Anyone else bored of there being no real consequences?

My first experience of SF was way back in the fifties with a BBC radio programme called "journey into space". Since then I have read most everything that came out. Then came Fantasy, computer games, D&D etc. etc. etc. Now we've got LitRPG and it seems to be going the same way first a little trickle, then a stream and now a flood. Of course, some of it is shite and the majority mediocre to very good, with some absolutely outstanding. Of course, some of the authors are copyists, some parodyists, some boring bastards and some with brilliantly innovative imaginations.
Of course I read the lot, the good, the bad and the appalling. It is rare for me not to finish a book so I do feel qualified to say.........

BRING IT ON!

 

You are brave to read it ALL. *shudder*

 

Not brave, just never could find the off switch!

 

Oh I like this. I fall into the third

 

[rant]

This might just be me but as a reader I think there are two punishments that do almost nothing on there own pain and time.
Time only hurts when the MC sees characters change and it makes the reader sympathise with there sense of loss or when they age drasticaly and lose a part of there life (which usually cant happen in LitRPG)
Physical pain rarely feels like a punishment (to me) and its often best to make it cause other problems for the MC rather then just making them feel pain unless the pain is showed to be cruel or evil it rarely does anything as its hard to relate to an immediate sense of physical pain when an author just says something along the lines of "it hurt." Much better to make the MC go through tourture and surrender something important if you want a feeling of punishment.
I could just be crazy in this but this is what ive noticed is works when im reading books sorry this was a bit of a rant

 

It can be difficult to do consequences when the world literally is a game. I think I've come up with something that works, but I'm not sure yet.
But I do think most people think consequences, or stakes, must mean lives. There could be lots of consequences - loss of social standing,

[Random Tangent: I just had a brilliant idea for a completely different type of LitRPG...]

loss of money, loss of loved ones [which can be the end of a relationship, as opposed to death], loss of employment, etc. I think Book 5 of WotS handled this well.

 

The consequences, as a writer, are exactly as you describe them. The consequences, as a reader, are either important or not according to the powers of description and, ultimately, the believability of the writer. If, as a reader, your deeply held beliefs mean that you cannot accept the concept of consequences in a skein of fiction specifically about games, then perhaps LitRPG is not for you.

 

A guild breaking apart, friends becoming distant, conflict over pixels and in game Gold (or any other currency) that bring out the worst in people, Nepotism, Favoritism, romantic relationships falling apart messily and spreading into the game, indifferent game masters and game support staff, expansions representative of progress wiping out all the progress a player has made, balancing work & school & life, the death of a friend who was critical to a groups success.

Except for that last one I've experienced those all in days within an MMO. To the point where I've had deja vu about accusations of cheating heard over Vent. I think consequences and stakes go out the window when WoW and other MMOs at their peak play out day to day like freaking Soap Operas.

"Next week on Days of our Wights: Billy reveals he's not really undead! Will Sarah still love him... or eat his heart out? Who really betrayed Dez and Dale to the paladins, and will facing death by Holy Fire finally make them admit their feelings for one another?"

 

I'd read the sh*t outta this...

 

Now I'm sad :<

 

Better to have loved and lost while slaying dragons, then to never have loved while slaying dragons. Of course I can only speculate as I am a robot.

 

What makes you finish a book?
I'm a fast writer, but a very slow reader. That's weird, I know.
But as a writer, knowing what makes people finish books to the end helps us craft better stories.

 

For me personally its probably realistic characters and great world that also dosent seem impossible within itself(fantasy and sifi worlds are ok as long as they are consistant.) Which does cause problems with LitRPGs as their settings often seem unlikely at best and character development can be sloppy and take a back seat to progression and stats.

Another thing that will usualy make me finish a book is if it is different or unusual and the world feels unique this is hard because I read a lot of books in the same genre and so I know all the common tropes and most of the uncommon ones.
Edit: This might be just rambling but you asked.

 

Sorry, I'm probably not the greatest help here ' coz the only thing that keeps me reading some books is that I bloody well won't give in!
I know it's not an earth-shattering revelation but for me, I respond to good description, well fleshed out characters, a strong narrative coupled with a believable plot (it can be as fantastic as you like - as long as the fantasy is coherent and consistent), a good thread of humour (black as you like, I can take it) and plenty of action. Give me a nice twist at the end and I am one happy chappy!

 

I remembered this discussion on consequences and wanted to drop this video here that I ran across in my wanderings.

 

I wasn't a huge fan of how Logan handled the killing of civilians near the start, which is crazy against the X-Men ethos, but then the rest of the story revealed that the world had become crazy brutal after the human race had adapted to holding its own against Mutants: explaining a lot of the story. With the good guys gone, the power vacuum went in favor of those most zealous about defending their personal power. I just didn't feel that was executed perfectly by the Act 1 killing of murderous criminals, making it cops would have gone a lot farther in showing systemic corruption masquerading as "helpful" citizens, but a R movie probably doesn't want to alienate anyone anywhere when it comes to getting conservative and liberal booties in seats, so I get it.

