# Sagiro's Story Hour:  writing style



## Sagiro (Jul 10, 2003)

As you probably know, I’ve recently started recording my game sessions to assist my note-taking.  This has had an effect on the story hour, as now I can include more details and verbatim dialogue.  (And I have, for the last five posts.)

But this isn’t necessarily a good thing.  Please select from the choices above the one that best reflects your opinion (or lack thereof) on the matter.

Thanks!

-Sagiro


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Jul 10, 2003)

Hey Sagiro,

I ticked the "may get tedious" box on the poll, but I was meaning in terms of it being more tedious for you to type up from the recording.

I like the extra dialogue, although we don't need every line IMO, but don't get burnt out by it!

And thanks for a wonderful story.

Duncan


----------



## Sagiro (Jul 10, 2003)

Duncan Haldane said:
			
		

> *Hey Sagiro,
> 
> I ticked the "may get tedious" box on the poll, but I was meaning in terms of it being more tedious for you to type up from the recording.
> *



Oops... for future voters, I meant "tedious for the reader."  

-Sagiro


----------



## dpdx (Jul 10, 2003)

Honestly, Sagiro, and you don't need me to tell you this, but I'm going to, anyway:

Your Story Hour rocks because of the personalities of the characters involved, the rich scenery, the complex plots, and for me anyway, the fact that at no point in the story (and I've been reading from jump - when Abernathy's Company first formed) has this ever been easy for the players. I suspect I'll never play in a campaign this good, much as I wish I would.

I'll also add: I've always just imagined the dialogue as it is, so if you wouldn't have told us you'd "changed your style", I wouldn't have noticed it. So I voted the neutral option. It would take a sea change in your narrative style to ever detract from your Story Hour.

Maybe you need a "What Style Change?" option.


----------



## (contact) (Jul 10, 2003)

The best part about reading D&D stories is the D&D.

For those of us who play the game, we bring to the story our unspoken understanding of how a game is stuctured, what goes into resolving conflicts, creating ongoing storylines, etc.

Adding verbatim dialogue puts us "at the table" in a more concrete way, and that is a Good Thing.  I think it's a fantastic addition!


----------



## Zad (Jul 10, 2003)

The interesting thing I find as a reader who is never at the table is that it changes my perception of the characters. When I only see the cleaned up dialogue and such, I get a certain impression of the characters. When I hear Morningstar making an amusing quip, it makes her seem more like a character around my own gaming sessions since none of us can resist such a thing when it comes up. It makes them seem less . . . heroic? remote? (I'm at a loss for a good word) and more like real people.

This is neither good nor bad, but it's the biggest thing I noticed. Perhaps it would be accurate to say it is both good *and* bad and sort of depends on the kind of tone you're going for in your story.

Our game sessions are filled with every wise crack you can find (heck Scorch having his eye cut out resulted in every eye joke written for the rest of the night) but for the most part it doesn't make the story hour, resulting in a certain serious tone. Is that good or bad? Beats me. I just write it - you don't think I actually read my junk do you?


----------



## Gideon (Jul 10, 2003)

Duncan Haldane is a smart man...I agree with him


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 10, 2003)

Personally, Sagiro, I love reading your stuff. You've proven to be a good story teller with a good story: that's something hat can be hard to pull off.

I like the inclusion of table dialogue - and your group seems like it is able to stay in character enough to make it possible for you to transcribe large portions of their dialogue verbatim and still make it sound pretty good. But, it is possible to overdo it...

You might make the mistake of putting too much dialogue in - so far, this hasn't been the case, but I suspect that it might be because the dialogue is "new." You have a wonderful tool to record your group's wonderful roleplaying, but don't be afraid to simply sum up the more tedious parts of the story once you have all the PC's voices worked out.

And I hope there's much much more like this to come!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm enjoying the new style. I like reading all the funny little quips your players come out with!


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 10, 2003)

I love the extra dialogue and detail!

However, to be honest, I find the "out-of-game" quips kind of jarring (like when someone quipped about elves having 3 rings or something like that).


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 10, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *I love the extra dialogue and detail!
> 
> However, to be honest, I find the "out-of-game" quips kind of jarring (like when someone quipped about elves having 3 rings or something like that). *




I think the only reason it's jarring is because so far we've been reading something that has a certain mood, and these OOC quips - funny though they may be - don't "feel" right when they come from characters that have never before uttered them...


----------



## jaults (Jul 10, 2003)

nemmerle said:
			
		

> *However, to be honest, I find the "out-of-game" quips kind of jarring (like when someone quipped about elves having 3 rings or something like that). *



    I'm with nemmerle on this one. The in character dialogue is great, but seeing as how it is a D&D story, I like less OOC stuff... not that there has been very much, just expressing my opinion. Either way, I really enjoy reading along with your story, Saigro.

Thanks for the hard work,
    Jason


----------



## StevenAC (Jul 10, 2003)

The last few Story Hour posts have been really great with the extra dialogue.  In a solving-the-puzzle situation (or should that be failing-to-solve-the-puzzle?  ) as opposed to combat or other derring-do, the transcribed dialogue vividly conveys the party's to-ing and fro-ing, the mounting frustration, the ideas suggested and discarded, better than any summary could.

