Anyone else bored of there being no real consequences?

I'm torn with this because dividing the MCU from the Comic Universe and wanting the potential of both to remain exactly the same is totally unmanageable. X-Men has civil rights, the MCU now has black ops guerilla fighter good guys against an international anti-terrorist SWAT team of good guys, both of whom team up against 2D villains who are purely destructive or just assholes. Its GI Joe compared to, well, the X-Men.

I think the MCU has done a great job of not becoming GI Joe, Transformers, or that god awful new Godzilla. But wrangling together an ensemble cast of Avengers who can (and do) carry movies on their own, that also regularly introduce new characters, and that reasonably rolled out the integration of several story lines in multiple mediums focused on Nazis, Aliens, Interdimensional Gods, Mysticism, and boring bureaucratic plot points like integrity of international borders ignored by less than stealthy covert agents who go balls out with their world policing (f**k yeah!): the MCU is sadly hamstringed and no effort was made to make a movie quality integration of the Inhumans and their struggle which has always been the heart of the comics conflict. One universe is Civil Rights, the other is a f**cking schizophrenic shape-changer like Sylar from Heroes in that shows final season, except watchable.

I would love for every movie franchise to be isolated like Spider-Man or X-Men with limited crossover if it meant we had a plethora of R rated superhero movies like Logan and Deadpool, but the MCU has rolled out Antman, Guardians of the Galaxy, and gave us the rage filled arrested development King-Pin. I totally understand the criticisms from the video, and I share them, however there is a ton of quality and variety within the MCU, and Doctor Strange was an absolute blast with a stupid and fun ending that fit the character. Picking on Avengers is low hanging fruit, and there are reasons for both the low stakes and the too long development of the story, as well as the spectacle. Getting together the highest paid actors in Hollywood, with a massive bill for production, unfortunatley still requires all the pornographic HALO Drop in slow motion crowd pleasing junk that gets shoved in a trailer accompanied by fog horns and serious music. Stuff that makes zero sense in superhero comic books, giant robot battles, or monster vs monster movies.

I grew up with the source material from Marvel, so I'm just happy to see it come to life with good enough dialogue, and the Whedon / Favreau / Gunn style of story telling and directing has worked for the series so far. Regardless, the sameness has started to chafe. I just disagree with a few specific examples from the video (Tony putting back on the suit to fix a problem he created when the fate of the world was in the balance), and developments that integrated a characters well known flaws that carried over into his new efforts. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Civil War had a moment where two characters experience almost exactly the same event, and perform exactly the same actions, but Civil War had a conflict between two characters we were suppose to like and sympathize with after the big reveal.

GotG2 and Logan purely focused on the events leading up to the finale of those movies, sticking with a theme, Civil War only brought all the pieces together at the end. Between the three stories, Logan was the most streamlined with no split narratives. I feel that focusing a story is required to build real consquences, and only a few times have books or movies really sucker punched me with feelings they didn't work their ass off to build up to. Logan had the advantage of 10+ years of story telling going in. I would reject outright that what came before didn't color at all the impact of events within that movie. Its just waiting for those big MCU moments to finally arrive is a real son of a bitch because everyone knows whats coming. Or we think we do at least.

Hopefully the MCU won't hesitate in pulling the trigger once everything is put in place for the massive superhero death fest that is coming. If they don't use the Captain Marvel standalone to retcon everything and bring back half the roster. That would be "Captain America is a Hydra Agent!" level bullshit.

 

Oh, I agree. When moving to a different medium of story-telling, the style of telling the story has to change. It's just been a bit heavy on the gravy and I'm just wondering, will they be able to adapt if the mood of the fans changes to wanting more than gravy.

That whole thing alone managed to make me feel even less inclined to ever buy one of the comics again. Marvel used to be noted for their care into trying to keep a coherent continuity and not having to retcon every other month. Nowadays it just doesn't even seem like they're even attempting to keep any kind of a continuity.

 

This has been a fantastic thread to read through. It's full of so many astute observations and salient points. Thanks for starting this conversation.

My response to your point about the lack of consequence is that I agree. The first LitRPG book I read was either Ready Player One (if you call that LitRPG) or NPCs. I thought NPCs was brilliant in that it turned every thing on its ear and told the story from the POV of the NPCs. I don't remember a lot of what people call 'crunchy LitRPG' stuff in there. There may have been references to user interfaces, leveling up, etc. but I don't remember them. The thing that stuck out to me was the concept that seemed original.

The next LitRPG book I read did have the crunchy stuff and I came away from that book asking myself why bother telling fictional stories in a fictional game? I mean this is writing. There are no budgets to worry about. Why not make it all real? Why not make choices matter? Those questions made me wonder why I even bothered to read books like that. I think part of it is nostalgia for old tabletop role playing games during the 80's. Part of it is curiousity to see what people can do with this format. However, as I read more titles in the genre, I'm starting to burn out because eventually the stories do all kind of blur together and start repeating the same old tropes.