But as far as providing an ending, I think the desire for The Road in a marvel universe is asking a lot, Tony's evolution was about the "scope" of his mission. The Avengers was a Fury idea, the flawed Avengers from Civil War was a Stark idea. Stark is flawed, Stark makes flawed but logical decisions, and Stark loses the support of the uncompromising. A guy that unleashes Ultron sort of has a responsibility to put that shit down, so the thrust of the MU criticism is that not everyone is as likeable as Captain America. I loved how Guardians of the Galaxy 2 had an instant transition from the "Celestial Awe" phase to the "You did what!?" show down. Sometimes simple protagonists make simple and gut level responses that we like without any serving of character development, which is why the story-beats where Captain America literally brings SHIELD crashing down was both an extreme change in the universe and an example of a lack of evolution on a characters part. Civil War was in the comic books a story about consequences, but in the cinematic universe it was about a schism between the heroes.

I understand people are bored with PG-13 decade long story arcs, but there is a massive difference between the efforts put into the MU and the X-Men stories, X-Men was the "Wolverine with teacher's pets" romp everytime Xavier and Logan made an appearance together, and whenever it wasn't that, it was Magneto vs Xavier. Iron Man vs Captain America is MU doing that exact story line without a core part of the comic universe.

Characters are wearing a lot of hats, and making Iron Man the dysfunctional alcoholic playboy billionaire and a leader slots in better to that position than anyone else, because there is no polarity on the roster. How do you tell the story of Mutant / Inhuman and Hero / Human rights without the Lawful Evil Magneto? You don't, you add a game changing assault on humanities sensibilities (Superman vs Batman, MU's Alien Invasions) and have countries complain about the fallout of unregulated but venerated heroes. Bureaucracy is the villain, and an infinite number of politicians act as interchangeable faces of the same soulless entity world wide able to force the "Good Guys" into combat with the "Lawful Good" guys. Is that weak as f**k compared to Fassbender's tortured Magneto? Hell yes. But X-men is a focused story with the most simplified version of character consequences out there. All the parts of the Mutant experience feed back into the "Mutant Trauma" core of the story where people struggle to be human without universal human acceptance.

Logan just went back to that well without a lot of flash, because trying to be human without any rewards for good behavior, and a heaping serving of mistrust, hate, and fear, is a large part of the X-Men code. They don't do it out of a sense of Lawful "Reasonable Man" responsibilities to society. They act human, because that is the standard of being human. Its what they want to be, and the characters were singled out at birth for lives that precluded a fence sitting "wait and see" disposition. The MU is running with the "we're all equal" trope without anyone to say, "we aren't equals", and so a pillar of the Civil War equation is out the window. Ultron tried to play that role, but he gets taken out in a single story arc. The resolution of the story, the consequence of bringing together both sides of the "we're all equal" faction divided by their willingness to adhere to red tape, was the consequence of the Ultron characters actions. The dissolution of that team is what happens naturally when no Aliens or Ultrons are f**cking shit up.

So consequences vs natural character progression seems like a bit of an unfair criteria in a sprawling universe based on a pre-existing universe. We want Vigo Mortensen to die or have naked Roman Bath wrestling matches and rough sex on the stairs, but we also want the Lord of the Rings experience. The Bookend ending was always going to be the end, so fast forwarding to inject anticipation and dread was just the latest and most successful trope of the X-Men franchise. The MU has all that anticipation built in because they are playing with the larger universe between the two franchises, its just that the foreshadowing on the Infinity Gauntlet and Captain America's death have been so far out for so long there is no longer any enthusiasm for those events. People want less pop-corn and more steak and potatoes because they already know what the main course is, and now it feels like those benchmarks for the story were an impediment in the long run. When they are just a tiny portion of the wrap up and continuation of the story. The MU won't have to go rated R when bodies start dropping, but whether or not Star Trek's Khan villain or the Infinity Gaunlet and Cap's death are capable of having an impact for those most enthusiastic for the genre is debateable.

Logan may have simply proved that what people want is something totally unexpected that creates new anticipation, and personally I wouldn't have minded X-23 having the mental health issues and traumatic history that were present in the comics. Logan was 1/50th as dark as it could have been with the comics X-23 backstory.

 

I honestly can't comment on the MCU Civil War. I haven't watched the movie and I'm probably not going to be watching it. I was less than thrilled they were whipping out that story line, especially since I stopped really reading the comics back during the original Secret Wars. It was at that point, for me, that it began to feel like the writers had lost the heart of the story and were just going through the motions.

I really think that the heart of the video was more of a comment on the story telling style of the MCU as opposed to Logan. In Logan, it was telling the story of people with powers, in the MCU it feels divorced from the person side of the characters and reveling more in the powers and the spectacle. Now I can understand that spectacle makes good movie material, but, without the core heart of people and characters, you're just left with spectacle. This isn't saying it's bad, but it is what it is. Really, they're probably just writing what the audience wants, which is more and more spectacle.

Years back, I remember watching the pilot episode of Twin Peaks (that's dating me), and when I got to work the next day, my buddy at work asked, "What did you think?"

"It was like a bowl filled with gravy. It was really good gravy, but, when I looked through it for meat or a bit of potato, it was still just a bowl filled with gravy."