Friday, March 13, 2009

Proposal: Didn’t He Kill The Chauffeur?

Self-killed, failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Mar 2009 13:02:08 UTC

[ Adding a way to challenge continuity errors in Scenes. ]

Add a new rule, “Continuity”:-

If any Scripter feels that one or more Scenes in the current Act contradict an earlier Scene in any Act, he or she may call a halt to the scripting process by posting a comment on that Act that starts with an AGAINST icon, and the word “CUT!” in capital letters. The rest of this comment should explain which Scenes are a problem, and why. Upon doing this, the Act enters Development Hell.

While an Act is in Development Hell, new Scenes may not be added to it.

The Producer may remove an Act from Development Hell by either agreeing or disagreeing with the objection that put it there, in a comment on the Drawing Board. If he agrees with the objection, the Scenes that were objected to are now Cut. If he disagrees, then the Scripter who raised the objection is snubbed - if they had a Scene in this Act, it is Cut; if they didn’t, they may not add a Scene to this Act.

Add a new rule, “The Cutting Room Floor”:-

Whenever a Scene becomes Cut, the Scripter who created that Scene has their Bodies reduced by the Body Count of that Scene.

posted by Kevan at 13 Mar 2009 21:02:01 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Darknight: he/him

13-03-2009 21:11:10 UTC

imperial I’m on the fence here for the moment. I’ll prob change my vote when more votes come up

Rodlen:

13-03-2009 21:14:29 UTC

imperial

Devenger:

13-03-2009 21:18:02 UTC

There is no such thing as the ‘Current Act’, only Acts that are not Finished. Yes, I did write in the possibility of many Acts being written in tandem for a reason - it represents the inconsistent, shoddy way many action B-Movies seem t be written, and it also allows artifical pace injections to speed up the game if people aren’t happy with the pace, or the dynasty.

So,  against based on that the rule doesn’t reference a valid object and therefore couldn’t be used in any meaningful sense?

Rodlen:

13-03-2009 21:20:41 UTC

against COV

Kevan: he/him

13-03-2009 21:52:32 UTC

Ah, okay, I hadn’t realised your intention there.

I think it’s readable as “the act which the player is currently looking at”, but having simultaneous acts does open up some weirdness with “earlier” (if you write about the protagonist’s dog in Act 7, I can kill the dog off in Act 6 and cry continuity foul, which isn’t much fun).

Self-kill:  against

Klisz:

13-03-2009 23:17:00 UTC

against  although it doesn’t do anything, per Kevan’s s/k.

Kevan: he/him

13-03-2009 23:19:12 UTC

If anyone wants to give feedback in case I repropose a fixed version, feel free.

Devenger:

14-03-2009 11:06:44 UTC

Well, I like the idea of ‘Development Hell’, and people should be able to object to scenes on any grounds they like (for example someone giving a rubbish, or no description). Being able to do multiple Scenes at once is also fine. You might want to prevent an Act already in Development Hell from being halted, to prevent oddities in the space-time continuum in the same way overlapping hiatuses do.

Rodlen:

14-03-2009 18:26:00 UTC

Heh.  I remember that.  The DOV with no hiatus.

Qwazukee:

14-03-2009 18:28:44 UTC

against Not a bad idea, though.

garrinok:

14-03-2009 19:16:40 UTC

imperial
this type of rule is needed, but i think this is not the best way to deal with continuity.