 

Wow. You dug up the original Gauntlet. That was a good game. I never had enough money to play it as much as I wanted. They released an updated version with improved graphics sometime in the mid to late 90's. By then I was an adult and I'm embarrassed to talk about how much money I poured into that machine so I could beat the game. Good memories though.

 

I loved MUDs and MUSHES.... and the old Infocom text adventures or even Scott Adams Adventureland before that. There's something wonderful about all of those old text-based adventures.

 

I feel that Logan was a success because it was a story driven solely by character. It posed a question and answered it with the story of a man trying to answer it himself. Everything else informed the viewer without blatantly exposing it to the light, and the world was richer for it.

That's a stark contrast to the usual silliness of the X-Men movies, where we are beaten over the head with the PLOT. We are told the world is in the balance because of the PLOT. The X-men discuss (or, more likely, fail to see or appreciate the importance of the evolving) PLOT. Then, it's high school debate class. The Antagonist(s) assume the Con position and the good guys take the Pro. then they argue their points with their fists and assorted powers until the inevitable conclusion...

And then the PLOT is made meaningless, because the f**cking story they want to tell (the only one worth telling, if you ask me) isn't about the plot, because the plot never changes. It's about how the -character's- react/rebel/accept the basic premise that the PLOT is always asking. Are the X-men willing to be a functional part of a flawed humanity that will often despise them?

 

That is a fantastic analysis. While I admit that I do enjoy the popcorn type movies of some of the X-Men films, I totally agree with how you've described them and the ways in which Logan was different.

 

You thought something I wrote was fantastic, huh? You can stay. I like you.

In other news, @Paul Bellow why the f**k can't I say f**k in this place?

 

Um, I think you meant Funky Town. That's a town that's right for me. Keeps you groovin' with some energy...

Bah. All of you people are probably too young to even know what I'm talking about.

@Seagrim knows, but that's because he's like The Shadow. The Shadow knows.

 

Sigh. Fair enough.

 

I wanted to come back to this bit about character. The LitRPG books I've read seem to be lacking in this department. It's quite possible and even likely that I haven't found the right books yet, but so far, most of them seem to be driven almost entirely by plot. If there is character development it's mainly built around qualities that led the MC to choose such an unlikely skill tree which inevitably results in them becoming demi-god like beings of immense power.

What do you folks think? Do you find LitRPG books to be light on character?

 

The vast majority of litRPG novels are crap, from an actual story point of view...

Seriously, it's the only genre I can think of where the entire thing is made up ENTIRELY of Characters, practically all of whom you literally WATCH get created. Then you are (essentially) TOLD why they make their choices, right down to how much they can carry and who they align with. They either A) internally debate most choices to the point where the reason the choice is made is obvious or B) find an exploit that allows the normalness of their character to be AUTOMATICALLY interesting. The things they learn are laid bare. Their motivations are fondled over and over, right down to their plans being mulled upon in times when I'd rather the character be focused on the task at hand or, god willing, something insightful that may inform me of the character's backstory/state of mind/whatever.

I'm guilty of some of the same thing(s) (I broke as many rules as I was willing to, on a maiden voyage) and therefore I can see why this shit happens. Laziness is part of it. Relying FAR too heavily on defaults (assuming there's only a couple of ways to show a health bar, or a loot's legendary status, or the fact that the guy across the table from you is twice your level) is a culprit too. It's entropy. Right now, 80% is good enough. Hell, it's a lot better than good enough.

It won't be forever, but right now it is...

 

But then my potty mouth will be hidden... I've got two kids now, man. I need a place to swear!

 

I think whoever figures out a way to buck the established system is going to have a serious best seller.

 

Totally agree.

 

I think part of the issue also is, many of the writers are Pantser's who, the only thing they thought ahead was the game system they're using. Most stories just lurch from neat thing to neat thing, with the endings being, "I ran out of things to write". The worst part is, so many things get thrown in, there's no planning or thinking about consequences, then they write themselves into an Over-Powered Corner and have no clue what to do at that point. Meanwhile, some of their overpowered stuff is so game-breaking, there's no way any kind of a GM would allow it in the game...ever.

The number of Marty Stu characters in this genre is incredible.

 

There are direct quotes from a lot of dudes on the "Crunchy" side of the fence in the "What is LitRPG?" debate that resist basic story telling and "Literature" as part of the genre. I was floored when I saw that.. I've never published a book (yet) but having consumed so much entertainment I don't see how people can just reject story telling tropes. There is this idea that people start up a game and explore and they aren't guided, poked, and prodded on exactly the preset path decided by some group of uber nerds who make games professionally. There is so much story telling built into games that the people claiming LitRPG is a niche story telling revolution of Literature defying conventions don't realize they are stringing together story telling devices built around keeping a player engaged.

