To explain, or to not explain?

[bg2408]

A question that needs to be answered by authors of all kinds of fiction, regardless if books, movies, games or mods, is that of explanation. Explanation seems to serve a simple purpose: Allowing the consumer of whatever story to understand motives of heroes and villains and the inner workings of the world.

However when trying to explain the situation it can seriously backfire. A classical example are "Bond Villain Expositions", not only explaining the plan, but also the whole psyche of the villain in question. Let's just say not all people like this kind of thing. On the one hand it shoehorns people into simple roles (and making them look stupid), on the other hand it removes a lot of mystery and "coolness" of the villain in question.

And it doesn't only apply to villains, which I only used as an example. It can also apply to the world (explaining how this and this works and came to be), to heroes (why does he do this and this), and more.

Now however not explaining critical aspects is also wrong, because it will confuse. The opposite of complete explanation is imho ambiguous explanation. Which are subjective and often conflicting with other subjective explanations also given. So you need to make up your own mind. So it's an explanation, which doesn't reveal everything. An example for this are the different origin myths in the Elder Scrolls world.

Problem is, some people don't like this either, because it often (if done right) doesn't offer a true solution. And if done wrong, it can get really confusing. Or look artificial. That happens if you try to make something look not "black & white" in moral terms, but then merely obfuscate the sides (or choices) a bit, without adding true colors (or more than very light shades of gray) to them.

As a modder (or writer, or whatever) I don't think there is an optimal solution. It all comes down to taste. So my question here is, which do you prefer? As creator, and as consumer?

[DarkRider]

In my experience, the trick to good storytelling is finding the balanced point of focus. If the scope of the story is too wide encompassing all of past and present then you get what you describe as the too much information route. On the flip side you have a scope that is too narrowly focused only on the linear path of the story and so leaves too many questions. Balance is what's necessary.

A good story has a proper scope that moves the reader/player through a linear event but also shares morsels of deeper plot happenings along the way. Think of a story like an onion, as each layer is peeled back more knowledge and information is shared, the reader/player gains more understanding.

Now many writers get into a trap of trying to create a mystery but this can be overdone. There is already a mystery, they've never encountered this story before, so there's no need to orchestrate a mystery. A good writer just peels away layers and with each the reader/player feels they are closer to learning the whole story.

Probably one of the best examples of gaming storytelling I can think of is the story from Knights of the Old Republic. Their story is told very linearly and yet as each layer is pulled back we learn more and more about our cause and the great adversary we must destroy. An epic climax in that story, if you haven't played I recommend it highly. It's just great storytelling and definitely something I appreciate as a player.

I prefer stories that are balanced that don't take me too far from the moment at hand but also share enough of the past and depth that I can see how everything comes together in the end.

[DaMage]

Something I like to do is add in books and extra bit of infomation that reveal the story more fully (dairies of the bad guy etc) so that those they want to can find out more.

Personally I dont like it when a bad guy reveals his entire plan while the hero is captured, and then just as he goes to kill the hero he is stopped. That is way overused and seems cheesy to me, a realy bad guy just kills his enemy, but leaves little room for storytelling.

[myrmaad]

Personally I dont like it when a bad guy reveals his entire plan while the hero is captured, and then just as he goes to kill the hero he is stopped. That is way overused and seems cheesy to me, a realy bad guy just kills his enemy, but leaves little room for storytelling.

I know I hate that too. It's in every DUMB movie. There is a way to do it well. For example in real life we had the Zodiac Killer in the 70s, a mass murdering madman, who wrote clues and notes, because he wanted to show off his "genius". This is a common flaw that can be exploited in your story, but you have to be creative and get inside the "bad guys" head so he can live it and make it believable. This is why story telling is role play: you may start with a framework, (in fact you should so you don't get lost along the way) but then you let the developing character tell his or her story in their own voice. And while they are moving from point A to point B, if you allow them to "speak" they can surprise even their own writer with who they become.

I used to like to write soap operas as a hobby. The thing about writing a soap is you start off by writing a "Bible" this is the family's history and back story. Then you make a new character and write his story and all he does as an individual, in the context of staying true to his family. This is how big hits like "Dallas" were written, and it made great story.

No one is all good or all bad, the painting in of the light and dark gives texture and depth to the story just like it does in art.