However, I ended up choosing the "Don't get carried away" option, in spite of my innate desire to know _everything_ that happens in your campaign...  I think it _would_ get tedious if every little obstacle and decision the PCs faced was described at the level of detail used for getting into Het Branoi.  (Indeed, I noticed that in the latest posts you're still paraphrasing in parts, despite the amount of dialogue included.  This is a Good Thing.)

I'm another one who blinked a bit at the "three rings" quip -- funny, yes, but really out of character for this Story Hour.  Up until now, jokes and asides like this have always been presented outside the main postings (usually in posts by the players).  If you're going to include them in the main Story Hour posts, my suggestion would be to separate them out and present them like your occasional DM-ing comments, like this:



> "That reminds me of a joke I heard once," says Dranko. "How can you tell how old an elf is? Cut him in half and count the rings."  Grey Wolf groans.
> 
> _>> Aravis: "I thought elves only had three rings..."_
> 
> Ah, yes. Lacking the password and using up their patience, the Company is getting quite punchy...




Apart from this slight reservation, the only effect of the new-style Story Hour posts has been to make me even more anxious to find out what happens next...


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm just going to add my voice to the people saying that it adds more depth to the characters.  I really like the added insight into the way the characters think.  It makes the storyhour more interesting when you have an idea how a character should act in a given situation.  I think Zad summed up my feelings much better than I could have.

One complaint - we need more Scree!


----------



## porthos (Jul 10, 2003)

I think the added dialog certainly does add more character to the story, but I think it reflects the *players'* character more than the in-game characters. I could be wrong, but I never imagined the characters of Aravis and Grey Wolf as particularly wisecracking. However, when using player dialog, that comes out.

Any who can blame anyone for jokes around the table? That's what makes the game fun. But it may certainly changes the story hour vibe.

That being said, your players are pretty funny, so the story hour is still quite enjoyable, just in a different way. Now it has more of an insider's POV rather than a 3rd person narrative.

Ultimately, I think it depends on what *you* want to it be, Sagiro. Both styles are enjoyable for the reader, but I think they are significantly different in tone and pacing. The "old style" reads like a good book, the "new style" reads like a good D&D game.

Perhaps switching back and forth as the situation depends on it like StevenAC suggested would be the best route. But, in my opinion, it's really about what vibe you want for your story hour, readers be damned.  ;-)


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Jul 10, 2003)

*It depends*

If it is a "puzzle" scene, where they are trying to figure out a password, or a prophecy then include every word. 

But in an "action" scene you should be more selective of what dialogue fits the mood. 

IMHO


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jul 10, 2003)

There was no poll option for "Henceforth all updates will be Seussian."


----------



## Vymair (Jul 10, 2003)

I chose I don't like it....but I do think it was appopriate for the puzzle solving nature of the recent posts.   It may be come very cumbersome to maintain, in general I'm willing to accept that you are summarizing events for the most part.

I would like some additional dialogue so if there had been an option for use it sometimes, but don't get away from your normal style I would have selected that.

I'll definitely keep reading however you choose to proceed.  I love the story and the characters, they are what has kept me interested all this time...


----------



## Zaruthustran (Jul 11, 2003)

I like the expanded dialogue, but please don't go overboard. 

What I like most about _reading_  your story hour is the sense that I'm *there*, like some kind of observer who is both distant and close. It's the same feeling I get when I read a really good book or a watch a really good movie. My love for the verisimiltude of your story hour should come as no surprise, since for over a year I've been clamoring for a novelization of your campaign.

So that's why I voted "could get tedious". The out of character comments, or too much meaningless back and forth, pull me from the imagined reality of your world and remind me that I'm looking at the glow from an electron gun on a computer monitor while at work.

I hate being reminded that I'm at work.

That said, I also really enjoy the out-of-character behind-the-scenes stuff. That's like the "bonus features" on a good DVD--like witty and interesting commentary. But you don't want director's commentary on your first viewing of a movie, and I don't want out of character or mechanical stuff in the post update.

Hope this feedback was valuable. Thanks for the thrilling entertainment, and keep up the great work!

-z


----------



## Sagiro (Jul 11, 2003)

Hey all,

Thanks for all the great feedback!   Most of it isn't too surprising, but it's nice to have so many well-thought-out opinions about what people want to read.  A few points of my own, having read this thread:

- The only OOC comment I've included is the "three rings" quip, which I half-heartedly "marked" as OOC by using the phrasing "Aravis may or may not have then uttered..."  I agree that it was jarring to include, but I'm a sucker for well-timed LotR humor.   

It won't happen again.  If I ever include more pure OOC table talk, I'll be sure to offset via formatting, as *StevenAC* suggests.