Mario gets fire flowers, star powers, and Yoshi. Zelda gets a sword, shield, bow, and horse. Vault Boys and Girls get a pip-boy then an eviction.

All that shit is part of an overarching story that almost always just happens to coincide with a character needing something (either a helping hand or a reason for going on their heros journey) just before a battle or to clear a puzzle. Those little mini feats build up like something out of a Jason and the Argonauts adventure, and when the MC brings it home at the end somehow thats not a story. Its something entirely new and not as old as man!

The structure is loose as hell, and its not literature defying except in that people seem proud that they have taken elements from games meant for a game format, and made them worse in a literary one. Features that were usually forgiving to allow players time to master and adapt to new playstyles, and then spread throughout the game so players could continuously master new talents and items alongside new unexplored terrain. LitRPG authors spread the "game" events out even farther in their own novels or don't use the tropes at all because they have a faery god mother for their protagonist that Cinderellas a mother fucker up the social food chain with plot armor and a personal Air Ship piloted by an eccentric adventurer named Dic Cloud Adlez. Even people that have skill advancements don't tie in certain "jumps" in difficulty with the jump in difficulty that occurs between different level hunting areas and quest hubs. You struggle, you get a new game changing ability, you kick some ass, rinse repeat.

In old school MMOs you didn't have a single player leveling path that you could solo to the max level on, players would hunt in the wild grinding out experience, and then head back to a trade hub and class trainers, or go out hunting for items they could gather solo to then return to a trade hub with, where they'd then sell and buy whatever upgrades they could that allowed them to do their jobs at the next hunting area. If they got lucky they'd get exactly what they needed while hunting. Regardless of how players acquired them, they needed upgrades from spells to weapons and armor. Fight, Trade, Fight, Trade. Struggle, Cruize, Struggle, Cruize.

It drives me nuts that people don't see those cycles as stories, or don't realize that the "mastery" time in a game isn't really necessary in a story where its already been a long time coming for something to actually happen, if the author makes the character going through the process of mastering their new grappling hook or pile-bunker an interesting enough event then cool, story telling happened. If not, if the process of moving the story along is ignored in favor of an aimlessly wandering protagonist who spends time solving minor puzzles that don't result in majestic word salad events of magically revealed beauty or terrible splendor. In full immersion VR, literally every piece of gear someone gets that provides physical armor (bracers, boots, gauntlets) has a whole host of physically exciting game physics based elements attached to it. So deflecting a goblin throwing axe like god damn Wonder Woman should be exciting, while hanging suspended from the ceiling with grappling hook to get the lay of the land (when the land is worth relating to the reader) should also be a worthy use of the protagonists new found tools.

Instead we get upgrades that don't matter, abilities that make slaughtering trivial enemies even more trivial (usually not as part of the game balance, but because the MC chanced into a previously never conceived of class), and travel and adventure that might as well occur on the same ever repeating terrain for how often narrative teleportations occur. "Awesome I can't wait to find out what the city is like! Pass the gates to the city with the epic wall, and teleport to the guild trainer, then teleport to the auction house, then teleport to a group of friends doing something social in the city because its VR and hey they can eat and drink so why not, now fast forward to reaching the new hunting spot. Okay I guess I can roll with this at least stuff is happening... and the protagonist just got freakin gauntlets of fire... and they are on freaking fire! What will he do now, choke out a kobold like a boss while the smell of burning hair fills the air?" Nope, he's using the +5 to strength and +800 HP and -5 to level restriction to play exactly like he did before... but now he does more damage on already trivial content.

What the hell is the point of VR or a literary story when it leaves the reader bored, and leaves the creator stuck in a 1990s Japanese RPG mindset where characters can't jump? Toss a dude in exactly the Skyrim setting, and let him snowboard down a mountain or some stupid shit, I don't care! Go full 90s XTREME and bust out a younger generation of zany characters based on established IP that adults love, and let the narrator speak like a Saturday morning Toy Commercial, WOOOOOAH AWESOME. Supposedly we have these totally open worlds with little in the way of consequences for dying, and no one wants to ride an Avalanche on a tower shield John Muir style down on top of an Ice Goblin village? Snuffing the life from a neutral band of bead trading monsters and going full Indiana Jones to dig up their limited treasures without ever swinging a sword once. It takes seconds to think up, and yet we still get the worst parts of todays MMO and gaming experiences with no redeeming proven literary tropes that make stories better.

Whats worse, I STILL ENJOY IT! I know I'm reading crap and I can't stop. Thats the punchline I guess.