seduction by Palpatine is silly. Its related to the point above. I guess if you don't buy the internal driver for his change, the external one makes little sense either. He preys on the weaknesses he exhibits, but the shift to him believing patent untruths is too abrupt. We aren't shown enough for it to be believable. Had we seen Palpatine messing with the minds fo others more directly, that might have helped, but we didn't get that. Again there were so many other ways to do this. If he'd fooled Anakin into inadvertently doing soemthign really bad, he coudl have then revealed himself and basically said that if Anakin fessed up then it would also hurt those he loved. But no its 'i have a vague idea of maybe stopping an unknown future threat to your weirdly inappropriate wife, pls go kill soem kids, m'kay?'. All we get is some iffy bad dreams, but again with no previous intriduction of Anakin as prophetic, thats not very convincing. Had that, say, been established earlier, it might have worked better. .

• Anakin's change to Darth Vader (suit and all) is too quick. I think they wanted to show the entombing of Anakin, and i get that, but they jumped right to the last stage. Had they shown essentially the v0.5 beta of the suit it might have been much better. Think the hilarious home made spiderman costume in the Toby Mcguire versions, ot the MNk1 iron man suit. It would have given us Vader but left for a sense of time between RotS and ANH.

• [ Added, forgot this before] - Anakin seems nothing like OT Darth Vader. The mannerisms, tone, style and feeling fo the two are hugely different. If you watch the end of RotS then the start of ANH, you get this right away. Again had you had the feeling the metamorphosis took longer it might have worked, but with the presto chango Vader makeover, its more jarring

So there are a gazillion other issues with the films. Some narrative, some continuity, many script, some racial, mostly all summed up as 'George Lucas made ANH accidentally, and peaked at that'. I will list a few in a comment below that occurred to me on this rewatch, but the core is this. The Original Trilogy is the Story of Luke. The prequels are the Story of Anakin. Had this worked better, i think we'd have been able to overlook the rest muuuuch more easily. There were missed opportunities all over the place. Maybe when they reboot the prequels :-D soem of this can be fixed up.

Can one or two of these combined make up deficiency of another? If a game plays really well and has an immersive story, but looks like shit, can you still play it? How about if it plays well and looks good, but the story is a jumbled mess? What if it looks nice and has a nice story, but plays like shit?

What makes a game a deal breaker to you, and which of these aspects can be a savior to an otherwise deal breaker?