- *Zad*'s comment about Morningstar made me realize that, until now, you've really been seeing an incomplete, slightly cardboard-ish version of some of the characters.  Morningstar (for instance) really does have a sense of humor.   Her increasing willingness to make jokes, and do things like give herself secret treasure-baths at night, mark a fascinating evolution of her character.  When the campaign started she was quite uncomfortable and introverted, untrusting of her party-mates and hating being out under the sun so often.    Showing that she's occasionally willing to crack wise with her friends is, I think, something that I didn't do often enough when I was writing purely representational dialogue.  (If I felt like putting in a funny one-liner, it would typically go to Dranko, Flicker or Ernie.  If I wanted a pessimistic line, Grey Wolf would get it.  Etc.)  As a result, there may be some lines that people are thinking are OOC, but which really are in character -- and it's been my own failure up until now that's causing the misjudgement.  *Porthos*, for instance, mentioned that he hadn't imagined Grey Wolf and Aravis as making jokes.  Truth is, both characters most certainly have senses of humor, and make jokes quite often.  Grey Wolf usually drops one-line asides, half to himself, about how things are likely to go spectacularly wrong.  Aravis has a clever and wry sense of humor among his friends, though he's always straight-laced and proper when interracting with strangers.   I hope this sort of thing will come out more now that I'm including more authentic speech.


- I think the most recent update (part 192) is best representative of what I should shoot for.  I didn't include every single spoken line, not by a long shot.  There were about 15 minutes of tape, for instance, where the characters talked about what spells they'd prepare for the next day.  Instead of including a lot of boring talk, I gave a quick narrative summary, and included a few choice bits of actual speech that seemed appropriate.  

Enough rambling.  Thanks again everyone for letting me know what you think.  I'm more appreciative than you can know to have readers enjoying my campaign.

-Sagiro


----------



## Redwald (Jul 11, 2003)

Sagiro said:
			
		

> *Hey all,
> 
> Thanks for all the great feedback!   Most of it isn't too surprising, but it's nice to have so many well-thought-out opinions about what people want to read.
> [...]
> ...




Hi Sagiro,

(NOTE: These are my subjective opinions and I do not claim that anyone else should share them.)

I personally was torn between option 2 ("like it, but could get tedious") and option 4 ("liked the summarized version; old ways are the best").  Then when I voted I noticed that option 4 was the *least* popular option.

Well, I wouldn't be being honest with myself or with you as a historian of your campaign if I didn't say that one of the reasons I was able to get into your Story Hour so enthusiastically was because of your earlier style.  I have a preference/weakness for the high epic fantasy stuff.  Remember how it all began?



> Six citizens of the Kingdom of Charagan, none of whom know each other, receive mysterious letters at their homes.




I guess maybe some people would call that "dry", but I think it's great.  It's storytelling instead of play- or screen-writing.  A lot of other Story Hours with their, in my view, pulpy overuse of dialogue and _in medias res_ openings, I find much less compelling, and I can't get into them.

I also like how your Story Hour keeps the game mechanics on the sidelines (about as much as is possible with D&D, anyway).

That said, I won't attempt to claim that your "old style" was a more accurate representation of your game.  In reading the dialogue-heavy installments of late, I feel like I'm getting to know your players better, which is kind of cool.  (Of course, maybe I'm not -- maybe I'm just getting to know the characters they're very good at role-playing, which were more obscured behind the veneer of your previous style.)  There's a lot to be said for the virtues of the new style.  And I do treasure jokes -- but there were moments in your game even in the old style where I laughed.  I'd like to suggest accumulating the session's best wisecracks in an appendix at the end of the post.  This is selfishly motivated, of course, as I hope it will take away the feeling of starvation I experience when I read "To be continued..." and realize I can't just scroll down to the next installment because you haven't made it yet.  

To conclude, I trust your instincts.  A new style of presentation isn't something anyone can be expected to master instantly, and you seem to be well aware of that by encouraging people to look at the new write up of the _second_ taped session.  My gut tells me it's still a bit too chatty, but then the update would have been pretty thin otherwise.  You've still got me hanging on to the edge of my seat for the next installment, and that's the most important thing.  I trust you and your players to continue to be exemplars of the game we all love, as you have been for years.

Cheers!

(Someday, maybe I'll elaborate on my thoughts on the game-as-entertainment for the players and DM, and the game-as-narrative for spectators.  I suspect these are different masters with fairly distinct requirements, which is why some readers, including maybe Sagiro himself, have some trepidations about the much more literal presentation of the gaming session he's used of late.  I'll say again that I'm not trying to tell Sagiro to write differently, or him or his players to play the game differently.  They've quite clearly got something that works.)

[EDIT: sigh -- fix sentence fragment]


----------



## LRathbun (Jul 11, 2003)

Unfortunately, I voted before reading the below exchange.  So count me in for the same reason (may get tedious for Sagiro not the reader)



> Hey Sagiro,
> 
> I ticked the "may get tedious" box on the poll, but I was meaning in terms of it being more tedious for you to type up from the recording.
> 
> I like the extra dialogue, although we don't need every line IMO, but don't get burnt out by it!






> Oops... for future voters, I meant "tedious for the reader."


----------

